On the various methods of Research which contribute to the Advancement of Ethnology, and of the relations of that Science to other branches of Knowledge. By JAMES COWLES PRICHARD, M.D., F.R.S. &c.

It may be remembered that in the series of reports on the progress of science in its different departments, comprised in the first volume of the 'Transactions of the British Association,' there was one memoir on the contributions afforded by physical and philological researches to ethnology and the history of the human species. The admission of that paper by the editors of the Transactions, gave those persons who had made ethnology their favourite pursuit some ground for hope, that this would for the future be among the recognised branches of knowledge, for the cultivation of which provision would be made at the meetings of the Association. It is almost needless to say that this hope was disappointed, and that no arrangements having been adopted for the discussion of ethnological questions, some very elaborate memoirs sent to the meetings of the Association, by distinguished scholars, were returned without having obtained a hearing*. It was not until after several annual meetings had taken place, that it was determined to afford an opportunity for the pursuit of ethnological inquiries by making for that purpose a subdivision of one of the sections devoted to natural history or physiology.

There seemed to be an obvious propriety of systematic arrangement in contemplating the natural history and physiology of man as forming but a part of the study of living nature in general. Physiology, in the sense which modern writers attach to that term, has a comprehensive meaning, though a more restricted one than its original acceptation. The physiologia of the ancients comprised the knowledge of nature in all its departments. Modern writers have divided this universal science into two great provinces, and they have termed the study of one "natural philosophy," and that of the other "physiology." They have observed that the objects respectively contemplated by these sciences differ from each other in the manner of their existence. Permanence and identity of being is the attribute of one class; the characteristic of the other is successive generation and decay. Perpetuity of existence, so far as our experience of time extends, simplicity of structure, and preservation of the same form and state, unless changed by external agency, belong alike to the smallest molecules of the unorganized world and to those great masses, which, age after age, revolving in the heavens, have offered themselves to the view of countless generations. Natural philosophy claims this division of created things and leaves to physiology those beings which have a less permanent duration, which exist in successive generations destined, one after another, to rise, flourish, and decay, which, beginning from ova or seeds, grow to a definite extent by accretion of particles from without, assume a particular form, subsist in perfection for a definite space of time, and then, after giving origin to new germs or rudiments, prepared according to certain fixed laws to secure the continued existence of each tribe, fall at length a prey to the dissolving powers of the external elements. These are the common properties of all organized beings. The theory of these processes constitutes the physiology of modern times, and it is obvious that the physical relations and the natural history of man come within these limits. If, therefore, the real scope of ethnology were merely an inquiry into the physical

* Among them may be mentioned a memoir by Dr. West, a distinguished member of the Royal Irish Academy, on the races of men who formed the original population of the British Islands.

constitution of human tribes in comparison with each other, as it appears to have been supposed, there would be an obvious propriety in making this study a subdivision of physiology or the science of organic nature.

But those who have devoted their attention to that pursuit are well-aware that the objects of ethnology are very distinct from the study of organic nature or physiology. Ethnology is, in fact, more nearly allied to history than to natural science. Ethnology professes to give an account, not of what nature produces in the present day, but of what she has produced in times long since past. It is an attempt to trace the history of tribes and races of men from the most remote periods which are within the reach of investigation, to discover their mutual relations, and to arrive at conclusions, either certain or probable, as to their affinity or diversity of origin. All this belongs rather to archæology than to the science of nature. It is true that many of the subordinate investigations by means of which we collect data for ethnological inductions are within the province of physiological science. The facts and analogies which natural history and physiology present, furnish in many instances the data or the arguments on which the conclusions of the ethnologist are founded. These contributions of natural history and natural science are, however, but a part of the resources of which the student of ethnology avails himself, and we shall find that he borrows fully as much from other departments of knowledge, quite separate from the study of nature and her productions. The results, moreover, at which he arrives do not fall within any department of natural science. They are archæological or historical. It may, therefore, be contended that in strict propriety they scarcely find their place in the great system of scientific inquiries which are the objects of the British Association.

But ethnology has at least one claim to be admitted in the list of such inquiries, since it stands, in these respects, precisely on the same ground as one of the most popular of the studies which are cultivated by the British Association, and it would be impossible to deny a place to one of these pursuits and concede it to the other without a manifest inconsistency. By comparing the position of ethnology to that of geology, we shall be enabled to survey in a clear point of view the relations which both of these studies bear to other branches of human knowledge.

Geology is, like ethnology, a history of the past. It is an investigation of the changes which the surface of our planet has undergone, while, from being a mass of inorganic matter, it became, through successive revolutions, gradually fitted to be the birth-place of beings endowed with faculties which fit them to contemplate and admire the order of the universe and recognise its Divine Maker. The arguments on which the student of geology builds up his theory, are facts collected by observation from various departments of natural history and science. He inquires into the operations which nature carries on in the present day; but this is with the view of applying the information so acquired to inductions as to what happened in past times, and of tracing in the different layers of the earth's crust the series of catastrophes and renovations which it has undergone. This investigation evidently belongs to archæology or to the history of the past. By a learned writer, whose name is recorded for ever in the annals of the British Association (the Reverend Dr. Whewell), the appropriate epithet of paleontology has been assigned to this department of knowledge. "Paleontology," for which "physical archæology" is a synonym, includes both geology and ethnology. The former is the archæology of the globe; the latter that of its human inhabitants. Both derive a part of their materials from different divisions of natural history. But ethnology, as I have remarked, obtains resources for

the history of nations and of mankind from many other quarters. It derives information from the works of ancient historians, and still more from the study of languages and their affiliations. The history of languages, indeed, greatly extended as it has been in late times, has furnished unexpected resources for the improvement of ethnology, which could hardly have advanced a few steps without such aid. As geology would have been a barren and uninteresting study, and uncertain in most of its results without the aids which the study of organic remains has unexpectedly afforded, serving to identify geological formations and to connect particular series of rocks with periods in the world's history; so it has been through discoveries in the relations of languages that the ethnologist is enabled to trace alliances between nations scattered over distant regions of the earth, of whose connections with each other he would have had no idea without such evidence.

In the hope of illustrating the view of this subject which I have thus pointed out, I shall now take a brief survey of the whole field of these researches, and shall endeavour to form some idea of the resources which each department of knowledge is capable of furnishing towards the advancement of ethnology. But here, in the outset, I must crave the indulgence of those who are already conversant with the history and progress of this science, since it will be impossible for me to accomplish the task which I have undertaken without saying much that must to such persons be already well known and familiar.

In the first place, I shall advert to the aids which the study of living nature, or of the organized world, has furnished in aid of these inquiries.

The assistance of anatomy is obviously indispensable in the promotion of ethnological inquiries. Many writers, indeed, seem to have regarded ethnology as consisting principally of the comparative anatomy of different races of men, and they have devoted their attention almost exclusively to diversities in anatomical structures supposed to distinguish particular tribes. The first attempt to point out such distinctive characters on any scientific method was that of the celebrated anatomist Camper. Every one knows that the distinguishing character pointed out by this writer was founded on the shape of the skull and the measurement of the facial angle. The facial angle of Camper is included between two lines, one of which is drawn from the passage of the ear to the basis of the nose, and the other is a line slanting off from the forehead to the mouth, or rather to the most advanced point of the upper jaw-bone. This angle was thought to afford a measure of the capacity of the anterior part of the skull, and of the size of the corresponding portion of the brain. Camper, who had within his reach very few skulls for examination, thought that he found this angle of different extent in different classes of human heads. He found that skulls of Europeans, when thus measured, gave an angle of 80o, the skull of a Kalmuk one of 75o, and the skull of a Negro one of only 70°. He observed that there are forms of the head in which the angle appeared to be greater than it is in the European, and others in which it is less than in the Negro. Those which have it greater than it is in the European, and in which it amounts to 90°, are the ideal heads of Grecian gods, forms not existing in nature; and the first among the skulls in which this angle is less than in the Negro are those of apes. In these last the angle was estimated by Camper at 64°, 63°, or 60°. Camper accordingly thought that he had found in the skulls of Negroes a type intermediate between the cranium of the European man and that of the Orang. But in this he was mistaken. The supposed gradation exists only when skulls are compared which have the infantile form, or before dentition is complete. After the period of dentition, when the jaws have obtained their full deve

lopement, the difference in the facial angle in the heads of apes and in those human skulls in which it has the smallest measurement, becomes enormous. In the Troglodyte the angle is 35°, and in the Orang or Satyr it is only 30°, as we learn from the measurements of Professor Owen.

The venerable Blumenbach, whose name will never be forgotten so long as ethnology shall be a subject of study, was really the father of this science. He was the first who possessed, or rather with immense labour and assiduity collected, the materials requisite for instituting an accurate inquiry into the physical differences of the various races of men. Blumenbach divided the forms of the human head into five varieties. He designated them, not as it would perhaps have been better to have done in the first instance, by descriptive epithets, but by the names of the races of people to which they belonged, or of the regions of the world whence these races were supposed to have originated. The Caucasian form was so termed from Mount Caucasus, to which Blumenbach observed that ancient traditions refer the origin of many celebrated nations. He supposed this to be the primitive type of the human skull, and regarded the other forms as degenerations from it. These were the Mongolian, the American, the Ethiopian, and the Malayan. The five forms were supposed to prevail through five divisions of mankind, comprising between them the whole human family. This distribution was complete so far as the ethnographical knowledge of the time allowed it to be; but it would be necessary in the present day to enumerate many additional varieties in the shape of the skull, and to constitute additional human races, if we would follow the same method and adapt it to the present state of our acquaintance with distant regions of the earth and their inhabitants. On this remark I shall not enlarge at present, since I shall have, in the sequel, to advert to many of the facts which bear upon it. Blumenbach's delineations of skulls were admirable, and his descriptions of the forms supposed to be most prevalent are invaluable. There is, however, one very important view of the shape of the head which he seems to have overlooked. In comparing the heads of human races with those of apes, the form of the basis of the skull should be examined, since this displays, in the most striking manner, the immense difference between the structure of the human head and that of the inferior tribes. This was first pointed out by Professor Owen. The same comparison is by no means to be neglected in the observation of the distinctive characters of nations.

The latest classification of skulls, with a view to the discrimination of national varieties, is that proposed by Professor Retzius of Stockholm, an ingenious and able anatomist and a very estimable man, who has lately devoted his talents to this investigation. Professor Retzius's researches are well known, and it is quite needless for me to recapitulate his results. They are particularly interesting in one point of view, not contemplated, as it would appear, by the excellent author, I allude to the fact, that he seems to have established distinctions in the forms of the skull between nations, who, though for many ages separate, are historically known to have descended from the same original stock.

The head, as it is well known, is not the only part of the human body which displays different forms in different human tribes. Varieties in stature and in the proportion of the limbs-in the form of the pelvis and other parts of the bony structure-as well as in the skin, the hair, and other textures, are well known to distinguish races from each other. With respect to all these differences anatomical researches have been made which have an obvious bearing on ethnology.

In the next place I must advert to the aids for the cultivation of ethnology

which are contributed by animal physiology, or the theory of the animal œconomy. It will be found that there are many relations between this branch of knowledge and the pursuits of the ethnologist. One series of inquiries which he must elucidate is, whether the great laws of the animal œconomy are the same in respect to all human races; whether any particular race differs from others in regard to the duration of life and the various periodical changes of constitution, and in the system of physical functions generally; and whether such diversities, if found to exist, can be explained by reference to external agencies, or imply original difference, and form, therefore, specific characters. Another inquiry connected with physiology is, whether variations of form, colour, &c. can be explained by reference to any known principle, and how far, and under what conditions, they are transmitted to posterity, and may therefore assist us in explaining the origination of particular breeds or tribes, marked by some hereditary personal characters.

Natural history, and especially zoology, opens the ground of several inquiries very important in the study of ethnology.

We must take account, for example, of the variations of form and organization to which the different species of animals are subject, in order to solve the question, whether the differences observed in human races, when compared with each other, are analogous to the natural varieties which spring up in tribes of animals, or are such as indicate an entire distinction from the era of creation, and therefore prove the species to be separate?

Another observation connected with this department of knowledge has been brought to bear on the inquiry respecting identity and diversity of species, I allude to the facts connected with hybridity, or the supposed sterility of animals which are the offspring of parents belonging to distinct species. It is well known that mules are generally barren; and if it were ascertained that the same observation holds good of all other hybrids, a criterion of the identity or diversity of species would be at once obtained. This was after the time of Hunter a received doctrine among naturalists. So many exceptions however had been asserted to exist to the supposed law, that many physiologists of the age of Blumenbach abandoned this doctrine of hybridity as a criterion for the discrimination of species. Perhaps they were somewhat hasty in giving up a principle which was not untenable, and only required some modification in order to be still an argument of great value in the inquiry respecting species. Whatever exceptions may occur to the supposed universal sterility of hybrids, certain it is that there must be some provision in the constitution of organized beings tending to keep their breeds distinct and prevent the amalgamation of really separate kinds. If distinct reproduction had not been the law of organic nature, there would have arisen in the lapse of ages a complete confusion of races in the animal and vegetable worlds, and there would have been scarcely a single tribe of distinct and unmixed descent. In fact, hybrid tribes exist not in nature, and there must be some natural impediment to their production. The important bearing of this observation on the question respecting species in the human family must be obvious to those who consider how often it has been asserted and denied that Mulattos are incapable of propagating their offspring through many generations, and that the mixed descendants of the Spaniards and the aborigines of South America are comparatively unprolific. The present would not be a fit occasion for entering on the discussion of these assertions, and I shall pass from the subject, after remarking that the existence and rapid multiplication of several mixed human races, as that of the Confusos in the Brazils, and the