I
i' i:.
i
:? !
JM
CRANIA BRITANNIOA. [CHAP. V.
the common Ox, the large Jios primigenms, the Sheep, Goat, Horse and Boar*. The first of these
hcoaane extinct before, the three next subsequent to, the historical period; but the remains of
the rest are, there can be little doubt, those of the progenitors of our existing species of these
animals, which seem to have existed here long before the advent of man. The British
Islands then derived their plants and lower animals from the continent, before they were
insulated from the rest of Europe, by the destruction of the great Germanic plain, and the
formation of the German Ocean, Straits of Dover, and Irish Channel.
If we are jn-ecluded from admitting any fauna or flora peculiar to Britain, or any special
creation of the lower animals and plants within its limits, stiU more must we reject any such
view as regards man himself. It is to be observed, that one of the most able of those who
dissent from the doctrine of the unity of the human species—Professor Agassiz—does not
suggest any separate type of man for the British Isles. In his remarkable paper on this
subject, this distinguished naturalist maintains, " that the boimdaries within which the diiferent
natm-al combinations of animals are known to be circumscribed upon the surface of our earth,
coincide with the natm-al range of distinct types of manf." Professor Agassiz maintains this
espeoiaUy as regards eight primary types. These are—1. Ai-ctic, 2. Mongol, 3. European (the
Caucasian of Blumenbach, the Iranian or Indo-Atlantio of Prichard, the Arian of later
writers), 4. American, 5. African, 6. Hottentot, 7. Malayan, 8. AustraKan. The coincidence
of the distribution of these human types with that of peculiar and definite forms of lower
animal life is minutely traced!. In Em-ope, it is held, that there are two only of these primary
types, the Arctic or Hyperborean, occupying the region entirely destitute of forests, here
represented by the Laplanders, and the European jn-oper, which, however, has a considerable
range in Western Asia and North Africa, but finds its natm-al limits between the isotherms of
32° and 74° F. In the Em-opean area. Professor Agassiz traces eight separate or subordinate
favrnte, or zoological jDrovinces: 1. Scandinavian, 2. Russian, 3. Central European, 4. South
European, 5. Iranian, 6. Syrian," 7. Egyptian, and 8. North African. Though hesitating
to assign to each distinct European people a separate origin, he insists on the probability of
such, or at least, of the independent origin of a primitive stock for each, vrith which migrating
or conquering tribes have subsequently more or less amalgamated. Professor Agassiz points
out that the different subdivisions of the European type of man correspond with the special
faun® assigned to the same area. "Thus," says he, "we have Semitic nations covering the
North African and South-west Asiatic faunse, while the South European peninsulas, including
Asia Minor, are inhabited by Grajco-Roman nations, and the cold temperate zone by Celto-
Germanic nations, the eastern range of Em-ope being peopled by Sclaves." The claim which
the primitive ancestors of these difi'erent people generally made to be considered autochthones
* See " RiFers, Mountains and Sea-coast of "Yorkshire."
By John Phillips, F.K.S., 1853, pp. 187, 191. The Mnsk-
Ox {Buhalns moschatus) must now, as Professor Owen has
shown, be added to the ancient fauna of Britain.
t Sketch of the Natural Provinces of the Animal World,
and their Relation to the Different Types of Man. By Lonis
Agassiz.—" Types of Mankind," 1854, p. Iviii.
J The exact number and limits of distinct zoological provinces
must be regarded as still an object of investigation.
Naturalists, however, seem in the main agreed in regard to
them. Sir Charles Lyell and Mr. Watcrhouse maintain ten
such regions or provinces. Of these, eight correspond very
nearly with those enumerated by Agassiz; the principal difference
being the admission of a separate province for Madagascar,
and another for New Guinea and the adjoining
islands. The general principle in both classifications is obviously
the same; both agreeing in the doctrine of specific
centres of creation for the animals of the several regions;
the classification of Sir Charles Lyell being, in two points,
developed further than that of Professor Agassiz. See
"Principles of Geology," 9th Ed. 1853, chap, xxxviii. p.
(¡29.
CHAP. V.] HISTORICAL ETHNOLOGY OE BRITAIN.
of the country inhabited by them, he considers deserving of more attention than it has received
in coimexion vrith this question. Here, however, it is to be observed, that we may admit
the possibility of a diverse origin for the great divisions of the human family, the African,
Tm-aniau, Arian, and perhaps a few other primary stocks, without allowing this for the various
races or families of which these great divisions consist. That with little exception (as to the
AUophyUan tribes) all the existing Em-opean races have descended immediately from a great
common Indo-European or Arian stock, having its original home in "Western Central Asia, and
which at a very early period extended itself to the south of the Himalaya and over nearly the
whole of Europe, giving rise to the Indie, Iranic, Hellenic, Italic, Sclavonic, Teutonic, Celtic,
and a few other races, appears to be confirmed by the most recent inquiries, and particularly by
the results obtained by the comparative philologist. At present, we may be permitted to bold,
that j)hilological and historical researcli do not require us to assign to the African (melanian)
and Turanian races, a common origin with the Arian, Indo-European or Japetic; though, as regards
the races really representing the Shem, Ham and Japhet of the book of Genesis, a common
descent seems likely to be established, as the result of independent scientilc research.
The question of the common or diverse origin of the different types of mankind, though
hardly coming within the scope of the present work, necessarily underlies every ethnographic
inquiry. In this country, the doctrine of the common origin of man is that generally
received. On the continent and in America, this is not the case*; and the ablest and most
judicious of the American ethnologists. Dr. Morton, finaUy arrived at the conclusion, that " our
species had its origin not in one, but in several or in many creations; and these diverging from
their primitive centres met and amalgamated, thus giving rise to the intermediate links of
organization which now connect the extremes together." Dr. Prichard, the great English
authority for the opposite doctrine, himself seems to admit the difiiculty connected with the
opinion that all mankind are descended from one primitive stock, arising from the shortness of
the period allowed, by the received chronology, for the development of those physical varieties
which distinguish the dififerent races of men. Egyptian paintings, which may be dated at 1000
or 1500 years before the Christian sera, display the forms and comjolexion of the Negro, Egyptian,
and of some Asiatic nations, distinctly marked as at the present day. In an appendix to the last
edition of Ms large work on the Physical History of Mankind, Dr. Prichard, in a " Note on the
Biblical Chronology," enters into this question, wdtb the view of showing that we have not, as
has been supposed, in the book of Genesis the data necessary for calculating the time which
elapsed between the Eera of Abraham and the creation of man. He hence infers there is no
diificulty in admitting that the duration of man on the earth may have been long enough to
allow of the development and transmission of those varieties which now characterize different
human races. It must, however, be observed, that any extension which can thus be given to the
period of human existence which shall be at once adequate to explain the phenomena in
question t , and at the same time consistent ivith what history and archseology alike teach as to
the comparative recent origin of man, seems altogether inadmissible; and Dr. Prichard himself
* Prichard, "Researches," 184!, vol. i. preface, p. vii.
Nott and Gliddon, "Types of Mankind," \SoA, passim.
t Dr. Prichard contends for " the liberty to extend by some
centurics, or perhaps by one or two thousand years, the period
of time supposed to have intervened between the deluge of
Noah and the origin of the great Asiatic monarchies." Should
there be no diificulty on historical grounds in allowing this,
would the period of time thus gained, we may ask, be adequate
for the development and transmission of the varieties which
characterize the human race ? See " Researches," vol. v.
p. 552 ; also Lyell, " Principles," p. 660.
H 2