Chapter XXX: Appendix: III (2)

[Footnote 153: Andree, _Anthropologische Parallele_, p. 52.]

[Footnote 154: G. Mallery, “Sign Language,” _First Annual Report Bur. of Ethnol._, 1879-80, p. 269. Washington, 1881.]

[Footnote 155: See for the details Fr. Müller, _Grundr. d. Sprachwissensch._, vol. i., Vienna, 1876; Hovelacque, _Linguistique_, Paris, 1877.]

[Footnote 156: For _resumé_ of the question see A. Keane, _Ethnology_, p. 206., London, 1896.]

[Footnote 157: Such are the _lingua franca_ and the _sabir_, a medley of French, English, Italian, and Turkish spread over all the Asiatic and African coast-lines of the Mediterranean, and particularly among the Levantines. Such also is the Pigeon (or _Pidjin_) English, a mixture of Chinese, English, and Portuguese, employed in the ports of the Far East; the “whalers’ language,” a mixture of Hawaiian, Chinese, English, Chukchi, Japanese, etc., which is heard in the north of the Pacific Ocean; the _Foky-Foky_ of Guiana, etc.]

[Footnote 158: Lajard, _Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, 1891, p. 469, and 1892, p. 23.]

[Footnote 159: M. Buchner, _Kamerun_, Leipzig, 1887; Andree, _Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthr._, 1888, p. 411; Betz, _Mitth. Forschungsreisenden deut. Schutzgeb._, vol. xi., part 1, 1898.]

[Footnote 160: See for details, H. Hale, “Four Huron Wampum Records,” _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxvi., No. 3 (1887), and the interesting note of E. B. Tylor at the end of this paper. Hamy, _Galerie Americ. du Mus. Trocadéro_, Paris, 1897, Pl. I.]

[Footnote 161: Harmand, _Mém. Soc. Anthro._, Paris, 2nd ser., vol. ii., 1875-85, p. 339.]

[Footnote 162: Piette, “Étude d’ethnogr. prehist.,” _L’Anthropologie_, 1896, No. 4, p. 385. Article accompanied by an excellent folio atlas.]

[Footnote 163: S. Mallery, “Pictographs of the North American Indians,” _Fourth Rep. Bur. Ethn._, 1882-83, Washington, 1884. By the same, “Picture Writing of the American Indians,” 1888-89, _Tenth Rep. Bur. Ethn._, 1893.]

[Footnote 164: Among the present natives of Easter Island there are only one or two who can decipher these tablets.--W. Thomson Smith’s _Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus._, 1889, p. 513.]

[Footnote 165: Aubin, _Revue orientale et Americaine_, vol. iii., p. 255.]

[Footnote 166: The two hundred and fourteen “keys” or hieroglyphics comparable with the hieratic characters of Egypt--that is to say, ideograms representing categories of objects or symbolising general ideas--joined to a thousand phonetic signs, suffice by their combinations to convey a definite sense to the series of homophonous hieroglyphics forming the forty-four thousand characters of Chinese handwriting. Thus the word or syllable _pa_ signifies banana, war-chariot, scar, cry, etc. To distinguish the various acceptations of the word, there must be joined to the phonetic sign _pa_ (derived from a word the proper sense of which has long been obliterated) the key of plants, or that of iron, of diseases, of the mouth, according to the sense which it is desired to give to it. The monosyllabic structure of Chinese lends itself admirably to this hieroglyphic writing.]

[Footnote 167: The discovery by A. J. Evans of a special syllabic writing in the island of Crete leads one to conjecture, on the contrary, that it was from this unfortunate island that the first alphabet set out. This writing, more ancient than the Phœnician characters, is a direct derivative of pictography; it is found again at Cyprus and in Asia Minor at the epoch of the Ægean civilisation.--A. J. Evans, _Rep. Brit. Ass._, 1896, p. 914.]

[Footnote 168: C. Vogt, “L’Écriture, etc.,” _Rev. Scient._, 2nd half-year, p. 1221., Paris, 1880.]

[Footnote 169: Bunge, _Lehrbuch physiol. Chemie_, 2nd ed., p. 110, Leipzig, 1896.]

[Footnote 170: Goebel, _Bull. Ac. Sc. St. Petersb._, vol. v. (1861), p. 397, and Schmidt, _ibid._, vol. xvi. (1871), p. 203.]

[Footnote 171: Wilken, _Vergelijk. Volkenk. v. Ned Ind._, p. 89, Leyden, 1893; _Science et Nature_, Paris, 1885, 1st half-year, p. 393.]

[Footnote 172: T. Gautier, “Sur une certaine argile blanche, etc.,” _Actes de la Soc. Scient. du Chili_, vol. v. (1895), pt. 1 to 3, Santiago, 1895.]

[Footnote 173: Hellwald, _Ethnogr. Rosselsprünge_, p. 168, Leipzig, 1891.]

[Footnote 174: Thus, merely from a phrase heard from the lips of a Fuegian boy by Byron, and reproduced in the _Voyage of the Beagle_ by Darwin, the Fuegians have until the present time been accused of cannibalism, and yet no observer living months and years among these savages has been able to verify the existence of this custom, in spite of all efforts to discover it.]

[Footnote 175: Wissmann, _Im Inneren Afrikas_, p. 152, Leipzig, 1888.]

[Footnote 176: P. Bergemann, _Verbreitung d. Anthropoph._, Breslau, 1893.]

[Footnote 177: Among the Kalebus of Central Africa (between Lomami and Lukassi, 6° lat. S.) the whole of the body is eaten with the exception of the fingers, which are left untouched from a fear of disease “which retires to them as the last place of refuge” (Wissmann).]

[Footnote 178: R. S. Steinmetz, “Endocannibalismus,” _Mittheilungen der Anthropol. Gesel. in Wien_, vol. xxvi. (xvi.), pt. 1-2, 1896.]

[Footnote 179: It seems to me that Steinmetz’s theory encounters a great difficulty in the fact that anthropophagous peoples (for example, certain Australian tribes) avoid eating relatives, with the exception of infants; the clans exchange one with another the bodies of their dead in order that each may only eat individuals unrelated to it.]

[Footnote 180: Schlegel, “Festgabe Bastians” (suppl. No. to vol. ix. of _Internat. Archiv. für Ethnogr._, 1896).]

[Footnote 181: W. Hough, “The Methods of Fire-making,” _Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1890_, p. 95. Washington, 1891.]

[Footnote 182: An apparatus of this sort was in use half a century ago among Polish peasants (_Globus_, vol. lix., 1891, p. 388).]

[Footnote 183: Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 262.]

[Footnote 184: A certain moderation must nevertheless be observed in the explanation of myths and practices in which fire is concerned. See on this subject an intelligent though somewhat exaggerated critique by E. Veckenstedt, “Das wilde, heilige und Gebrauchsfeuer,” _Zeitschr. für Naturwiss._, vol. lxvi., p. 191, Leipzig, 1893.]

[Footnote 185: O. Mason, _Origins of Invention_, p. 158, London, 1895.]

[Footnote 186: Otis Mason, _loc. cit._, p. 158.]

[Footnote 187: _Internation. Arch. für Ethnographie_, vol. ix., pt. 3, Leyden, 1896.]

[Footnote 188: _Revue scientifique_, 1892, 1st half-year, p. 145. It is also from hygienic considerations in regard to the mouth that many peoples of India and the Negroes of Senegal chew continually the dried roots of different plants reputed antiseptic. In Siberia and in the east of Russia the chewing of pine resin (“séra”) has probably the same origin. The habit of chewing tobacco is only common among European sailors and among the Javanese and Chukchi.]

[Footnote 189: Hellwald, _Rosselsprünge_, etc., p. 206]

[Footnote 190: H. Bates, _Naturalist on ... Amazons_, vol. i., p. 331, London, 1863.]

[Footnote 191: Letourneau, _Sociologie_, p. 44, Paris, 1880.]

[Footnote 192: The beaten-earth and sun-dried clay structures of the Sudan, of Turkestan, and Mexico are of “secondary formation”; they are derived probably from the straw huts, as we shall see further on.]

[Footnote 193: We call every habitation “fixed” which has not been constructed with the view of being removed, however light and imperfect it be. Thus, the rude hut which the Fuegian abandons so readily is nevertheless a fixed habitation, whilst the tent of the Kirghiz, a much more complicated structure, and far more comfortable, must nevertheless be classed among movable habitations.]

[Footnote 194: E. B. Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 281.]

[Footnote 195: L. Hösel, “Die Rechteckige Schrägdachhütte Mittelafrikas,” _Globus_, 1894, vol. xxvi., pp. 341, 360, and 378, with map.]

[Footnote 196: There are many other types of dwellings peculiar to different regions: the reed-built houses of Lob Nor (Eastern Turkestan), the Finnish houses derived from semi-underground structures, the dwellings of the Caucasian mountaineers, etc.]

[Footnote 197: This tent has never, as a general rule, been placed among the Turco-Mongols on a waggon, to be carried from place to place, as authors have been pleased to affirm, from Rubruquis to our own day. The habit in question has only existed in some Nogaï tribes, and has only been practised in special circumstances (marriage, conveyance of women), the survival of which is found among the Tatars of Koundrov, near Astrakhan.]

[Footnote 198: Kharouzin, _Istoria_, etc. (_History of the Development of the Habitation among Turco-Mongol Nomads of Russia_), Moscow, 1896 (in Russian).]

[Footnote 199: It is possible that in Western Europe a hard leaf of some plant folded in a certain way has served as a model for the lamps with wicks called Roman, to judge from certain actual forms.--Letourneau and Papillault, _Bull. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, 1896, p. 348. Vinchon, _ibid._, p. 615.]

[Footnote 200: Neis, _Excursions et Reconnaissances_, Saigon, vol. x., p. 33, 1881.]

[Footnote 201: Von den Steinen, _Unter d. Naturvölk, Zent. Brazil_, Berlin, 1894, p. 190.]

[Footnote 202: Glaumont, “Usages, etc.,” _Rev. d’Ethnogr._, Paris, 1888, p. 101.]

[Footnote 203: C. Davidson, “Das Nackte, etc.,” _Globus_, vol. lxx., 1896, No. 18.]

[Footnote 204: Mme. Dr. Gaches-Sarraute, _L’Hygiène du Corset_, Paris, 1896.]

[Footnote 205: This intentional deformation must be distinguished from that which is caused by the manner of placing the child in the cradle. This is always less strongly marked, and may pass unnoticed in the head of the living subject, but it may always be recognised in the skull.]

[Footnote 206: See for the details, L. A. Gosse, _Essai déform. artif. crâne_, Paris, 1885; Broca, _Instr. craniol._, 1875; P. Topinard, _Revue Anthro._, 1879, p. 497, and _Elem. Anthro._, p. 744; Delisle, _Déform. du crâne_, Paris, 1880, and _Congr. Américaniste_, Paris, 1892, p. 300; Ambialet, _L’Anthropologie_, 1893, p. 11.]

[Footnote 207: O. Mason, _loc. cit._, p. 274.]

[Footnote 208: Note also that almost everywhere foot-gear and often head-gear are made from materials obtained from the mammals: leather, fur, and felt.]

[Footnote 209: See for details W. Brigham, “Hawaiian Kapa-making,” _Hawaiian Alman. and Annual_, p. 76. Honolulu, 1896.]

[Footnote 210: Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 246.]

[Footnote 211: For details see G. de Mortillet, _Origines de la chasse, de la pêche_, etc.; O. Mason, _loc. cit._; Tylor, _Anthrop._; Holmes, _Fifteenth Rep. Bur. Ethnol._]

[Footnote 212: Weeren, “Analyse, etc.,” _Verh. Berl. Ges. Anthr._, June-Oct. 1895.]

[Footnote 213: Reuleaux, _Hist. du développ. des machines dans l’humanité_ (translated from the German), Paris, 1876 (extr. from the section _Cinématique_).]

[Footnote 214: This is a long woven bag in which the tough warp and woof run spirally and diagonally, so that when the two ends are forced together the cylinder becomes short and wide, and when pulled apart, it becomes long and slender.]

[Footnote 215: Hahn, _Die Hausthiere_, etc., Leipzig, 1896, in 8vo, with map.]

[Footnote 216: This opinion of Hahn’s appears to be corroborated by this fact, that millet is still the “national cereal” of the Turkish peoples, who, like all other nomad shepherds, beginning with hoe-culture, have arrived at their present state through having preferred to breed animals other than those used in ploughing--that is to say, the camel, sheep, and later, the horse.]

[Footnote 217: Th. Studer, “Beiträge zur Geschichte unserer Hunderassen,” _Naturwissench. Wochenschrift_, 1897, No. 28. See also _Mem. Soc. Hélvétique sciences naturelles_, 1896.]

[Footnote 218: K. Groos, _Die Spiele der Thiere_, 1896; _Die Spiele der Menschen_, 1899.]

[Footnote 219: Roulette flourished among the Eskimo of Greenland in the eighteenth century; it is known under the name of “Chombino” among the Assiniboines and Blackfeet Indians.--H. Egede and Wied, cited by Andree, _Ethnogr. Paral._, p. 104 (Neue Folge).]

[Footnote 220: See the interesting study on this game by Tylor, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. viii., p. 116, and in _Internationales Archiv. Ethnog._, suppl. vol. ix. (Festg. Bastian), Leyden, 1896.]

[Footnote 221: “Hawaiian Surf-Riding,” _Haw. Alman._, p. 106, Honolulu, 1896.]

[Footnote 222: See, for more details, the excellent article of Andree on “Masks” in his _Ethnographische Parallele_, Neue Folge, p. 107.]

[Footnote 223: In this connection see E. Grosse, _Die Anfänge der Kunst_, Freib. and Leip., 1894; Haddon, _Evolution in Art_, London, 1895; H. Stolpe, _Studies i Amerikansk Ornamentik_, Stockholm, 1896.]

[Footnote 224: Von den Steinen, _Unt. Natürvolk. Zent. Braz._, Berlin, 1894.]

[Footnote 225: See the plate at p. 77 of Haddon’s work, already quoted.]

[Footnote 226: Andree, _Eth. Paral._, N.F., p. 67.]

[Footnote 227: See on this subject I. Lang, _Billedkunst. Fremstell._, etc.; _Vidensk. Selsk. Shrif._, 5th series; _Hist. Philos._, vol. v., No. 4, Copenhagen, 1892 (with French Summary).]

[Footnote 228: Wallaschek, _Primitive Music_, chap. viii., London, 1893.]

[Footnote 229: Grosse, _Anf. d. Kunst_, chap. iii.]

[Footnote 230: _Miss. Scientif. Cap Horn_; vol. i. _Hist. d. Voy._ by Martial, p. 210, Paris, 1888.]

[Footnote 231: Tylor, _Anthropology_, p. 292; Wallaschek, _loc. cit._, pp. 151, 155, and _Mitth. Anthr. Ges. Wien._, 1897, vol. xxiii., Sitzungsb., p. 11. According to the investigations of Weber, the ear can distinguish sounds which vary 1/64th of a semitone.]

[Footnote 232: According to Wallaschek (_loc. cit._, p. 155), the heptatonic scale (diatonic) owes its origin to the construction of the primitive flute, which had at most six to eight holes. To have had more would have been useless, as the instrument could not have been held without more fingers. Facility in making this instrument is due to the fact that, holes simply being pierced at regular intervals along the tube, a series of the most harmonious sounds can be obtained.]

[Footnote 233: Here is a description of it: a quill split and cut into the form of a leaf is attached to the end of a bow (Fig. 71); it is held to the mouth and set vibrating; it is then a reed and a stringed instrument combined. But it gives forth such feeble sounds that the artist is obliged to stuff one of his fingers in his nose and the other in his ear so as better to hear the music; it serves thus as a sort of microphone.]

[Footnote 234: The only all-round study that I know is the chapter “Poetry” in Grosse’s work, _Die Anf. d. Kunst_, from which I borrow my account and some selected examples, which he gives from Eyre, Spencer, and Grey.]

[Footnote 235: Deniker, “Les Kalmouks,” _Rev. d’Anthr._, 1884, p. 671.]

[Footnote 236: De Quatrefages, _L’espèce humaine_, 2nd ed., p. 356, Paris, 1890.]

[Footnote 237: E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i.]

[Footnote 238: These Yahgans give the name of “Kachpik” vaguely to: 1, very wicked imaginary beings living in the depth of the forests, and, 2, every person who has a strange or wicked character. They give the name of “Hanuch” to: 1, imaginary beings with an eye at the back of the head and no hair, and, 2, to madmen or individuals living alone in the forests. It is the belief in these three or four imaginary beings to which all religious manifestations of the Yahgans may be reduced. (Hyades and Deniker, _loc. cit._, p. 253.)]

[Footnote 239: R. Woodthorpe, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxvi., No 1, August 1896. In Yorkshire the country people call the night butterfly (sphinx) “soul,” and in Ireland butterflies are the souls of ancestors (L. Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_).]

[Footnote 240: Modigliani, _Un Viaggio a Nias_, p. 277, Milan, 1890. Besides, the Nias admit, like many other peoples, three souls in man; that which manifests itself by the breath is comparable to the “double” of the ancient Egyptians.]

[Footnote 241: The word “fetichism” is a corruption of the Portuguese term _feitiço_, “charm,” derived probably from the Latin _factitius_, in the sense “full of magical artifices,” which the first navigators on the coast of Guinea applied to the fetiches venerated by the Negroes. Des Brosses was the first to introduce, in 1760, the term “fetichism” to denote the belief in fetiches. Auguste Comte gave a much more extended meaning to the word, to denote a religious state opposed to polytheism and monotheism. To-day the fetichism of Auguste Comte is the _animism_ of English ethnographers, of which true fetichism forms only a part. (E. Tylor, _Prim. Cult._, vol. ii., p. 143.)]

[Footnote 242: In certain cases, fetiches are supposed to be animated with power of movement; thus the staffs which negro sorcerers put into the hands of men in convulsions, caused by wild dances, are reputed to draw these men in their mad career, and to direct them in the search of persons accused of crime. Similarly, the two staffs which the Siberian Shamans hold in their hands during their exorcisms are supposed to draw them, like horses driven at full gallop, towards regions inhabited by spirits.]

[Footnote 243: Macpherson, quoted by Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. ii., p. 325.]

[Footnote 244: E. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, vol. i., p. 427.]

[Footnote 245: Put forward by Tylor (_Prim. Cult._, vol. ii., chaps. xii. and xvii.), the ideas which I here formulate have been developed by L. Marillier (“Survivance de l’âme:” Paris, 1894, _Pub. École prat. Hautes Études, sect. Sc. relig._), and combated by Steinmetz (_Arch. für Anthro._, vol. xxiv., p. 577), but the arguments of the latter do not seem to me convincing. He compares, for example, the difference of the destiny of the noble and the common Polynesians in the other world to distributive justice.]

[Footnote 246: Hyades and Deniker, _loc. cit._, p. 254.]

[Footnote 247: E. Tylor, _loc. cit._, vol. ii., p. 199.]

[Footnote 248: See A. Lang, _Culture and Myth_; and his _Modern Mythology_, London, 1897.]

[Footnote 249: Legends, traditional tales, proverbs, etc., are simplified myths, with the poetic element predominating. The study of them forms a special branch of ethnology called “Folk-lore.”]

[Footnote 250: Hyades and Deniker, _loc. cit._, p. 316.]

[Footnote 251: Brough Smyth, _The Aborigines of Victoria_, vol. ii., p. 3, London, 1878; Curr, _The Australian Race_, Melbourne-London, 1886-87, 4 vols. _passim._]

[Footnote 252: R. Schramm, “Jahrform, etc.,” _Mittheil. der Geogr. Gesell._, vol. xxvii., 1884, p. 481, Vienna.]

[Footnote 253: O. Mason, _Origins of Invention_, pp. 71 and 116.]

[Footnote 254: Brough Smyth, _loc. cit._, vol. i., p. 284.]

[Footnote 255: Schmeltz and Krause, “Museum Godeffroy,” Hamburg, 1881, p. 271 and plate xxxii.]

[Footnote 256: S. Holm, _Meddelels. om Groenl._, p. 101, Copenhagen, 1887.]

[Footnote 257: See for the details, Andree, _Ethn. Paral._, p. 197.]

[Footnote 258: See Max Bartels, _Medecin der Naturvölker_, Leipzig, 1893.]

[Footnote 259: M. Monnier, _La France Noire_, p. 110, Paris, 1894.]

[Footnote 260: H. Schintz, _Deutsch Süd-west Africa_, p. 396, Oldenburg, 1894.]

[Footnote 261: S. Wilken, _Verglijk_. _Volkenkunde van Nederl. Ind._, p. 293, Leyden, 1893; Ivanowsky, _loc. cit._, p. 19 of the original impression; Post, _Grundz. ethnol. Jurisprud._, vol. i., Oldenb.-Leipzig, 1894.]

[Footnote 262: Bartels, “Reife-Unsitten, etc.,” _Zeit. f. Ethn._,1896 (Verh., p. 363).]

[Footnote 263: Giraud-Teulon, _Origines du mariage et de la famille_, p. 33, note, Paris, 1884; Wilken, _loc. cit._, p. 294.]

[Footnote 264: See for further details, Letourneau, _The Evolution of Marriage, etc._, chap. i., London; and Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, chaps. iv. to vi., London, 1891.]

[Footnote 265: Lubbock, _Origin of Civilisation_, chap. iii., 1875.]

[Footnote 266: The long list of peoples practising promiscuity given by Lubbock dwindles as we become better acquainted with the different populations in question. Certain peoples, like the Fuegians (Hyades and Deniker, _loc. cit._), the Bushmen, the Polynesians (Westermarck, _loc. cit._), the Irulas (Thurston, _Bull. Madras Mus._, vol. ii., No. 1, 1897), the Teehurs of Oude (W. Crooke, _Tribes and Castes N. W. Province, etc._, vol. i., p. clxxxiii., Calcutta, 1896), should be mercilessly struck out of this list, since they all have individual marriage to the exclusion of other forms. Others, like the Australians, the Todas, the Nairs, have been entered in it because they practise “group marriage” or certain forms of polyandry, which is not the same thing as promiscuity. There remains of the list but two or three tribes about whom we have no exact general information at all (example, the Olo-Ot of Borneo).]

[Footnote 267: A. W. Howitt, “Australian Group Relations,” _Smithsonian Rep._, Washington, 1883; A. W. Howitt and L. Fison, “Kamilaroi and Kurnai,” Melbourne-Sydney, 1880, and _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xii., p. 30, 1882.]

[Footnote 268: A. W. Howitt, “Dieri, etc.,” _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xx., 1890, p. 53. Among the Nairs of the coast of Malabar things are done in exactly the same way. The main point in both cases is the prohibition of marriage in the clan itself (L. Fison, “Classificat. Relationship,” _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxv., 1895, p. 369). Among the Todas of Nilgiri the groups are limited in this sense, that the men who cohabit with a woman must be brothers, and at the same time can only marry with the sisters of this woman.]

[Footnote 269: Bachofen, _Das Mutterrecht_, Stuttgart, 1861; J. F. McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, London, 1876.]

[Footnote 270: L. Fison, _loc. cit._, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxiv., 1895, p. 36.]

[Footnote 271: Thus, if there are four clans, A, B, C, and D, as among the Kamilaroi, for example, the children sprung from the parents of the clans A and B may not intermarry; they belong to the clan C, the members of which may only marry with the members of the clan D. It is their children only who will be able to contract marriages in the groups A and B. In this way incest is only possible between the grandfather and the granddaughter, that is to say, reduced practically to zero.]

[Footnote 272: L. Morgan, “Syst. of Consanguinity, etc.,” _Smithson. Contrib. Knowl._, vol. xvii., Washington, 1871; and _Ancient Society_, London, 1877. See also the very clear statement of the system in Lubbock, _loc. cit._, and its extension to the Australians and the Melanesians of the Fiji Islands in Howitt and Fison, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 273: Tylor, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol xviii., 1888-89, p. 262.]

[Footnote 274: Westermarck, _loc. cit._, p. 82; L. Fison, _loc. cit._ (“Classific. System”), p. 369.]

[Footnote 275: Maine, _Ancient Law_, p. 241, London, 1885; Westermarck, _loc. cit._, p. 510.]

[Footnote 276: Shortt, _Transact. Ethn. Soc._, London, N.S., vol. vii., p. 264; Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 403, London, 1854. Leroy-Beaulieu (_L’Empire des Tzars_, vol. vi., chap. 5, p. 488, Paris, 1885-89) attributes this custom to the over-exercise of paternal authority.]

[Footnote 277: The Torgoot Mongols, who practise this custom, explain it by the general rules of hospitality (Ivanovski, _loc. cit._); in this respect they are in agreement with Westermarck, _loc. cit._, chap. vi.]

[Footnote 278: It must be observed on this point that, according to Westermarck, the horror of incest is not an instinctive sentiment (animals do not have it), but rather a social habit springing from sexual repulsion for persons, even unrelated to the family, with whom one has been brought up from infancy. Thus we often see marriages prohibited between one village and another (ancient Peru), or between god-parents, who superintend the baptism of a child, and are in no way allied to each other by blood (Russia). The learned Helsingfors professor, who believes in the omnipotence of sexual selection, explains the frequency of the aversion to incest by the survival of individuals who did not contract consanguineous marriages, always mischievous in his opinion. However, he admits that the bad effects of consanguineous marriages may be mitigated by material well-being, as is the case in Europe.]

[Footnote 279: See Ploss, _Das Weib_, 5th ed., vol. ii., 1897, Leipzig.]

[Footnote 280: E. Tylor, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xviii., p. 248.]

[Footnote 281: Ploss (_loc. cit._) mentions Australian, Eskimo, and North American Indian tribes among whom the child is suckled till the age of fourteen or fifteen.]

[Footnote 282: For an illustration of this see the “Description of Australian Initiation” (Bura), by R. Mathews, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxv., 1896, No. 4.]

[Footnote 283: Deniker, “Le peuple Tchouktch, etc.” (from Avgustinovich), _Rev. d’Anthr._, 1882, p. 323, and De Windt, _Globus_, 1897, vol. lxxi., p. 300.]

[Footnote 284: Tylor, _loc. cit._ (_Anthr._), pp. 346, 420.]

[Footnote 285: In various countries in Europe these objects give place to a piece of money put into the mouth or the hand of the dead; as one never knows what may happen, it is always well to have a little money at one’s service.]

[Footnote 286: Many practices in relation to the dead are explained by the belief that they are sleeping for a greater or less time (see p. 216). Thus, among the Micronesians of the Gilbert Islands, the woman sleeps by the side of her dead husband, and covers her body with the putrid matter which oozes from the corpse.]

[Footnote 287: Even in the cases where several arrows have pierced the animal their reciprocal positions decided to whom belonged such or such part of the slain animal; the skin, for instance, was his whose arrow had penetrated nearest to the heart.]

[Footnote 288: Kovalewsky, _Tableau des origines de la famille, etc._, pp. 59 and 91, Stockholm, 1890; Maine, _Early History of Institutions_, London, 1875.]

[Footnote 289: G. L. Gomme, _The Village Community_, London, 1890; and Kovalewsky, _loc. cit._ Baden-Powell, _Indian Village Com._, London, 1896.]

[Footnote 290: J. G. Frazer, _Totemism_, London, 1887 (expanded from his article in vol. xxiii. of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_); E. Smith, _Second Ann. Rep. Bur. of Ethnol._, 1880-81, p. 77, Washington, 1883.]

[Footnote 291: This family _régime_ of society is closely allied to the worship of ancestors and the “hearth,” as the names given to the communities show (“feu” in France, “pechtchiché” in the Ukraine).]

[Footnote 292: Laveleye, _Propriété primitive_, p. 9, Paris, 1891; Kovalewsky, _loc. cit._, _passim_; Sakuya Yoshida, _Geschichtl. Entwickl. d. Staats-Verfass. in Japan_, p. 46, Hague, 1890; Bancroft, _Native Races of Pacific States_, vol. ii., p. 226, San Francisco, 1882.]

[Footnote 293: See Andree, _Ethnolog. Parallele_, p. 250.]

[Footnote 294: See for further details, Post, _loc. cit._, _Grundriss der ethnol. Jurisprud._, vol. i.]

[Footnote 295: See for more details, Ch. Letourneau, _L’évolution de la Morale_, Paris, 1887, and A. Post, _loc. cit._, 2nd vol., Leipzig, 1895.]

[Footnote 296: The most common ordeals are the trial by water (swimming across a river, remaining some time under water, etc.) and that by fire. In the latter case the accused is made to run on hot coals, as in India, among the Somalis, in Siam; to lick red-hot iron, as among the Dyaks, the Khonds, the Negroes of Sierra-Leone; or again, to dip the hands in molten lead, as in Burma among the Jakuns of Malacca, or the Alfurus of Buru, etc.]

[Footnote 297: Schmeltz and Krause, _Ethnogr.-Anthr. Abt. Mus. Godeffroy_, p. 17, Hamburg, 1881; W. Powell, _Wanderings amongst Cannibals of New Britain_, London, 1883; Graf von Pfeil, “Duk-Duk, etc.,” _Journ. Anthr. Institute_, 1897, p. 197.]

[Footnote 298: G. Schultheiss, _Globus_, 1896, vol. lxx., No. 22.]

[Footnote 299: The custom of applying the nose to the cheek and drawing a breath, with closed eyes and a smacking of the lips, exists among the Southern Chinese, but only as an act of love. According to P. D’Enjoy, it is an olfactory gesture derived from the sensations of nutrition, as the European kiss on the lips is derived from the lascivious bite. (_Bull. Soc. Anthr._, Paris, 1897, pt. 2.)]

[Footnote 300: See for details Ling Roth, _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xix., 1889, p. 164; Andree, _Eth. Paral._, N.F., p. 225; Hellwald, _Rosselsp._, p. 1.]

[Footnote 301: The difference between offensive and defensive weapons is often not very marked even in our civilisation; thus the sword and the sabre serve as much for giving as warding off blows; the same is true among savages in regard to the staff, the club, etc. Frequently, too, objects which originally have nothing in common with war, become offensive or defensive weapons. Thus the bracelet is sometimes a defensive weapon. Among several Negroes (Ashantis, Kafirs, Vakambas), and in Melanesia, warriors put on their legs and arms bracelets formed of the long hair of different animals (goat, boar, zebra) which almost completely cover the limbs and protect them effectually against the blows of club and spear. The bracelets of wire rolled in numerous spirals around the fore-arm or the leg, which are met with among the Dyaks, the Mois of Indo-China, the Niam-Niams, and the Baghirmis of Central Africa, are veritable protective armour; they are the prototypes of the vantbrace and greaves.

In certain rarer cases the bracelet is an offensive weapon. Among the Jurs, a negro tribe of the upper Nile, bracelets are found provided with two points or spurs, four inches long, and very dangerous. The bracelet of the Irengas (to the east of the upper Nile), as well as that of the Jibba (living on the banks of the Jibba, a left-hand tributary of the Sabba), is a great disc, with an opening in the middle through which to pass the arm. A portion of the disc is removed in order to give it more elasticity, and its outer edge, exceedingly sharp, forms a kind of circular sabre. In order not to wound himself, the wearer covers the edge with a circular case which he only removes for battle.]

[Footnote 302: See for details and series of forms, Lane-Fox (now Pitt Rivers), _Cat. Anthr. Collection in the Bethnal Green Museum_, London, 1877, with illustrations. (The remarkable collection in question is now at Oxford.)]

[Footnote 303: O. Mason, “Throwing-sticks,” _Rep. U.S. N. Mus. for 1884_; F. v. Luschan, “Wurfholz, etc.,” _Festschr.... Bastian_, p. 131, Berlin, 1896.]

[Footnote 304: See H. Balfour, “On the Structure and Affinities of the Composite Bow,” _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, London, 1889, vol. xix., p. 220; Anuchin, _Look i Strely_ (Bow and Arrows), Moscow, 1889 (in Russian); O. Mason, “Bows, Arrows, and Quivers of the North American Aborigines,” _Smithsonian Report_, Washington, 1893.]

[Footnote 305: Phillips, _Trans. N. Zeal. Inst._, vol. x., p. 97, Wellington, 1877.]

[Footnote 306: M. Buch, _Die Wotiaken_, p. 78, Helsingfors, 1882; Extract from _Acta Soc. Scient. Fennicæ_, vol. xii.]

[Footnote 307: The prototype of the _true composite bow_, characterised by the addition to it of a mass of moistened sinews which, on drying, make the bow curve up, must have had another form; it bore a resemblance probably to the bow of the Indian tribes of the north-west of America and of California, in which the sinew covering often goes beyond the body of the bow and hangs down at its two extremities.

The improved forms of the composite bow are only found on the Asiatic continent. The so-called “Tatar” or Mongolian bow, the Chinese “kung,” is chiefly composed of a piece of wood to which is fixed with bird-lime on the inner side a piece of horn, and on the outer side two layers of sinews covered with two layers of birch-bark. All other composite bows, Persian, Hindu, etc., are only complicated forms of this type, to which we may also refer the exceptional types of bow of the Lapp and Javanese, etc.

Accepting the view of General Pitt Rivers, _loc. cit._, we may say that the composite bow is not a more perfect weapon than the simple bow, and that it could only have had its origin in countries where the absence of very elastic varieties of wood make it necessary to seek in the superposition of various materials the elasticity required to augment the force of the weapon.]

[Footnote 308: The substance used in the manufacture of the bow-string varies with the region; thus in the west of Africa it is always of rattan, as far as Butembo (country of the Ponondas), where strings of _Crotalaria_ and bamboo begin to be used. (Weule, _Ethnol. Notizblatt. Mus. Berlin_, vol. i., No. 2, p. 39, 1895-96.)]

[Footnote 309: E. Morse, “Ancient and Modern Methods of Arrow-release,” _Essex Inst. Bull._, Salem, Oct.-Dec., 1885.]

[Footnote 310: With regard to greaves, see the note on p. 257.]

[Footnote 311: W. Hough, “Prim. Am. Armour,” _Rep. U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1893_, p. 625, Washington, 1895.]

[Footnote 312: O. Mason, _loc. cit._, p. 364.]

[Footnote 313: Letourneau, _L’évolution du commerce_, Paris, 1897.]

[Footnote 314: Kubary, _Ethn. Beitr. Karolinen-Archipel._, p. 1, Leyden, 1889-95.]

[Footnote 315: Balfour, _Journ. Anthro. Inst._, vol. xix., 1889, p. 54.]

[Footnote 316: Nillsson, _Ureinwohner Skand. Nordens_, p. 37, Hamburg, 1866, i. Nachtr.]

[Footnote 317: Cooper, _The Mishmee Hills_, London, 1873.]

[Footnote 318: It is the English who have given to this porcelain the name of _cauri_ or cowry, which appears to be a corruption of the Sanscrit word _Kaparda_, _Kapardika_, whence _Kavari_ in the Mahratta dialect; the Portuguese call it _Bouji_ or _Boughi_; the inhabitants of the Maldives, _boli_; the Siamese, _bios_ (which means shell in general in their language); the Arabs, _wadda_ or _vadaat_.]

[Footnote 319: Martens, “Über verschiedene Verwendungen von Conchylien,” _Zeit. für Ethn._, Berlin, 1872, vol. iv., p. 65; Andree, _Ethnol. Parall._, p. 233; Stearns, “Ethno-conchology,” _Report U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1887_.]

[Footnote 320: In 1858, 2,938 piculs of cowry-shells (about 177 tons) were exported from Manilla, for the most part to England. In 1848, 59-1/2 tons of cowries were imported into Liverpool. At the time of the Dutch dominion of Ceylon, Amsterdam was the principal market of this trade; there were sold there in 1689 192,951 pounds (Dutch) of these shells; and in 1780 133,229 pounds (Johnston).]

[Footnote 321: O. Mason, _loc. cit._, p. 327, and “Prim. Travel and Transport,” _Smithsonian Report U.S. Nat. Mus. for 1894_, p. 239, Washington, 1896.]

[Footnote 322: D. Anuchin, “Sani, etc.” (The sledge, the canoe, and horses in funeral rites, in Russian), _Drévnosti_ (_Antiquities_), vol. xiv., Moscow, 1890.]

[Footnote 323: See the Assyrian bas-reliefs, Maspero, _Hist. anc. de l’Orient_, vol. ii., p. 628, Paris, 1897; O. Mason, _Origins of Invention_, p. 334; and Moser, _A travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 220, Paris, 1885.]

[Footnote 324: See for the history of classifications, Topinard, _L’Anthr. gén._, pp. 28-107, 264-349; Giglioli, _Viaggio ... della Magenta_, p. xxvii., Milan, 1875; and Keane, _Ethnology_, p. 162, Cambridge, 1896.]

[Footnote 325:

_Principal Races._ _Secondary Races._

(1) Caucasian. (1) Caucasian, (2) Alleghanian (Red Indian).
(2) Mongolian. (3) Hyperborean (Lapps), (4) Malay, (5)
American (except the Red Indian), (6)
Mongolian, (7) Paraborean (Eskimo),
(8) Australian.
(3) Ethiopian. (9) Kafir, (10) Ethiopian, (11) Negro,
(12) Melanesian.
(4) Hottentot. (13) Hottentot.

--Isid. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, “Classif. Anthropologique,” _Mem. Soc. Anthr. Paris_, vol. i., p. 125, 1861.]

[Footnote 326:

_Principal Races._ _Secondary Races or “Modifications.”_

(1) Negroid. (1) Bushmen, (2) Negro, (3) Papuan.
(2) Australoid. (4) Australians, (5) Black race of Deccan
(Dravidians), (6) Ethiopian (Hamite).
(3) Mongoloid. (7) Mongol, (8) Polynesian, (9) American,
(10) Eskimo, (11) Malay.
(4) Xanthochroid. (12) Xanthochroid of Northern Europe.
(5) Melanochroid. (13) Melanochroid of Southern Europe, (14)
Melanochroid of Asia (Arabs, Afghans,
Hindus, etc.).

--T. Huxley, “Geogr. Distrib. of Mankind,” _Journ. Ethnol. Soc. London_, N.S., vol. ii., p. 404, map, 1870. The classification of Flower (_Jl. Anthro. Inst._, vol. xiv., 1885, p. 378) differs from that of Huxley in a few details only. This eminent anatomist grouped his eleven races and three sub-races under three “types”--Negro, Mongolian, and Caucasian.]

[Footnote 327: In the first edition of his classification (_Rev. d’Anthr._, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 509, Paris, 1878), Topinard admits sixteen races in three groups:--

(_a_) _Straight-haired Races._--Eskimo, Red Indians, Mexico-Peruvians, Guarani-Caribs, Mongols.

(_b_) _Wavy or Frizzy-haired Races._--Fair-haired people of Europe (Xanthochroids of Huxley), dark-haired people of Europe and Semites (Melanochroids of Huxley), Australians and Indo-Abyssinians (Australoids of Huxley), Fulbé, Finns, Celto-Slavs, Turanians.

(_c_) _Woolly-haired Races._--Bushmen, Papuans, Kafirs, Negritoes.

In the second edition, dating from 1885 (_Elém. Anthr. gén._, p. 502), we find nineteen races grouped under three heads:--

(_a_) _White Leptorhine Races._--Anglo-Scandinavians, Finns (first type, Western), Mediterraneans, Semito-Egyptians, Lapono-Ligurians, Celto-Slavs.

(_b_) _Yellow Mesorhine Races._--Eskimo, Tehuelches, Polynesians, Red Indians, yellow peoples of Asia (including Finns of the second type), Guaranis (or South Americans, except the Tehuelches), Peruvians.

(_c_) _Black Platyrhine Races._--Australians, Bushmen, Melanesians, Negroes, Tasmanians, Negritoes.]

[Footnote 328: Tribes (sub-divisions): (1) _Lophocomi_ (woolly hair, tufted), comprising the following species (races): Papuans, Hottentots; (2) _Eriocomi_ (woolly hair, growing uniformly and not in tufts): Kafirs and Negroes; (3) _Euthycomi_ (straight hair): Australians, Malays, Mongols, Arctic people (Hyperboreans), Americans; (4) _Euplocomi_ (curly hair): Dravidians, Nubians (Ethiopians), Mediterraneans (Aryans). (Haeckel, _Natürl. Schöpfungsgesch._, 7th ed., pp. 628 and 647, 1879; Fr. Mueller, _Allg. Ethnogr._, 2nd ed., pp. 17 and 19, Vienna, 1879.)]

[Footnote 329: “Trunks”: (1) _Negro_, with its “branches,” Indo-Melanesian, Australian, African, and Austro-African; (2) _Yellow_, with its “branches,” Siberian, Thibetan, Indo-Chinese, and American (Eskimo-Brazilian); (3) _White_, with its “branches,” Allophyle (Ainu, Miao-tse, Caucasian, Indonesian-Polynesian, etc.), Finnish, Semitic, and Aryan. “Mixed Races”: (1) _Oceanians_ (Japanese, Polynesian, Malay); (2) _Americans_ (of North, Central, and South America). (A. de Quatrefages, _Hist. Gen. Races Hum._, pp. 343 _et seq._, Paris, 1889.)]

[Footnote 330: Deniker, “Essai d’une classification des races hum., etc.,” Paris, 1889 (_Extr. du Bull. Soc. Anthr._, vol. xii., p. 320). Cf. O. Mason, _Smithson. Report for 1889_, p. 602.]

[Footnote 331: Fig. 153 represents individuals of one tribe only, but belonging to the two sub-races mentioned. Fig. 151 represents the blending of the two types with Polynesian admixture.]

[Footnote 332: E. Schmidt, “Die Anthropologie Indiens,” _Globus_, vol. 61, 1892, Nos. 2 and 3.]

[Footnote 333: Ehrenreich, _loc. cit._ (_Urbewohner Brasil._), and Von den Steinen, _loc. cit._, describe numerous individuals with wavy or frizzy hair among the Bakairis, the Karayas, the Arawaks, etc. I myself have noticed Fuegians with frizzy or wavy hair (Hyades and Deniker, _loc. cit._). See also Fig. 171, which represents the blending of the Central American and South American types, and portraits of the _Goajires_ in _Le Tour du Monde_, 1898, 1st half year.]

[Footnote 334: A. Barcena, “Arte ... lengua Toba,” _Rev. Mus. de la Plata_, vol. v., 1894, p. 142.]

[Footnote 335: Bain, _Census of India, 1891_. Calcutta, 1896.]

[Footnote 336: Each continent in fact contains distinct populations, with the exception, however, of Asia, to which belongs half a score of peoples, of whom part live outside its borders: in America (Eskimo), Oceania (Malays and Negritoes), Africa (Arabs), Europe (Samoyeds, Vogule-Ostiaks, Tatars, Kirghiz, Kalmuks, Caucasians, Armenians, and Russians), or in other parts of the world (Greeks, Jews, Gypsies).]

[Footnote 337: See for details, De Mortillet, _Le Préhistorique_, chap. iii., Paris, 1883; Stirrup, “So-called Worked Flints of Thenay,” _Journ. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xiv., 1885, p. 289, and _Rev. d’Anthr._, 1885; Cartailhac, _La France Préhistorique_, p. 35, Paris, 1889; Newton, “The Evidence for the Existence of Man in the Tertiary Period,” _Proceed. Geolog. Assoc._, vol. xv., London, 1897; Salomon Reinach, _Antiquités Nationales, Descrip. Musée St.-Germain_, vol. i., p. 96, Paris, 1889,--this work contains a mass of prehistoric information and a copious bibliography.]

[Footnote 338: The so-called tertiary skeleton of Castenedolo, near Brescia, discovered by Ragazonni, is an “odd fact,” an “incomplete observation,” to use the happy phrase of Marcellin Boule, and cannot be taken into account.]

[Footnote 339: J. Geikie, _Great Ice Age_, London, 1894; Marcellin Boule, “Paléontol. stratigr. de l’Homme,” _Rev. d’Anthr._, Paris, 1888.]

[Footnote 340: The extreme limit of the spread of glaciers to the south at that period may be indicated by a line which would pass near to Bristol, London, Rotterdam, Cologne, Hanover, Dresden, Cracow, Lemberg; then would go round Kief on the south, Orel on the north, and rise again (on the south of Saratov) up to Nijni-Novgorod, Viatka, the upper valley of the Kama, to blend with the line of the watershed of this river and the Pechora (see Map 1.).]

[Footnote 341: See G. and A. de Mortillet, _Musée préhistorique_, Paris, pl. vi. to ix.; J. Evans, _Ancient Stone Implements_, 2nd ed., chap. xxiii., London, 1897.]

[Footnote 342: Frequently these implements have been found, in sufficiently deep beds, beside bones of the straight-tusked elephant (_Elephas antiquus_), the smooth-skinned, two-horned rhinoceros (_Rhinoceros Merckii_), the great hippopotamus--that is to say, of animals characteristic of the first interglacial period. As these species are allied to the elephant, the rhinoceros, and the hippopotamus of Africa of the present day, the hypothesis has been propounded that they came from this continent, utilising the numerous isthmuses then existing (between Gibraltar and Morocco, between Sicily, Malta and Tunis, etc.). Man, the maker of the Chellean implements, followed, it is supposed, in their steps. One might argue with equal force that the migration took place in the opposite direction.]

[Footnote 343: Woldrich (after Nehring), _Mit. Anthr. Gesell._, vol. xi., p. 187, Vienna.]

[Footnote 344: In England it is sometimes designated the “cave period” to distinguish it from the Chellean, called “River-drift” period, but this term is open to objection; thus, for example, in the celebrated Kent cavern there have been found at the bottom implements of the Chellean type identical with certain objects of the River-drift. (See the works already quoted, as well as Windle, _Life in Early Britain_, p. 26, London, 1897.)]

[Footnote 345: According to G. de Mortillet, Mousterian industry also differs from the Chellean in regard to technique. In the Chellean period what is utilised is the core or nucleus of the stone cut right round on both sides; while in the Mousterian period what are fashioned are the splinters struck off from this core, which are trimmed especially on one face, the inner face remaining smooth and showing the trace of its origin under the form of a “cone” or “bulb of percussion,” which corresponds to a hollow in the block from which the splinter has been dislodged. However, implements recalling at first sight the “knuckle-duster,” but which differ from it by their amygdaloidal form and their straight edges (Saint-Acheul type), are still to be found at this period.]

[Footnote 346: In G. de Morlillet’s classification a yet additional period is inserted between the Mousterian and the Magdalenian. This is the _Solutrian_, characterised by finely cut heads (spear or arrow?) in the shape of a laurel leaf. But the zone in which these implements are met with is limited to certain regions of the south and west of France only. For many palæethnographers this is a “facies local” of the Magdalenian period.]

[Footnote 347: There may be added to the masterpieces here reproduced the famous representation of the mammoth carved on the tusk of this animal itself by a man of La Madeleine (Dordogne), discovered and described by Lartet; and by Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Brit._, p. 105, London, 1880. See Cartailhac, _loc. cit._, p. 72.]

[Footnote 348: After the second interglacial period the “Great Baltic Glacier” still covered the Scandinavian peninsula, with the exception of its southern part (Gothland), extended over the emerged bottom of the Baltic, over nearly the whole of Finland, and spreading round Gothland invaded the east coast of Denmark and the littoral of Germany to the east of Jutland. After the retreat of this glacier and a series of changes in the surface of the ground (a sinking which brought the Baltic into communication with the North Sea by means of the Strait of Svealand, followed by the upheaval which cut off that communication and made of the Baltic the _Ancylus Lake_ of the geologists), the climate became milder in these parts, and the trees of Central Europe, first the pines, then the oaks and birches, penetrated into Denmark and Gothland, while in the north of Sweden there were two other new glacier movements. (Gerard de Geer, _Om Skandinavens Geografiska Utveckling_, Stockholm, 1897; G. Andersson, _Geschichte Végétat. Schwed._, Leipzig, 1896.)]

[Footnote 349: This supposition is invalidated by this fact among others, that, in the neolithic “shell heaps” of Scandinavia no remains of the reindeer are found.]

[Footnote 350: As witnessed by the diggings of Piette at Mas d’Azil, see p. 163.]

[Footnote 351: There was yet to take place another sinking of the ground which established a communication, by means of the Sound, between the “Ancylus Lake” of the preceding period with the North Sea, transforming it thus into a very salt and warm sea called, from the principal fossil which reveals to us its existence, the Littorina Sea.]

[Footnote 352: Nehring, _Zeitschr. f. Ethnol._, 1895, No. 6 (Verh., pp. 425 and 573); Salomon Reinach, _L’Anthropologie_, 1897, p. 53; P. Salmon, _Races hum. préhist._, p. 9, Paris, 1888; Cartailhac, _loc. cit._, p. 327; M. Boule, _loc. cit._, p. 679; G. de Mortillet, _La Format. de la Nat. Franc._, p. 289.]

[Footnote 353: Out of forty-six skulls to which the title “quaternary” has been applied, I have only been able, after a careful examination of all evidence, to recognise as such the ten to fifteen following skulls. For the age of the mammoth or “Mousterian” period, seven skulls certainly quaternary: two skulls from Spy (Belgium), and those from Egisheim (Alsace), Olmo (Val d’Arno, Italy), Bury St. Edmunds (England), Podbaba (Bohemia), and Predmost (Moravia). Perhaps we should refer to this period the skulls which cannot be definitely traced to a certain alluvial bed, like those of Neanderthal (Rhenish Prussia), Denise (Auvergne), Marcilly-sur-Eure (Eure), La Truchère (Saône), and Tilbury (near London). As to the skulls of the “reindeer” age (Magdalenian period), three only are known which are not called in question: these are the skulls of Laugerie-Basse, Chancelade (Dordogne), and Sordes (Landes). Perhaps we should include among them the skulls of uncertain date, like those of Bruniquel, Engis, Sargels (near Larzac), and perhaps others which certain authorities classify as belonging to mesolithic and even neolithic times: the three skulls of Cro-Magnon (Dordogne); the six so-called Mentone skulls (Baoussé-Roussé, Maritime Alps); the skulls of the _Trou de Frontal_ at Furfooz (Belgium), of Solutré (Valley of the Saône), Bohuslan (near Stangenas, Sweden), Clichy and Grenelle (Paris). And, lastly, we have no data on which to form an opinion as to the date of the skulls of Canstatt (Wurtemberg), Maëstricht (Holland), Gibraltar, Brux (Bohemia), Lhar, Nagy-Sap (Hungary), Schebichowitz (Bohemia), Valle do Areciro (Portugal), etc. Cf. S. Reinach, _loc. cit._ (_Antiquités Nation._), p. 134; and Hervé, _Rev. École Anthr._, p. 208, Paris, 1892.]

[Footnote 354: The instances of the skull of Saint Mensuy, an Irish bishop, and others, are universally known. See on this subject, Godron, _Mem. Acad. Stanislas_, p. 50, Nancy, 1884; Worthington Smith, _Man, the Primeval Savage_, p. 38, London, 1893; and W. Borlase, _The Dolmens of Ireland_, vol. iii., p. 922, London, 1897.]

[Footnote 355: De Quatrefages and Hamy, _Cr. Ethn._, p. 44; De Quatrefages, _Hist. Gén. Races Hum._, vol. i., p. 67; Hervé, _Rev. École. Anthr._, Paris, 1893, p. 173; 1894, p. 105; 1896, p. 97.]

[Footnote 356: Hervé, “Les brachycéphales néolith.,” _Rev. École. Anthr._, Paris, 1894, p. 393; and 1895, p. 18.]

[Footnote 357: J. Beddoe, _The Races of Britain_, Bristol-London, 1885, and “Hist. de l’indice ceph. dans les îles Britan.,” _L’Anthropol._, 1894, p. 513; Windle, _loc. cit._, p. 9; Inostrantsev, _Doïstoritcheskii_, _etc._ (_Prehistor. Man of Ladoga_), St. Petersburg, 1882, fig. and pl.]

[Footnote 358: Montelius, _Temps. préhist. en Suède_, p. 41, Paris, 1895; Cartailhac, _Âges préhist. Esp. et Portug._, p. 305, Paris, 1886; H. and S. Siret, _Prem. âges du métal dans le sud-est de l’Esp._, 3rd part (by V. Jacques), Antwerp, 1887.]

[Footnote 359: S. Reinach, “Mirage oriental,” _L’Anthropologie_, 1894, pp. 539 and 699; A. Evans, “Eastern Question,” _Rep. Brit. Assoc._, 1896, p. 911; Montelius, _loc. cit._; Much, “Die Kupferzeit in Europa,” Jena, 1893.]

[Footnote 360: A. Evans, _loc. cit._, “Eastern Question”; Sal. Reinach, _L’Anthropol._, 1893, p. 731; Montelius, “The Tyrrhenians, etc.,” _Jour. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxvi., 1897, p. 254, pl.; and “Pre-classic Chronology in Greece,” _ibid._, p. 261.]

[Footnote 361: This term, used first in Germany, is accepted by almost all men of science. The La Tène period corresponds pretty nearly with the “_âge Marnien_” of French archæologists and the _late Celtic_ of English archæologists. Cf. M. Hoernes, _Urgesch. d. Mensch._, chaps. viii. and ix., Vienna, 1892.]

[Footnote 362: Together with the Sards, the Turses are the only European peoples of which the Egyptian inscriptions anterior to the thirteenth century /B.C./ make mention, under the name of _Shordana_ and _Thursana_ (W. Max Müller, _Europa und Asien_, 1894).]

[Footnote 363: D’Arbois de Jubainville, _Les Anciens Habitants de l’Europe_, new ed., vol. i., p. 201, Paris.]

[Footnote 364: See for this history, Isaac Taylor, _The Origin of the Aryans_, chap. i., London, 1890, and S. Reinach, _L’origine des Aryens_, Paris, 1892.]

[Footnote 365: Th. Poesche, _Die Arier_, Jena, 1878; Penka, _Die Herkunft der Arier_, Vienna, 1886. This identification has been turned to account by several men of science, especially by O. Ammon (_loc. cit._) in Germany and V. de Lapouge (_Sélections sociales_, Paris, 1895) in France, in the construction of somewhat bold sociological theories.]

[Footnote 366: Osc. Schrader, _Sprachvergl. u. Urgesch._, 2nd ed., Jena, 1890.]

[Footnote 367: According to Hirt, “Die Urheimat ... d. Indogermanen,” _Geogr. Zeitsch._, vol. i., p. 649, Leipzig, 1895, the home of dispersion of the primitive Aryan language would be found to the north of the Carpathians, in the Letto-Lithuanian region. From this point two linguistic streams would start, flowing round the mountains to the west and east; the western stream, after spreading over Germany (Teutonic languages), left behind them the Celtic languages in the upper valley of the Danube, and filtered through on the one side into Italy (Latin languages), on the other side into Illyria, Albania, and Greece (Helleno-Illyrian languages). The eastern stream formed the Slav languages in the plains traversed by the Dnieper, then spread by way of the Caucasus into Asia (Iranian languages and Sanscrit). In this way we can account, on the one hand, for the less and less marked relationship between the different Aryan languages of the present day and the common primitive dialect, and, on the other hand, the diversity between the two groups of Aryan languages, western and eastern.]

[Footnote 368: A. Bertrand and S. Reinach, _Les Celtes dans la vallée du Pô, etc._, Paris, 1894.]

[Footnote 369: D’Arbois de Jubainville, _loc. cit._, vol. ii., p. 297.]

[Footnote 370: For particulars see J. Deniker, “Les Races de l’Europe,” _Bull. Soc. d’Anthropol._, 1897, pp. 189 and 291; _L’Anthropologie_, 1898, p. 113 (with map); and “Les Races de l’Europe,” first part, _L’indice Céphal._, Paris, 1899 (coloured map). Cf. Ripley, “Racial Geography of Europe,” _Appleton’s Popular Science Monthly_, New York, for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899.]

[Footnote 371: See in Appendices I. to III. the figures relative to the different populations of Europe, taken from the works referred to by me in the previous note.]

[Footnote 372: Sergi, _Origine ... Stirpe Mediterranea_, Rome, 1895.]

[Footnote 373: Houzé, “Caract. phys. des races européennes,” _Bull. Soc. Anthro._, Brussels, vol. ii., 1883, 1st part.]

[Footnote 374: R. Collignon, _Bull. Soc. Anthro._, Paris, 1883, p. 463, and _L’Anthropologie_, 1890, No. 2.]

[Footnote 375: Ch. de Tourtoulon and Bringuier, “Limite ... de la langue d’oc, etc.,” _Arch. Miss. Sc. Paris_, 1876. Cf. _Rev. École Anthr. Paris_, 1891, p. 218.]

[Footnote 376: Province of Namur, nearly the whole of the provinces of Hainault, Liège, and Luxemburg, as well as the southern part of Brabant. Cf. Bremer, _Nationalit. und Sprache in Belgien_ (with map), Stuttgart, 1887.]

[Footnote 377: H. Gaidoz, “Die französisch. Thäler Piemonts,” _Globus_, p. 59, 1891, with map; Sachier, _Le Français et le Provençal_ (Fr. trans. by Monet, Paris, 1891).]

[Footnote 378: F. Pullé, “Profilo antr. dell’ Italia,” _Archivo. p. Antr._, 1898 (with maps).]

[Footnote 379: Dr. N. Manolescu, _Igiena Teranului_ (Hygiene of the Rumanian peasant, an ethnographical inquiry), Bucharest, 1895; S. Weigand, _Die Aromunen_, vol. i., Leipzig, 1895 (with plates and maps).]

[Footnote 380: A. J. Ellis, _English Dialects_, London, 1890, two maps; and other publications of the English Dialect Society (1873-98).]

[Footnote 381: Almost all the two Flanders, the half to the north of Brabant, the provinces of Antwerp and of Limbourg. Cf. Bremer, _loc. cit._]

[Footnote 382: R. Andree, “Gränzen Niederd. Sprache,” _Globus_, 1891, vol. lix., No. 2.]

[Footnote 383: See Langhans, _Deutsch. Kolon. Atlas_, maps Nos. 3 to 7. For a comprehensive view of the Germans generally, see Ranke, _Der Mensch._, vol. ii. (Somat., Archeol.), and E. H. Meyer, “Deutsche Volkskunde” (Ethnography, Folk-lore), Strassburg, 1898; for the Austrians: _Oester.-Ung. Monarchie_, vols. iv. and vi., Vienna, 1886-89; and for the Bavarians, _Beiträge z. Anthr., etc., Bayerns_, Munich (1876-99).]

[Footnote 384: See for the Slav languages: A. Pypine and Spassovitch, _Istoria, etc._ (Hist. of Slavonic Literatures), St. Petersburg, 1879, 2 vols., of which there is a translation of the first in French by S. Denis (1881); for a slight general view: F. von Hellwand, _Die Welt der Slaven_, Berlin, 1890; Zograf, _Les peuples de la Russie_, Moscow (1895); and _Oester-Hung. Monarch._, vols. ix., xi., xiv., xv. (1891-96); for ethnogeny and archæology: Lubor Niederle, _O Puvodu Slovanu_ (Origin of the Slavs), Prague, 1897 (in Czech); and _Cheloviechestvo, etc._ (Prehistoric Man), Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1898.]

[Footnote 385: Beddoe, “The Kelts of Ireland,” _Journ. of Anthropol._, 1871, p. 117 (map); Broca, “La Question Celtique,” _Bull. Soc. Anthro. Paris_, 1873, pp. 313 and 247; Havelock Ellis, “The Men of Cornwall,” _New Century Review_, 1897, Nos. 4 and 5.]

[Footnote 386: T. Aranzadi, _El pueblo Escalduna_, San Sebastian, 1889 (maps); R. Collignon, “La Race Basque,” _L’Anthropologie_, vol. v., 1894, p. 276.]

[Footnote 387: _Oester.-Ung. Monarchie_, vols. v., ix., and xii., 1888-93.]

[Footnote 388: Retzius, _Finska Kranier_, Stockholm, 1878, pl. (with French summary); see also publications of the Finno-Ugrian Society of Helsingfors, etc.]

[Footnote 389: S. Sommier, _Un Estate in Siberia_, Florence, 1885; and _Archivo p. l’Antro._, vols. xvii. and xix. (1887-89); Maïnof, _Resooltaty_, etc. (_Anthr. and Jurid. Studies of the Mordva_); “Zapiski,” Russian Geog. Socy. (Ethnog. Sec.), vols. xi. and xiv. (1883-85); works of Smirnov on the Mordva, Cheremiss, etc., Fr. trans. by Boyer (Paris, 1897-98).]

[Footnote 390: P. Mantegazza and Sommier, _Studii antr. sui Lapponi_, Turin, 1880 (phot. pl.); “Notes on the Lapps,” by Prince R. Bonaparte, Keane, and Garson, _Jour. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xv., 1885, pp. 210 _et seq._; Montefiore, “The Samoyeds,” _Jour. Anthr. Inst._, vol. xxiv., 1895, p. 396; Zograf, “Esquisse des Samoyedes,” _Izviestia_ (_Bull._) _Soc. Friends. Nat. Sc._, Moscow, vol. xxxi., 1878-79, supl. (analysed in the _Rev. d’Anthr_., 1881); Sommier, _loc. cit._ (analysed _Rev. d’Ethnogr._), Paris, 1889.]

[Footnote 391: R. Erckert, _Der Kaukasus u. Seine Völker_, Leipzig, 1885 (with map); E. Chantre, _Rech. Anthropol., dans le Caucase_, Lyons, 1885-87, 4th vol., and atlas; Pantiukhof, “Obser. Anthr. au Caucase,” _Zapiski Caucasian Sec. of Russ. Geog. Soc._, vol. xv., Tiflis, 1893, phot.]

[Footnote 392: For particulars see Deniker, _loc. cit._ (_Races de l’Europe_).]