The upshot is, that, in common with Gérard,334 another polygenist,
progressive ethnology must, sooner or later, face the question,—
whether primordial Europe was not inhabited by some indigenous
Europeans; long before the historical advance, westwards (whence?),
of those three groups of proximate races denominated Celtic, Teutonic,
and Sclavonian? De Brotonne335 had prepared us for the
conjecture, that the above triple migration had overlapped, as it
were, a pre-existent population. Kombst and Keith Johnston 336 have
beautifully illustrated the secondary formations of humanity in the
British Isles; of which Wilson337 indicates much material for inquiries
into the primary. Mr. Thomas Wright,336 and other distinguished
antiquaries in England, by determining the cemeteries and artistic
vestiges of the Anglo-Saxon period, facilitate our apprehension of
other remains to these anterior or posterior; while M. Alfred
Maury339 suggests, to national archaeologists, the true processes
through which to recover and harmonize multitudinous fragments
of some ante-historical races of France.
Reasoning by analogy, it would (now that we are beginning to
understand better some of the ancient superpositions of immigrant,
or Allophylian, races, in other continents, upon aboriginal populations
of the 'soil) become somewhat exceptional were Europe not to
■present exemplifications of that which, elsewhere, is rising I to the
dignity of a law. The Oagots, the Coliberts of Bas-Poitou, the
Ghuatas of Majorca, the Marans of Auvergne, the Oiseliers of the
duchy of Bouillon, the Oacous of Paray, the Jews of Gévaudan,
&c,, whose prolonged existence, and sometimes whose historical
derivation, are discussed with so much erudition by Michel,340 prove,
that all exuviae of such unstoried races of man are, as yet, neither
obliterated nor fully;enumerated; even in the "World’s most archseo-
logically-prepense community.
Yain, at the same time, must be any effort to search for such
834 Histoire des Races Primitives de l’Europe, depuis leur formation jusqu’à leur rencontre
dans la Gaule, Bruxelles, 12mo, 1849 ; p. 389.
835 Filiations et Migrations des Peuples, Paris, 8vo, 1837.
836 Physical Atlas, new éd., Edinburgh, foi., 1855; Pl. 38, and pp. 109-110, “ Ethnographie
Map of Great Britain and Ireland.”
831 Archaeology and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, Edinburgh, 8 yo, 1851 • p p 168-87,
695-9. -
838 Anglo-Saxon Antiquities (Memoirs of the Hist. Soc. of Lancashire and Cheshirè),
Liverpool, 8vo, 1855 ; pp. 38-9.
339 Questions relatives à VEthnologie Ancienne de la France, (Extrait de l’Annuaire de la
Société Impériale des Antiquaries de France pour 1852), Paris, 18mo, 1853; pp. 22, 40-1.
840 Histoire des Races Maudites de la France et de VEspagne, Paris, 8vo, 1847 ; 2 vols.
passim. See also Prichard, Nat. Hist, of Man, 1855; I, pp. 258-74; for other “ Aborigines.”
petty relics- of lost nations in the terse nomenclature, or within the
geographical area covered by, the Xth chapter of Genesis. Ko
ethnic indications, in this ancient chorograph, carry us, northwards
or westwards, beyond the coasts of the Euxine, Archipelago, and
Mediterranean (not even, occidentally as far as Italy ; except in the
doubtful location of TarsHsh, TfBSIS, — Tartessus in Spain? or
Tarsus in Cilicia?-341 A document which, at every explanatory gloss
and in its local tendency of sentiment, betrays Chaldcean authorship ;
and .whose utmost antiquity of compilation cannot, without violating
exegetical rules, be fixed earlier than Assyria’s empire at the apogee
of its might—being, I think, a sort of catalogue of Shalmanassar’s,
or similar monarch’s, satrapies — would be rejected, at this enlightened
day, as apochryphal, did it exhibit phenomena foreign to its
natural horizon of knowledge. But it does not. Taking its first
editorship at between the 7th and 10th centuries B. c., its principles
of projection are in accordance with historical circumstances; which
certainly were not Mosaic.
“ It is thus,” observes Courtet de l’lsle,342 “ that Moses could not
have spoken of Turkish, Mongol, or Toungouse populations, which
in his time were still concealed from view in the most oriental part
of Asia. The Chinese, especially, constituted already a very ancient
society, at the time to which the date of the Hebrew books may be
referred ; but, at no epoch whatever, do the traditions of Western
Asia embrace events relating to the Chinese.” The same touchstone
is applied by this skilful polygenist to the Coræans, hyperboreans,
Americans and negroes; about whom he says—“ In the posterity
of Kham [which is merely K f tàm e , Egypt] are particularly comprised
the indigenous populations of the southern part of the ancient world:
it is a swarthy (noirâtre) race, which it would be erroneous'to compound
with the negro type. Everything, in fact, attests that negroes
are not contained in the genealogy of Moses.”
If, by way of example, for ethnic superpositions of higher types
over an autochthonous group of races, we appeal to Hindostán,
Prichard’s own chart,343 together with the posthumous edition of his
841 Types of Mankind, pp. 477-9:—B a r k e r , Lares and Penates, Cilicia and its Governors,
London, 8vo, 1853 ; pp. 210-11. The determination of Tartessus, as Tarshish whence apes
(Kophlm, II Kirigs, X, 22) were exported, cannot be decided through Zoology. De Biain-
v i l I iE (OsUographie, pp. 28-49) considers the species to have been the Pitheeus ruber of
Ethiopia : in which case Tarshish must have lain, like Ophir, down the Bed Sea. G e r v a i s
(Mammifères, p. 76) prefers the magot of Barbary ; and removes the difficulty I suggested
(op. cit. 479) of “ cocks and hens,” by proposing ostriches. Q u a t r e m è r e (Mémoire sur le
Pays d’Ophir, Mém. de l’Acad., Paris, 1845, pp. 362—75) thinks they were perroquets.
842 Tableau ethnographique du Genre Humain, Paris, 8vo, 1849; pp. 73-4, 69.
843 Six ethnographical Maps, with a sheet of Letterpress, London, fol., 1843; Plate 1st,
“ Asia,” Nos. 10, “ Aboriginal mountain-tribes of India.”
33