v, I r A AN THRO PO LOG I A. i 1 1 1.63 • • • • ••••• •• ANTHROPOLOG.M • • • • • • • • • • • IN WHICH ARE INCLUDED THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONDON ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY. VOLUME I._18 73-5. LONDON: 3publtsf)rti for tf^ILotitJon ^tfjtopologtral 5orifto, D A L L, & CT, CHARING CROSS. • • LONDON: W. H. AND L. COLLINGRIDGE, CITY PRESS, ALDERSGATE STREET, E.C. /in sitj THIS ITEM IS NO LONGER PROPERTY OF THE JOHN CRERAR tlBRRRy 1984 ANTHROPOLOGIA ♦ Ipromfoings of tljc fonkn ^ittljrogologital Societn.' PRELIMINARY GENERAL MEETING, Held at 8, Gray's Inn Square, London, on Tuesday, March 11, 1873. Dr. R. S. Charnock, F.S.A., in the Chair. It was proposed by Mr.'Gould Avery, seconded by Mr. Rew, and unanimously resolved that the regulations presented by the Com¬ mittee of Organization be accepted as binding until the first annual general meeting. The following gentlemen were elected as Officers and Council for the year 1873 :— IPrcsttrent. R. S. Charnock, Ph.D., F.S A. Ftcc-iprcsiticnts. Capt. R. F. Burton, F.RG.S. | C. Staniland Wake, M.A.I. ^Treasurer. Mr. Joseph Kaines. 9 Council. John Beddoe, M.D. Mr. H. B. Churchill. .1. Barnard Davis, M.D., F.R.S., F.S.A. Mr. John Fraser. George IIarcourt, M.D. J. Sinclair IIolden, M.I)., F.G.S., M.A.I. T. Inman, M.D. Kelburne King, M.I)., F.R.C.S. J. B. Mitchell, M.D. T. Walton, M.R.C.S. ■^onorarg Secretary. ^onorarg JForctgn Secretary. A. L. Lewis, M.A.I. C. Carter Blake, Doct. Sci. * The Council desires it to be understood that, in publishing the papers read before the Society, and the discussions theieon, it accepts no responsibility for any of the statements or opinions contained therein. No. I.— October, 1873. B 2 ANTHROPOLOGIA. The Honorary Foreign Secretary read the following letter from Capt. R. F. Burton, Vice-President:— Trieste, February 17 th , 1873. My dear Charnock, I see by the papers that a “ new Anthropological Society has been founded, Dr. C. Carter Blake and Captain Burton being amongst the promoters.” Absence from England prevents my taking such active steps in aid of the re-formed Society as I desire to take, in fact, the only action left for me is to explain my reasons for seceding from the “ Institute.” Without entering into the cause celebre of Anthropologist versus Ethnologist, or into the sharp practice said to have characterized the Annual Meeting, and the discussion of the Second House List, I will briefly state my objection to the “ Institute,” namely, that it is no longer, in my humble opinion, what we intended it to be, and what we made it on January 6, 1863. The explorer and traveller’s chief want is some Journal in which he can discuss those highly interesting social problems, physiological details, and questions of religion and morality which are judged unfit for a book addressed to the general public. My object was simply and purely to supply this want w T hen I first took the chair ad interim until our energetic and single-hearted friend, the late James Hunt, was ready to become President of the Anthropological Society. Many Members joined us with the higher view of establishing a society where they might express their opinions freely and openly, without regard to popularity, respectability, and other idols of the day. We did not tremble at the idea of “acquiring an unhappy notoriety.” We wanted to have the truth and the whole truth, as each man understands it. We intended to make room for every form of thought, the orthodox and the heterodox ; the subversive and the conservative; the retrograde equally with the progressive. Personally, I was desirous to see a fair and exhaustive discussion of phrenology; of missionary enterprise, concerning which so little is known in England ; of the pros and cons of negro slavery, upon which subject exaggerated, not to say erroneous, ideas, dating from the early part of the nineteenth century, when both sides fought for faction, not for truth, have sunk deep in the popular mind ; and of spiritualism, now become the faith of millions, which so-called science, supported by the host of neophobes—allow me to coin the word—either treats with rude hostility or with supercilious neglect. Our general and especial aim, however, was to establish a free society in a free country, and by such means to attain the level of discussion in Germany and France. The last but not the least of our projects was to supply the English reader with our versions of foreign Anthropological works, written by such authorities as Broca, Waitz, Pouchet, Gastaldi, and Carl Vogt. It is almost needless to say that the existing “ Anthropological ORDINARY MEETING. 3 Institute” no longer meets these wants, which are still as urgent as they were. I therefore hail with pleasure your and Dr. C. Carter Blake’s action in the matter, and propose myself as one of your fellow-workmen—this time, it is hoped, not a “dummy.” Let us again fight under the old flag of January, 1863. Our battle will be against numbers far exceeding ours—the victory' will be only the more glorious. Yours sincerely, (Signed) RICHARD F. BURTON. Ex-President Anthropological Society of London. Dr. Collyerand others took part in the discussion which followed, and the meeting then adjourned. ORDINARY MEETING, Held at /, Adam Street , Adelphi, London , on Wednesday , April 9, 1873. Dr. R. S. Charnock, F.S.A., President, in tiie Ciiair. Elections announced :— Fellow, Alfred G-. Lock, Esq. Honorary Fellow, Dr. Pace Broca. Corresponding Fellow, R. II. Collyer, Esq., M.D. Local Secretaries, G. E. Lewis, Esq., Moonta, South Australia; H. Newman, Esq., H. M. I. C. S , Madras; M. E. Cartailhac, Toulouse; H. Faulkner, Esq., Buenos Ayres ; Richard Austin, Esq., Rio de Janeiro. The Honorary Foreign Secretary read the following letter from Capt. R. F. Burton, F.R.G.S., Vice-President, addressed to the first meeting of the Society :— I sincerely congratulate my friends, Doctors Charnock and Carter Blake, upon the success evidenced by the opening session of this evening, and I confidently look forward to the movement and progress which will result from it. The enclosed paper was written at the special request of Dr. Charnock during the hours subtracted from hard work. It is the first of three upon the so-called “Indians” of Brazil, and I hail with pleasure the opportunity again offered to a traveller of publishing physiological and ethnical details which lately have been compelled to lie pending in tlie outer darkness of manuscript. Such is in fact the object of the defunct Anthropological Society, and such, it is to ANTHROFOLOGIA. 4 ' be hoped, will be the programme of this, its lineal and legal descen¬ dant. The Tupis of Brazil had peculiarities of vice distinguishing them from all savages known to me. I cannot but think these excesses attributable to temperament, which again was affected to no small extent by the manifold subtle influences massed together in one word “ climate.” The best proof that race alone did not create the evils is simply this : the colonists of pure Lusitanian blood followed in the path of the savages, and only of late years, under the influence of improved education and of advanced public opinion, the national disgrace has been reduced to normal limits. Remains only the pleasing task of “ Salams ” to the First Meet¬ ing, and of wishing the new society well-merited success. RICHARD F. BURTON, Ex-President Anthropological Society of London. « Hotel de la Ville, Trieste, March 25th , 1873. The President then delivered the following Address :— Gentlemen, On the formation of a new Society it is usual for the President to state its objects, and to inform the Members what has given rise to its formation. I shall endeavour to perform both these duties in the briefest possible manner, I will first trouble you with a few remarks on the late Anthropological Society of London and the Anthropological Institute. The former society first saw the light on the 6th January, 1863, under the auspices of the late Dr. James Hunt. The object of the society, as stated in the prospectus, was “to promote the study of Anthropology in a strictly scientific manner ; to study man in all his leading aspects, physical, mental, and historical; to investigate the laws of his origin and progress; to ascertain his place in'nature and his relation to the inferior forms of life ; and to attain these objects by patient investigation, careful induction, and the encouragement of all researches tending to esta¬ blish a cle facto science of man.” The intention of the founder of the society was duly carried out, not only up to the date of his death, which occurred on the 29th August, 1869, but also up to the junction of the Anthropological and Ethnological Societies, which took place on the 14th February, 1871. Papers were contributed by men distinguished for science on every subject within the range of Anthropology, and truth was never sacrificed at the shrine of policy or respectability. The Journal of the Society and the Review were known in every part of the globe; works on Anthropology were translated, at the expense of president’s address. the society, from the Latin, German, French, and Italian languages ; and any one might have prophesied that bright days were in store for the lovers of science and truth. Events, nevertheless, occurred which ended most unhappily for Anthropology. In spite of many libels, anonymous and otherwise, published with the view of damaging Anthropology and the Anthropological Society, and after many overtures from the Ethnological Society, which was at the time “ on its last legs,” an amalgamation took place between the two Societies. When it is taken into account that the Anthropo¬ logical Society had a very large number of fellows and a very valuable library and collection of skulls, and that the Ethnological was a very small society, many of whose members were life com¬ pounders, or who only contributed half the subscription paid by the Fellows of the Anthropological, the terms of amalgamation were, it must be admitted, very liberal for the Ethnologists. It was suggested by myself that the new society should be called the “Anthropological Society,” but Prof. Huxley preferred the name “ Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland,” which was agreed to. The House List of the new Society was made up of an equal number of the council of the amalgamating Societies, and the Presi¬ dent of the Anthropological Society, who had then been in office just three weeks, resigned in favour of Sir John Lubbock, who, it is believed, was then or had lately been Vice-President of the Ethno¬ logical Society. At the time of the junction of the two societies it was hoped that party strife would cease, and that the Ethnologists would for the future join with the Anthropologists in building up a powerful society which should have for its object the advancement of science and truth. But it was far otherwise. To enumerate the doings and explain the conduct of the Ethnological party for the two years following the amalgamation of the two societies would fill a small pamphlet, and I will not now further trouble you on this head than by stating that on the 7th January last, in spite of a very fair and equitable House List, duly nominated on the 17th December, 1872—in spite of a protest signed by ten gentlemen, nearly all of whom had contributed papers to both the Anthropological Society and the Anthropological Institute, and had been constant in their attendance at the council—a House List, contrary to justice and equity, opposed to fair play, in violation of the spirit of the regula¬ tions of the Institute and of the practice of scientific societies, was settled behind the backs of the protestors, by means whereof the working Anthropologists were excluded ; and at the Annual Meet¬ ing on the 21st January last, called together by an informal docu¬ ment, the Members, Library, and Museum of the Institute virtually passed into the hands of the late Ethnological Society. Many of the members of the Institute, especially the working members of the old Anthropological Society, unwilling to submit to the gross injustice that had been enacted, and desirous that Anthro¬ pology should continue to be represented in the Metropolis, forthwith inaugurated the present Society, although without funds, and deprived of a museum and library. 6 ANTIIROPOLOGIA. It is scarcely necessary for me to define the meaning of the term “ Anthropology.” You are, without doubt, quite as competent as myself to understand its purport and value. I think, however, it would not here be out of place to settle what the science of man is not. Anthropology does not comprise botany or geology pur et simple. It does not consist simply in unearthing flint implements from the sewers of the Metropolis ; least of all does it comprehend pseudo-anatomy, pseudo-physiology, pseudo-geography, and pseudo¬ philology. The objects of the Society will be best shown by the Prospec¬ tus. “ This Society has been formed for the study of the science of anthropology in all its branches. Its founders have no desire to conflict with other societies, but rather, by collecting facts, en¬ couraging generalisation, and dealing with subjects which no existing bod}'- shows a disposition to consider, to give to the science of mankind the widest possible extension upon a precise and scientific basis.” I will here suggest some of the subjects that may come within our range. Among these are :—The causes of the variation in form of the human skull ; the extent of prognathism and microcephalism in Europe; hereditary deformities ; the localisation of the functions of the brain ; craniology, and especially artificial deformities of the cranium ; the difference of the blood corpuscles in various races ; the difference between the blood corpuscles of man and other animals, and the uses to which a knowledge thereof may be applied ; human parasites ; the causes of the difference of stature, of the colour of the eyes, and of the colour and texture of the hair; the tendency of stature to become hereditary ; the habits, manners, and customs of primitive man and of different existing races ; the effects of climate on the human frame ; acclimatisation of man ; race antagonism ; the extinction of aboriginal races ; the origin of the American peoples ; Phoenician colonies ; foreign or introduced elements in various European countries ; the distribution and migrations of the human race generally, and the ancient area of the Celtic peoples especially; the so-called pre-historic race of Europe; migration and its influence over race characters ; the distribution and effects of monogamy, polygamy, and polyandry respectively ; mixed breeds ; consan¬ guineous marriages, early marriages, and the laws regulating the same ; the distribution of diseases ; the diseases, vices, and crimes of civilization ; the causes of prostitution ; the doctrines of Malthus and the remedies for poverty ; the causes of and distribution of infanticide ; the causes of longevity and centenarianism ; Darwinism ; natural selection and sexual selection so far as they relate to man ; the possibility of re-introducing the study of anatomy into Great Britain ; music as a race test, and the influence of music on man¬ kind ; the moral sense and its presence or absence in insanity ; reason and instinct; the effect of diet on the races of man ; the physical effects of the adulteration of food and of impure air ; the effects of premature and over education ; the origin and value of dif¬ ferent religious faiths ; the necessity or utility of missionary labour, especially in civilized countries such as Turkey and China; the president’s address. 7 occult science of the ancients, and the origin and value of modern spiritualism ; the physical effects of superstition ; the origin of human speech ; the relation between the different languages of the globe, especially the asserted Asiatic origin of the American lan¬ guages, the supposed Sanscrit element in Hebrew; stone monuments and inscribed stones, particularly those styled Runic, and the so-called inscriptions in Ogham. It may be said, if the above is the menu of Anthropology, that it would take a lifetime to master only a small portion of our science. If such is really the case, what is the duty of the Anthropologist ? The natural savage state of mau has been proved, the antiquity of man has been established, and further cumulative evidence can be of little value. We should now, therefore, more especially devote our attention to the study of that part of our science which is most useful to mankind. If by our exertions in the right direction we can clear away superstition, disperse some of the errors of science, elevate the human mind, and benefit man both physically and morally, we shall have done more good for our fellow-creatures than by burrowing into the earth for further evidences of man’s antiquity. The Ethnologists tell us that we ought only to collect facts, and not to generalise. But of what use are mere facts without generalisa¬ tion ? Are we to ignore Socrates, Aristotle, and Lord Bacon ? Prof. Haeckel remarks that “ a purely empirical doctrine, composed ex¬ clusively of facts, is only a formless heap, unworthy of the name of structure. Rough facts are not the only materials ; philosophic thoughts alone can rear them into a science.” Dr. Whewell says, “ to the formation of science two things are requisite—facts and ideas ; observation of things without, and an inward effort of thought; or, in other words, sense and reason. Neither of these elements by itself can constitute substantial general knowledge. The impressions of sense, unconnected by some rational and speculative principle, can only end in a practical acquaintance with individual objects ; the operations of the rational faculties, on the other hand, if allowed to go ou without a constant reference to external things, can lead only to empty abstraction and barren ingenuity. Real speculative know¬ ledge demands the combination of two ingredients—ngnt reason, and facts to reason upon. It has been well said, that true knowledge is the interpretation of nature ; and therefore it requires both the interpreting mind ami nature for its subject—both the document and the ingenuity to read it aright. Thus, invention, acuteness, and connection of thought are necessary on the one hand for the progress of philosophical knowledge ; and, on the other hand, the precise and steady application of these faculties to facts well known and clearly conceived. “ It is easy to point out instances in which science has failed to advance, in consequence of the absence of the one or other of these requisites ; indeed, by far the greater part of the course of the world, the history of most times and most countries, exhibits a condition thus stationary with respect to knowledge. The facts, the impressions on the senses, on which the first successful attempts 8 ANTHROPOLOGI A. at physical knowledge proceeded, were well known long before the time when they were thus turned to account. The motions of the stars, and the effects of weight were familiar to man before the rise of Greek astronomy and mechanics : but the ‘ diviner mind’ was still absent; the act of thought had not been exerted by which these facts were bound together under the form of laws and principles. Again, we have no lack of proof that mere activity of thought is equally inefficient in producing real knowledge. Almost the whole of the career of the Greek schools of philosophy, of the schoolmen of Europe in the middle ages, of the Arabian and Indian philosophers, shows us that we may have extreme ingenuity and subtlety of inven¬ tion, demonstration, and methods with very slight scientific result.” The Members of this'Society will agree with me as to the neces¬ sity of exercising our higher faculties in connection with the facts which are from time to time brought to our notice. It is very essential, however, that extreme care should be taken to reason only from actual facts. Loose and incorrect statements are always objec¬ tionable. As a case in point, I may instance that relating to the Silures of South Wales. Professor Huxley believes that Iberian blood is the source of the so-called black Celts in Ireland and Britain, and he says that the termination uri in Siluri, is characteristically Euskarian {i. e. Basque). This is incorrect, first, because ir, or , different orthographies of uri, are found in the nomenclature of the Peninsula outside the Basque area, as in the names Irippo and Orippo (Plin. II), in Ilispania Tarraconensis. Secondly, these voca¬ bles uri, ir, or are without doubt derived from a Phoenician word signifying city, town, the same with the Hebrew iyr , a city, camp, watch tower (Nu. xiii. 19, Ge. xxiv. 10), which occurs more than 1000 times in the Scriptures ; as Ir-nahash (1 Ch. iv. 12), city of serpents ; Ir-shemesh (Jos. xix. 41), city of the sun; Ir-temarim, city of palms ; Ir-melach, city of salt. Thirdly, because Siluri is the proper plural of Silurus , the sheat-fish ; according to Pliny, a fish allied to the sturgeon. This supposed Iberian origin of the Silures (Ptol. HiXvpsg) seems to have arisen from their dark com¬ plexion, curled locks, and western locality. Tacitus (Agric. cap. xx.) says “ Silurum colorati vultus et torti plerumque crines, et posita contra Hispaniam, Iberos veteres trajecisse easque sedes occupasse fidem faciunt.” The Basques of the present day certainly have not curly hair, and as compared with the inhabitants of the rest of Spain are fair. During the Christian era at least the other peoples of Europe have been getting darker; therefore if the Iberian theory be true the Basques must at the same time have become fairer. This fact was referred to in a paper lately read before the Anthropological Institute. The mistake is carried still further by both Humboldt and others, who confound the terms “Basque” or “Euskarian” with that of “ Iberian,” a mistake which seems to have originated in the supposition that the Basques formerly occupied the whole of the Peninsula. But there is no evidence, historical, philological, or otherwise, that the Basques ever occupied a much more extended area than they do at the present time; and it is quite impossible that president’s address. 9 they could ever extend as far west as Sicily (although this has been asserted), seeing that Sicily lies east of the Basque provinces. Fur¬ ther, the Basques do not call their language Euscaldunac , that term being applicable to themselves, and not to their language. And here I may make a few remarks on philology, and on a most important subdivision, “ etymology.” I agree with a modern author—Sir John Lubbock—in his work on the “ Origin of Civiliza¬ tion,” that many names of animals are derived from the sound made by them; and that many words have arisen from an attempt to repre¬ sent sounds characteristic of the objects they are intended to desig¬ nate ; but this opinion is not at all new, whilst many of the wbrds referred to by the author are certainly not derived either directly or indirectly by means of onomatopoeia. Among these are scythe, shale, shard, shed, shell, shield, shoal, skull, as will appear by a comparison of such words with the Anglo-Saxon, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, and other languages. We are also told by Sir John Lubbock that another class of words is formed from the sounds by which we naturally express our feelings; that “from oh! ah! the instinctive cry of pain, we get ache ; from pr or prut , indicating con¬ tempt or self-conceit, proud, pride ; that from fie we have fiend, foe, feud, foul, filth, fulsome, fear ; the Latin putris, and the French puer.” Let us examine this statement by the aid of etymology, and see whether it is based on fact. All the English words in question are derived from the Anglo-Saxon. Ache is from ace, ece, from Greek cc^zui, to lie in pain ; pride is from pryt, pryde (Dutch prat); proud from prut (D. preutsch, and prat); fiend is from feond (Goth. fiands, G.feind, D.vyand, Sw. and Dan .fiende) ; foe comes from fiah; and feud, in the sense of a deadly quarrel, from ficehtli, fueghth; and all three nouns may be traced to the Anglo-Saxon verb fean, feon, figan , to hate. Again, the word fear is from A.S. fceran, afreran, to impress with fear, to terrify (D. vaaren , to put in fear, to disorder, to derange, L. vereor ) ; foul, filth, and fulsome are etymologically the same word ; foul is from A.S . ful, fiula (D. vuil , G. faul, Dan. feel), from Greek (pauXoe, whence probably the Latin paulus, and the Gothic fawli, pauci. From the same root we have Saxon fylth (D. vuilte ), English filth ; and from full, foul, and A.S. sum, same, we get fulsome. Again, the French puer was originally written puire, and comes, by metaplasm, from putere, for putire; whilst the Latin putris is from the same root ; and both are from the Sanskrit puti, putrid, stinking, puy to become putrid, to stink, to putrefy ; whence puya (pus, matter), the Greek 7 tuog, 7 ruov, and the Latin pus. Fur¬ ther, we are told by the same author that from “ smacking the lips,” we get the Greek yXuxuc, the Latin dulcis, and the English lick, like. The answer is, the labial letters are h, p, and m; and it is quite as well to distinguish between labials, linguals, and dentals. I have no intention of adding to the numerous theories of the pre¬ sent day. Few of these are based upon evidence ; and we may do more good by examining some of them and pointing out their insufficiency than by hazarding new ones. Such is the theory founded on the state¬ ment made by Professor Huxley, that the Hill tribes of the Dekhan, 10 ANTHROPOLOGIA. the Australians, and the Egyptians are of the same family, a rather startling assumption when we have here the lowest type of mankind and the most civilized of all the ancient nations united. In a paper read before the Ethnological Society “ On the Geographical Dis¬ tribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind” (printed in the Ethnological Journal for January, 1871) the Professor says, “ the ordinary Coolie, such as may be seen among the crew of any recently- returned East-Indiaman, if he were stripped to the skin would pass muster very well for an Australian, though he is ordinarily less coarse in skull and jaw;” and, referring to a coloured map made for the occasion, he further observes, “ in the accompanying map, there¬ fore, the deep blue colour is given not only to Australia, but to the interior of the Dekhan. A lighter tint of the same colour, oocupies the area inhabited by the ancient Egyptians and their modern descendants. For, although the Egyptian has been much modified by civilization, and probably by admixture, he still retains the dark skin, the black, silky, wavy hair, the long skull, the fleshy lips, and broadisli alae of the nose which we know distinguished his remote ancestors, and which cause both him and them to approach the Australian and 6 Dasyu,’ more nearly than they do any other form of mankind.”* If this furnished any ground for the theory we might add, “ Central Americans have black, silky, wavy, hair ; some have a long skull, all have fleshy lips, and broadish alee nasi; therefore, as Central Americans, Dekhanese, Australians, and modern Egyp¬ tians exhibit the same characters, they are all related.” As the custom of embalming is of a later date than that of the builders of the Pyramids, we have really no evidence of the skull-form of the autochthonous Egyptians. If, however, we allow that they are represented by the Fellahs or the Nubians, everybody must admit that there is considerable difference between the skull-form of these peoples and that of the Australians and Dekhanese. Another modern theory relates to the origin of the English people. More than one ingenious attempt has lately been made to show that the present English people are descended from the ancient Britons, a term which has generally been used to signify the Welsh people, although it also includes other Celtic tribes in Great Britain. If historical evidence could have been produced we should scarcely need any other, but it seems to have been admitted on all hands that historical evidence is wholly wanting. The other points that have been named are affinity of language, existing customs and habits, the colour of the hair, and the skull-form. The question of language has been but little insisted on, and is of no value whatever. The only affinity between the English language and the Welsh and other Celtic dialects is in the many words which are common to one or more of them ; and when we come to examine the matter critically we find, 1st, that the Celtic peoples, like the English, have borrowed largely from the Greek and Latin ; 2nd, that the Celts have borrowed * “ Indicated by prophetic type,” by Andrew Murray, The Geographical Dis¬ tribution of Mammals, London, 1866. Chap. viii. p. 66, et seq. president’s address. 11 a great many words from the English ; 3rd, that the English language at the present day scarcely shows a score of common words derived from the Celtic. There are no doubt many resemblances between the manners, habits, and customs of the English people and those of the ancient Britons and their descendants, but so are there between many other nations living widely apart, and which have no affinity whatever with each other. On the other hand, I think I may remark that there are habits and customs in which the two peoples do not agree. Finally, it is said that at the present day the colour of the hair of the English people is rather dark than fair, or perhaps between dark and fair, and that they therefore agree more with the Welsh than they do with the so-called Teutonic peoples. In relation to this hair question I may note the following :—1. There is ample evidence that the Gauls were originally light-haired, i. e. red-haired or yellow-haired, and the word rutilcitce coma, which is translated by some “ reddened hair,” is rendered in the best dictionaries both “reddened hair” and “red hair.” 2. The Saxons of the present day have for the most part light hair. 3. A large portion of the German people have now-a-days hair between fair and dark, and some of them have dark hair. 4. During the last 2000 years at least, through food, climate, or some other cause, the peoples of Europe have been getting darker. What then ? We cannot judge of the question by the colour of the hair. It is said that the skull- form of both the English and Welsh is dolichocephalic, whilst that of the Teutonic peoples is brachyoephalic. Granted that the Celtic skull and the modern English skull are both long,* and that the German skull is usually, although not always, short, we must not forget that the Swedes and Danes are also dolichocephalic, and that their language has considerably more affinity with the English language than the latter has with the Welsh or Irish. Iudeed, I think we may say that both physically and mentally the Englishman has a much greater resemblance to a Scandinavian than he has to a Celt. A propos of another commonly - received theory, the Eastern origin of the peoples of Europe. We know that the Jews have migrated to and settled in every portion of the globe ; we have intrinsic evidence that the Gipsies were originally from India ; we know that the Armenians have settled in Transylvania, Russia, Southern India, and America. Again, there is reason to suppose that the Finnic and Finnic-Tatar peoples of Europe may have originated from the other side of the Oural ; but there is really no good evidence of the Eastern origin of the different Celtic, Gothic, and Teutonic nations. That the Celtic peoples may have originated in the East I do not deny. All I say is, that up to the present time there is no evidence of the fact. It has been suggested that the stone monuments scattered over Asia were built by the people that erected similar monuments in Europe, but there is no proof that the Celts built the latter, nor even that they are very ancient. Erections of * Four out of six of the Gaulish skulls mentioned in Dr. Ikirnard Davis Thesaurus Craniorum are braebycephalic. 12 ANTHROPOLOGIA. this sort might be looked for in any part of the globe. They are found not only in the south, south-west, and north of France, the north of Spain, Granada, Mecklenburg, Hanover, Jutland, Iceland, the south of Sweden, Wales, and Ireland (Leinster), but also in Cor¬ sica* and Algeria, where we have no evidence of a Celtic population in ancient times. The second point relied upon in support of the Asiatic origin of the Celtic peoples is the affinity between the Celtic languages and the Sanscrit, which Dr. Prichard endeavoured to demonstrate by a comparison of the Celtic dialects, not only with Sanscrit, but also with the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic languages; but a comparison with the Sanscrit shows no direct connection between either the vocabularies or the grammars of the languages in question. Assuming, however, the direct connection between the Celtic and Sanscrit, it is at most applicable to but very few words, and there cannot be a doubt that more than two-thirds of the words (including those used in every-day life) in the two branches of the Celtic (viz. the Erse or Gaelic and the Welsh or Cymric) are of a native origin. If the Celts had emigrated from Asia there would be traces of their original habitat. Could it have been shown that any of the geographical names, especially the river names of Asia, are derived from the Celtic, it would have gone a long way to prove that the Celtic nations originated in the East ; but this cannot be shown, whilst it is a fact that most of the river names of Europe have been named by the Celts from words in their own dialects, or from words which they have borrowed from the Greek or Latin. Probably 85 per cent, of the river names of Europe are of Celtic origin. On the other hand, it is a matter of history that B.C. 279 the Galatae (TaA ocrou) passed from Europe into Asia, where their numbers became so great that, according to Justin (xxv. 2), “all Asia swarmed with them, and no Eastern monarchs carried on war without a mercenary army of Gauls.” The supposed Eastern origin of the Gothic peoples is not con¬ firmed by evidence, although their language has more affinity with the Sanscrit than have the Teutonic languages. Prof. Max Muller sees in Ariovistus a German name in which Arya forms an important ingredient. The name Ariovistus is, however, a German compound signifying “ war leader,” a fact which weakens the force of the philological argument; and, indeed, Prof. Miiller admits as much when he says that Grimm (Rechtsalterthunier, p. 292) traces Arii and Ariovistus back to the Gothic harji, army. Although we have no proof of the Eastern origin of the Gothic peoples, we have some evidence that in ancient times bodies of them passed from Europe into Asia. Nor is there any reliable evidence of an emigration of the Teutonic peoples from the East. Old northern writers certainly speak of the exodus of Odin from Asia, and his wanderings through Eastern Europe to North Germany aud Scandinavia. According to the early Chronicles the Merovingian dynasty derived its origin from Troy, Faramund being a grandson of old Priam ; but there is a * There are both dolmens and menhirs in Corsica. president’s address. 13 chronological difficulty arising from the fact that he was likewise the contemporary of Attila, king of the Iiuns. Tacitus regarded the Teutons as indigenous to their own soil, and he tells us that this was their own belief. The ancient Teutons looked upon them¬ selves as autochthones. They derived their name from teut, cleut, terra.* It is even difficult to determine how far the Teutons stretched eastwards in ancient times. According to Strabo (vii. c. 1.), Germanic tribes dwelt nearly as far east as the mouth of the Borysthenes, i. e. the Dnieper. All the knowledge that we have of these peoples previous to their contact with the Romans is exceedingly vague. One of the most recent heresies is that of Mr. Hyde Clarke,f who endeavours to prove the ancient extension of the Georgian (Georgian, Swan, Lazian, See.) and other populations of the Caucasus by means of ancient classical names of rivers, mountains, towns, and countries. He asserts that several hundred of these names are derived from certain Georgian terms for water or river mdinare and pshani (Georgian), oruba (Lazian), veets, gangalitz (Swan or Suan), tsqari (Mingrelian). Mr. Clarke further classes this language as Palaegeorgian, and a form of the Palaeo-Asiatic, or general language from which the Semitic, Aryan, Tibetan, Chinese, and other leading families of speech branched off. He gives the following extended area in which these Palaeogeorgian words have been used; viz.,—India, India beyond the Ganges, Ceylon, Persia, Media, Bactriana, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, and the countries of the Danube, Greece, Italy, Spain, Gaul, Britain. Ireland, and all North Africa, except Egypt. A few examples of the names derived will suffice to show the unreasonableness of the statement ; Akheron, Albania, Arabia, Araxes, Arkadia, Birgus (Barrow, Ireland), Britannia, Campania, Danubius, Duranius, Epeirus, Eridanus, Euripus, Ganges, Hebrus, Hybernia, Iberus, Jordanus, Kedron, Kephissos, Kupros, Kuros or Cyrus, Liguria, Lokris, Maeander, Padus, Phasis, Pison or Pishon, Pisaurus, Ravus (Ireland), Rhodanus, Rubicon, Sabrina, Salduba (Spain), Sardinia, Sikania, Skamander, and Tanager. Now the only reasonable doubt is as to the names Maeander, Skamander, and Pison or Pishon; but in the Dittionario Giorgiano of Paolino, published in 1629, the word for water is skdle , and for river dindre , and not mdinare , and such names as Etumander, Alander, Akalandrus, Tarandrus, and Oromzudrus, given by Mr. Clarke, would suggest a different root, probably vScvp, which would corrupt to udr, adr, ander ; and the name Pishon or Pison ( v X-vdr v^gS**** «^ * ^ <4iT <««. I v-w.::, **'*.-£ e. c * v - #»» ^•R 2? 0>*.K*/oy?tt «- r # v„ “HAQIAR KtM,” .MALTA. r^t n Jy^^ j’/wis,/* -< Jc^/c ^ ~l cl *~ 'K'l.rn, PL