Chapter VI: Introduction: Ethnic Groups and Zoological Species

Difficulties in applying to Man the terms of zoological
nomenclature--Criterion of species--Terms to give to the
“Somatological Units” constituting the genus _Homo_--Monogenesis
and Polygenesis--The “Ethnic Groups” are constituted by
the different combinations of the “Somatological Units” or
“Races”--Somatic characters and ethnic characters.

The innumerable groups of mankind, massed together or scattered, according to the varying nature of the earth’s surface, are far from presenting a homogeneous picture. Every country has its own variety of physical type, language, manners, and customs. Thus, in order to exhibit a systematic view of all the peoples of the earth, it is necessary to observe a certain order in the study of these varieties, and to define carefully what is meant by such and such a descriptive term, having reference either to the physical type or to the social life of men. This we shall do in the subsequent chapters as we proceed to develop this slight sketch of the chief general facts of the physical and psychical life of man, and of the most striking social phenomena of the groups of mankind.

But there are some general terms which are of more importance than others, and their meaning should be clearly understood from the first. I refer to expressions like “people,” “nation,” “tribe,” “race,” “species,” in short, all the designations of the different groupings, real or theoretic, of human beings. Having defined them, we shall by so doing define the object of our studies.

Since ethnography and anthropology began to exist as sciences, an attempt has been made to determine and establish the great groups amongst which humanity might be divided. A considerable diversity of opinion, however, exists among leading scientific men not only as to the number of these groups, of these “primordial divisions” of the human race, but, above all, as to the very nature of these groups. Their significance, most frequently, is very vaguely indicated.

In zoology, when we proceed to classify, we have to do with beings which, in spite of slight individual differences, are easily grouped around a certain number of types, with well-defined characters, called “species.” An animal can always be found which will represent the “type” of its species. In all the great zoological collections there exist these “species-types,” to which individuals may be compared in order to decide if they belong to the supposed species. We have then in zoology a real substratum for the determination of species, those primordial units which are grouped afterwards in genera, families, orders, etc.

Is it the same for man? Whilst knowing that the zoological genus _Homo_ really exists quite distinct from the other genera of the animal kingdom, there still arises the question as to where the substratum is on which we must begin operations in order to determine the “species” of which this genus is composed. The only definite facts before us are these groups of mankind, dispersed over the whole habitable surface of the globe, to which are commonly given the names of peoples, nations, clans, tribes, etc. We have presented to us Arabs, Swiss, Australians, Bushmen, English, Siouan Indians, Negroes, etc., without knowing if each of these groups is on an equal footing from the point of view of classification.

Do these real and palpable groupings represent unions of individuals which, in spite of some slight dissimilarities, are capable of forming what zoologists call “species,” “sub-species,” “varieties,” in the case of wild animals, or “races” in the case of domestic animals? One need not be a professional anthropologist to reply negatively to this question. They are _ethnic groups_ formed by virtue of community of language, religion, social institutions, etc., which have the power of uniting human beings of one or several species, races, or varieties,[1] and are by no means zoological species; they may include human beings of one or of many species, races, or varieties.

Here, then, is the first distinction to make: the social groups that we are to describe in this work under the names of clans, tribes, nations, populations, and peoples, according to their numerical importance and the degree of complication of their social life, are formed for us by the union of individuals belonging usually to two, three, or a greater number of “somatological units.” These units are “theoretic types” formed of an aggregation of physical characters combined in a certain way. The separate existence of these units may be established by a minute analysis of the physical characters of a great number of individuals taken haphazard in any given “ethnic group.” Here are, then, entities, theoretic conceptions exactly like “species” in zoology; only instead of having within our reach the “types” of these species as in zoological collections, we are obliged to rest content with approximations thereto, for it is a very rare occurrence to meet with an individual representing the type of the somatological unit to which he belongs. Most frequently we have to do with subjects whose forms are altered by blendings and crossings, and in whom, setting aside two or three typical traits, we find only a confused mixture of characters presenting nothing striking. Ordinarily, the more peoples are civilised the more they are intermixed within certain territorial limits. Thus the number of “somatological units” is so much the greater when the “ethnic groups” are more civilised, and it is only among entirely primitive peoples that one may hope to find coincidence between the two terms. In reality, those peoples are almost undiscoverable who represent “somatological units” comparable to the “species” of zoology.

But, it may be asked, do you believe that your “somatological units” are comparable with “species”? Are they not simple “varieties” or “races”?

Without wishing to enter into a discussion of details, it seems to me that where the genus _Homo_ is concerned, one can neither speak of the “species,” the “variety,” nor the “race” in the sense that is usually attributed to these words in zoology or in zootechnics.

In effect, in these two sciences, the terms “species” and “variety” are applied to wild animals living solely under the influence of nature; whilst the term “race” is given in a general way to the groups of domestic animals living under artificial conditions created by an alien will, that of man, for a well-defined object.

Let us see to which of these two categories man, considered as an animal, may be assimilated.

By this single fact, that even at the very bottom of the scale of civilisation man possesses articulate speech, fashions tools, and forms himself into rudimentary societies, he is emancipated from a great number of influences which Nature exerts over the wild animal; he lives, up to a certain point, in an artificial environment created by himself. On the other hand, precisely because these artificial conditions of life are not imposed upon him by a will existing outside himself, because his evolution is not directed by a “breeder” or a “domesticator,” man cannot be compared with domestic animals as regards the modifications of his corporeal structure.

The data relating to the formation of varieties, species, and races can therefore be applied to the morphological study of man only with certain reservations.

This being established, let us bear in mind that even the distinction between the species, the variety (geographical or otherwise), and the race is anything but clearly marked. Besides, this is a question that belongs to the domain of general biology, and it is no more settled in botany or in zoology than in anthropology. The celebrated botanist, Naegeli, has even proposed to suppress this distinction, and definitely show the identical nature of all these divisions by instituting his _great_ and _small species_.[2]

The idea of “species” must rest on the knowledge of two orders of facts, the morphological resemblances of beings and the lineal transmission of their distinctive characters. Here, in fact, the formula of Cuvier is still in force to-day in science. “The species is the union of individuals _descending one from the other or from common parents_, and of those who resemble them as much as they resemble each other.”[3] (I have italicised the passage relating to descent.) It is necessary then that beings, in order to form a species, should be like each other, but it is obvious that this resemblance cannot be absolute, for there are not two plants or two animals in nature which do not differ from each other by some detail of structure; the likeness or unlikeness is then purely relative; it is bound to vary within certain limits.

But what are these limits? Here we are on the verge of the arbitrary, for there exists no fixed rule determining the point to which individual unlikeness may go in order to be considered as characteristic of a species. A difference which entitles one zoologist to create a species hardly suffices, according to another, to constitute a “variety,” a “sub-species,” or a “race.” As to the second criterion of species drawn from the transmission and the descent of characters, it is theoretic rather than practical. Without dwelling on the numerous examples of “varieties” as fertile among themselves as “species,”[4] let us ask ourselves how many zoologists or botanists have verified experimentally the fertility of the species which they have created. In the large majority of cases, the species of plants and animals have been established solely from morphological characters, very often from the examination of dead specimens, and without any guarantee that the beings in question proceeded from common parents and that when crossed they would be fertile or not.

In the case of man, as in that of the majority of plants and animals, fertility or non-fertility among the different groups has not been experimentally proved, to enable us to decide if they should be called “races” or “species.” To a dozen facts in favour of one of the solutions, and to general theories in regard to half-breeds, can be opposed an equal number of facts, and the idea, not less general, of reversion to the primitive type.[5] And again, almost all the facts in question are borrowed from cross-breeding between the Whites and other races. No one has ever tried cross-breeding between the Australians and the Lapps, or between the Bushmen and the Patagonians, for example. If certain races are indefinitely fertile among themselves (which has not yet been clearly shown), it may be there are others which are not so.[6] A criterion of descent being unobtainable, the question of the rank to be assigned to the genus _Homo_ is confined to a morphological criterion, to the differences in physical type.

According to some, these differences are sufficiently pronounced for each group to form a “species”; according to others they are of such a nature as only to form racial distinctions. Thus it is left to the personal taste of each investigator what name be given to these.

We cannot do better than cite upon this point the opinion of a writer of admitted authority. “It is almost a matter of indifference,” says Darwin, “whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or ranked as ‘species’ or ‘sub-species,’ but the latter term appears the most appropriate.”[7] The word “race” having been almost universally adopted nowadays to designate the different physical types of mankind, I shall retain it in preference to that of “sub-species,” while reiterating that there is no essential difference between these two words and the word “species.”

From what has just been said, the question whether humanity forms a single species divided into varieties or races, or whether it forms several species, loses much of its importance.

The whole of this ancient controversy between monogenists and polygenists seems to be somewhat scholastic, and completely sterile and futile; the same few and badly established facts are always reappearing, interpreted in such and such a fashion by each disputant according to the necessities of his thesis, sometimes led by considerations which are extra-scientific. Perhaps in the more or less near future, when we shall have a better knowledge of present and extinct races of man, as well as of living and of fossil animal species most nearly related to man, we shall be able to discuss the question of origin. At the present time we are confined to hypothesis without a single positive fact for the solution of the problem. We have merely to note how widely the opinions of the learned differ in regard to the origin of race of certain domestic animals, such as the dog, the ox, or the horse, to get at once an idea of the difficulty of the problem. And yet, in these cases, we are dealing with questions much less complicated and much more carefully studied.

Moreover, whether we admit variety, unity or plurality of species in the genus _Homo_ we shall always be obliged to recognise the positive fact of the existence in mankind of several somatological units having each a character of its own, the combinations and the intermingling of which constitute the different ethnic groups. Thus the monogenists, even the most intractable, as soon as they have established hypothetically a single species of man, or of his “precursor,” quickly cause the species to evolve, under the influence of environment, into three or four or a greater number of primitive “stocks,” or “types,” or “races,”--in a word, into somatological units which, intermingling, form “peoples,” and so forth.

We can sum up what has just been said in a few propositions. On examining attentively the different “ethnic groups” commonly called “peoples,” “nations,” “tribes,” etc., we ascertain that they are distinguished from each other especially by their language, their mode of life, and their manners; and we ascertain besides that the same traits of physical type are met with in two, three, or several groups, sometimes considerably removed the one from the other in point of habitat. On the other hand, we almost always see in these groups some variations of type so striking that we are led to admit the hypothesis of the formation of such groups by the blending of several distinct somatological units.

It is to these units that we give the name “races,” using the word in a very broad sense, different from that given to it in zoology and zootechnics. It is a sum-total of somatological characteristics once met with in a real union of individuals, now scattered in fragments of varying proportions among several “ethnic groups,” from which it can no longer be differentiated except by a process of delicate analysis.

The differences between “races” are shown in the somatological characteristics which are the resultant of the continual struggle in the individual of two factors: variability, that is to say, the production of the dissimilar; and heredity, that is to say, the perpetuation of the similar. There are the differences in outer form, in the anatomical structure, and in the physiological functions manifested in individuals. Thus the study of these characters is based on man considered as an _individual_ of a zoological group. On the other hand, the differences between the ethnical groups are the product of evolutions subject to other laws than those of biology--laws still very dimly apprehended. They manifest themselves in ethnical, linguistic, or social characteristics. The study of them is based on the grouping of individuals in _societies_.

To study these two categories of characteristics, either in their general aspect as a whole, or in describing successively the different peoples, is to study mankind with the object of trying to assign the limits to the “races” constituting the ethnical groups, and to sketch the reciprocal relations and connections of these groups with each other.

The science which concerns itself more especially with the somatological characteristics of the genus _Homo_, whether considered as a whole in his relation to other animals, or in his varieties, bears the name of _anthropology_; that which deals with the ethnical characteristics is called _ethnography_ in some countries and _ethnology_ in others.

This latter science should concern itself with human societies under all their aspects; but as history, political economy, etc., have already taken possession of the study of civilised peoples, there only remain for it the peoples without a history, or those who have not been adequately treated by historians. However, there is a convergence of characters in mankind, and we find even to-day the trace of savagery in the most civilised peoples. Ethnical facts must not then be considered separately. We must compare them either among different peoples, or, down the course of the ages, in the same people, without concerning ourselves with the degree of actual civilisation attained.

Certain authors make a distinction between ethnography and ethnology, saying the first aims at describing peoples or the different stages of civilisation, while the second should explain these stages and formulate the general laws which have governed the beginning and the evolution of such stages. Others make a like distinction in anthropology, dividing it theoretically into “special” and “general,” the one describing races, and the other dealing with the descent of these races and of mankind as a whole.[8] But these divisions are purely arbitrary, and in practice it is impossible to touch on one without having given at least a summary of the other. The two points of view, descriptive and speculative, cannot be treated separately. A science cannot remain content with a pure and simple description of unconnected facts, phenomena, and objects. It requires at least a classification, explanations, and, afterwards, the deduction of general laws. In the same way, it would be puerile to build up speculative systems without laying a solid foundation drawn from the study of facts. Already the distinction between the somatic and the ethnic sciences is embarrassing; thus psychological and linguistic phenomena refer as much to the individual as to societies. They might, strictly speaking, be the subject of a special group of sciences. In the same way, the facts drawn from the somatic and ethnic studies of extinct races are the subject of a separate science--Palethnography, otherwise Prehistory, or Prehistoric Archæology.

The object of this book being the description of ethnical groups now existing on the earth, and of the races which compose them, the title of “Ethnography” might fitly be given to it in conformity with the classifications which have just been mentioned. Nevertheless, it contains in its early chapters a summary, as it were, of what these classifications style “General Anthropology and Ethnology,” for the descriptions of the several peoples can scarcely be understood if we have not in the first instance given at least a general idea of the somatic as well as the ethnic characters which serve to distinguish them.