* A Distributed Proofreaders Canada eBook *

This ebook is made available at no cost and with very few restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make a change in the ebook (other than alteration for different display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of the ebook. If either of these conditions applies, please contact a FP administrator before proceeding.

This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your country's copyright laws. IF THE BOOK IS UNDER COPYRIGHT IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS FILE.

This ebook was produced by: Alison Hadwin, Delphine Lettau, David T. Jones, Alex White & the online Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at http://www.pgdpcanada.net

 

 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

 

NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO · DALLAS

ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO

 

MACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA · MADRAS

MELBOURNE

 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

OF CANADA, Limited

TORONTO

PREFACE

Anthropology, the science of man, is often held to be a subject that may satisfy our curiosity regarding the early history of mankind, but of no immediate bearing upon problems that confront us. This view has always seemed to me erroneous. Growing up in our own civilization we know little how we ourselves are conditioned by it, how our bodies, our language, our modes of thinking and acting are determined by limits imposed upon us by our environment. Knowledge of the life processes and behavior of man under conditions of life fundamentally different from our own can help us to obtain a freer view of our own lives and of our life problems. The dynamics of life have always been of greater interest to me than the description of conditions, although I recognize that the latter must form the indispensable material on which to base our conclusions.

My endeavors have largely been directed by this point of view. In the following pages I have collected such of my writings as, I hope, will prove the validity of my point of view.

The material presented here is not intended to show a chronological development. The plan is rather to throw light on the problems treated. General discussions are followed by reports on special investigations on the results of which general viewpoints are based.

On the whole I have left the statements as they first appeared. Only in the discussion of the problems of stability of races and of growth which extend over many years, has scattered material been combined. In these the mathematical problems have been omitted and diagrams have been substituted for numerical tables. Here and there reviews and controversies have been included where they seemed relevant and of importance for the clearer statement of theories.

The terms “race” and “racial” are throughout used in the sense that they mean the assembly of genetic lines represented in a population.

It is natural that the earlier papers do not include data available at the present time. I have not made any changes by introducing new material because it seemed to me that the fundamental theoretical treatment of problems is still valid. In a few cases footnotes in regard to new investigations or criticisms of the subject matter have been added.

I have included two very early general papers at the end of the book because they indicate the general attitude underlying my later work.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Alexander Lesser whose help and advice in the selection of material has been of greatest value.

Franz Boas

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RACE

LANGUAGE

CULTURE

MISCELLANEOUS

ILLUSTRATIONS

CHANGES IN BODILY FORM OF DESCENDANTS OF IMMIGRANTS

THE TEMPO OF GROWTH OF FRATERNITIES

GROWTH

THE HALF-BLOOD INDIAN

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF THE KWAKIUTL

RELATIONSHIP SYSTEM OF THE VANDAU

THE DECORATIVE ART OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS

DECORATIVE DESIGNS OF ALASKAN NEEDLECASES

THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE ESKIMOS OF EAST GREENLAND

RACE AND PROGRESS^[1]

Permit me to call your attention to the scientific aspects of a problem that has been for a long time agitating our country and which, on account of its social and economic implications, has given rise to strong emotional reactions and has led to varied types of legislation. I refer to the problems due to the intermingling of racial types.

If we wish to reach a reasonable attitude, it is necessary to separate clearly the biological and psychological aspects from the social and economic implications of this problem. Furthermore, the social motivation of what is happening must be looked at not from the narrow point of view of our present conditions but from a wider angle.

The facts with which we are dealing are diverse. The plantation system of the South brought to our shores a large Negro population. Considerable mixture between White masters and slave women occurred during the period of slavery, so that the number of pure Negroes was dwindling continually and the colored population gradually became lighter. A certain amount of intermingling between White and Indian took place, but in the United States and Canada this has never occurred to such a degree that it became an important social phenomenon. In Mexico and many parts of Central and South America it is the most typical case of race contact and race mixture. With the development of immigration the people of eastern and southern Europe were attracted to our country and form now an important part of our population. They differ in type somewhat among themselves, although the racial contrasts are much less than those between Indians or Negroes and Whites. Through Mexican and West Indian immigration another group has come into our country, partly of South European, partly of mixed Negro and mixed Indian descent. To all these must be added the East Asiatic groups, Chinese, Japanese and Filipinos, who play a particularly important rôle on the Pacific Coast.

The first point in regard to which we need clarification refers to the significance of the term race. In common parlance when we speak of a race we mean a group of people that have certain bodily and perhaps also mental characteristics in common. The Whites, with their light skin, straight or wavy hair and high nose, are a race set off clearly from the Negroes with their dark skin, frizzly hair and flat nose. In regard to these traits the two races are fundamentally distinct. Not quite so definite is the distinction between East Asiatics and European types, because transitional forms do occur among normal White individuals, such as flat faces, straight black hair and eye forms resembling the East Asiatic types; and conversely European-like traits are found among East Asiatics. For Negro and White we may speak of hereditary racial traits so far as these radically distinct features are concerned. For Whites and East Asiatics the difference is not quite so absolute, because a few individuals may be found in each race for whom the racial traits do not hold good, so that in a strict sense we cannot speak of absolutely valid hereditary racial traits.

This condition prevails to a much more marked extent among the different, so-called races of Europe. We are accustomed to speak of a Scandinavian as tall, blond and blue-eyed, of a South Italian as short, swarthy and dark-eyed; of a Bohemian as middle-sized, with brown or gray eyes and wide face and straight hair. We are apt to construct ideal local types which are based on our everyday experience, abstracted from a combination of forms that are most frequently seen in a given locality, and we forget that there are numerous individuals for whom this description does not hold true. It would be a rash undertaking to determine the locality in which a person is born solely from his bodily characteristics. In many cases we may be helped in such a determination by manners of wearing the hair, peculiar mannerisms of motion, and by dress, but these are not to be mistaken for essential hereditary traits. In populations of various parts of Europe many individuals may be found that may as well belong to one part of the continent as to another. There is no truth in the contention so often made that two Englishmen are more alike in bodily form than, let us say, an Englishman and a German. A greater number of forms may be duplicated in the narrower area, but similar forms may be found in all parts of the continent. There is an overlapping of bodily form between the local groups. It is not justifiable to assume that the individuals that do not fit into the ideal local type which we construct from general impressions are foreign elements in the population, that their presence is always due to intermixture with alien types. It is a fundamental characteristic of all local populations that the individuals differ among themselves, and a closer study shows that this is true of animals as well as of men. It is, therefore, not quite proper to speak in these cases of traits that are hereditary in the racial type as a whole, because too many of them occur also in other racial types. Hereditary racial traits should be shared by the whole population so that it is set off against others.

The matter is quite different when individuals are studied as members of their own family lines. Racial heredity implies that there must be a unity of descent, that there must have existed at one time a small number of ancestors of definite bodily form, from whom the present population has descended. It is quite impossible to reconstruct this ancestry through the study of a modern population, but the study of families extending over several generations is often possible. Whenever this study has been undertaken we find that the family lines represented in a single population differ very much among themselves. In isolated communities where the same families have intermarried for generations the differences are less than in larger communities. We may say that every racial group consists of a great many family lines which are distinct in bodily form. Some of these family lines are duplicated in neighboring territories and the more duplication exists the less is it possible to speak of fundamental racial characteristics. These conditions are so manifest in Europe that all we can do is to study the frequency of occurrence of various family lines all over the continent. The differences between the family lines belonging to each larger area are much greater than the differences between the populations as a whole.

Although it is not necessary to consider the great differences in type that occur in a population as due to mixture of different types, it is easy to see that intermingling has played an important part in the history of modern populations. Let us recall to our minds the migrations that occurred in early times in Europe, when the Kelts of Western Europe swept over Italy and eastward to Asia Minor; when the Teutonic tribes migrated from the Black Sea westward into Italy, Spain and even into North Africa; when the Slav expanded northeastward over Russia, and southward into the Balkan Peninsula; when the Moors held a large part of Spain, when Roman and Greek slaves disappeared in the general population, and when Roman colonization affected a large part of the Mediterranean area. It is interesting to note that Spain’s greatness followed the period of greatest race mixture, that its decline set in when the population became stable and immigration stopped. This might give us pause when we speak about the dangers of the intermingling of European types. What is happening in America now is the repetition on a larger scale and in a shorter time of what happened in Europe during the centuries when the people of northern Europe were not yet firmly attached to the soil.

The actual occurrence of intermingling leads us to consider what the biological effect of intermixture of different types may be. Much light has been shed on this question through the intensive study of the phenomena of heredity. It is true we are hampered in the study of heredity in man by the impossibility of experimentation, but much can be learned from observation and through the application of studies of heredity in animals and plants. One fact stands out clearly. When two individuals are mated and there is a very large number of offspring and when furthermore there is no disturbing environmental factor, then the distribution of different forms in the offspring is determined by the genetic characteristics of the parents. What may happen after thousands of generations have passed does not concern us here.

Our previous remarks regarding the characteristics of local types show that matings between individuals essentially different in genetic type must occur in even the most homogeneous population. If it could be shown, as is sometimes claimed, that the progeny of individuals of decidedly distinct proportions of the body would be what has been called disharmonic in character, this would occur with considerable frequency in every population, for we do find individuals, let us say, with large jaws and large teeth and those with small jaws and small teeth. If it is assumed that in the later offspring these conditions might result in a combination of small jaws and large teeth a disharmony would develop. We do not know that this actually occurs. It merely illustrates the line of reasoning. In matings between various European groups these conditions would not be materially changed, although greater differences between parents would be more frequent than in a homogeneous population.

The essential question to be answered is whether we have any evidence that would indicate that matings between individuals of different descent and different type would result in a progeny less vigorous than that of their ancestors. We have not had any opportunity to observe any degeneracy in man as clearly due to this cause. The high nobility of all parts of Europe can be shown to be of very mixed origin. French, German and Italian urban populations are derived from all the distinct European types. It would be difficult to show that any degeneracy that may exist among them is due to an evil effect of intermating. Biological degeneracy is found rather in small districts of intense inbreeding. Here again it is not so much a question of type, but of the presence of pathological conditions in the family strains, for we know of many perfectly healthy and vigorous intensely inbred communities. We find these among the Eskimos and also among many primitive tribes among whom cousin marriages are prescribed by custom.

These remarks do not touch upon the problem of the effect of intermarriages upon bodily form, health and vigor of crosses between races that are biologically more distinct than the types of Europe. It is not quite easy to give absolutely conclusive evidence in regard to this question. Judging merely on the basis of anatomical features and health conditions of mixed populations there does not seem to be any reason to assume unfavorable results, either in the first or in later generations of offspring. The mixed descendants of Europeans and American Indians are taller and more fertile than the pureblood Indians. They are even taller than either parental race. The mixed blood Dutch and Hottentot of South Africa and the Malay mixed bloods of the Island of Kisar are in type intermediate between the two races, and do not exhibit any traits of degeneracy. The populations of the Sudan, mixtures of Mediterranean and Negro types, have always been characterized by great vigor. There is also little doubt that in eastern Russia a considerable infusion of Asiatic blood has occurred. The biological observations on our North American mulattoes do not convince us that there is any deleterious effect of race mixture so far as it is evident in anatomical form and function.

It is also necessary to remember that in varying environment human forms are not absolutely stable, and many of the anatomical traits of the body are subject to a limited amount of change according to climate and conditions of life. We have definite evidence showing changes of bodily size. The stature in European populations has increased materially since the middle of the nineteenth century. War and starvation have left their effects upon the children growing up in the second decade of our century. Proportions of the body change with occupation. The forms of the hand of the laborer and that of the musician reflect their occupations. The changes in head form that have been observed are analogous to those observed in animals under varying conditions of life, among lions born in captivity or among rats fed with different types of diet. The extent to which geographical and social environment may change bodily form is not known, but the influences of outer conditions have to be taken into consideration when comparing different human types.

Selective processes are also at work in changing the character of a population. Differential birth-rate, mortality and migration may bring about changes in the hereditary composition of a group. The range of such changes is limited by the range of variation within the original population. The importance of selection upon the character of a population is easily overestimated. It is true enough that certain defects are transmitted by heredity, but it cannot be proved that a whole population degenerates physically by the numerical increase of degenerates. These always include the physically unfit, and others, the victims of circumstances. The economic depression of our days shows clearly how easily perfectly competent individuals may be brought into conditions of abject poverty and under stresses that only the most vigorous minds can withstand successfully. Equally unjustified is the opinion that war, the struggle between national groups, is a selective process which is necessary to keep mankind on the onward march. Sir Arthur Keith, only a week ago, in his rectoral address at the University of Aberdeen is reported to have said that “Nature keeps her human orchard healthy by pruning and war is her pruning hook.” I do not see how such a statement can be justified in any way. War eliminates the physically strong, war increases all the devastating scourges of mankind such as tuberculosis and genital diseases, war weakens the growing generation. History shows that energetic action of masses may be released not only by war but also by other forces. We may not share the fervor or believe in the stimulating ideals; the important point is to observe that they may arouse the same kind of energy that is released in war. Such a stimulus was the abandonment to religion in the middle ages, such is the abandonment of modern Russian youths to their ideal.

So far we have discussed the effects of heredity, environment and selection upon bodily form. We are not so much concerned with the form of the body as with its functions, for in the life of a nation the activities of the individual count rather than his appearance. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a very definite association between the biological make-up of the individual and the physiological and psychological functioning of his body. The claim that only social and other environmental conditions determine the reactions of the individual disregards the most elementary observations, like differences in heart beat, basal metabolism or gland development; and mental differences in their relation to extreme anatomical disturbances of the nervous system. There are organic reasons why individuals differ in their mental behavior.

But to acknowledge this fact does not mean that all differences of behavior can be adequately explained on a purely anatomical basis. When the human body has reached maturity, its form remains fairly stable until the changes due to increasing age set in. Under normal conditions the form and the chemical constitution of the adult body remain almost stable for a number of years. Not so with bodily functions. The conditions of life vary considerably. Our heart beat is different in sleep and in waking. It depends upon the work we are doing, the altitude in which we live, and upon many other factors. It may, therefore, well be that the same individual under different conditions will show quite different reactions. It is the same with other bodily functions. The action of our digestive tract depends upon the quality and quantity of the food we consume. In short, the physiological reactions of the body are markedly adjusted to conditions of life. Owing to this many individuals of different organic structure when exposed to the same environmental conditions will assume a certain degree of similarity of reaction.

On the whole it is much easier to find decided differences between races in bodily form than in function. It cannot be claimed that the body in all races functions in an identical way, but that kind of overlapping which we observed in form is even more pronounced in function. It is quite impossible to say that, because some physical function, let us say the heart beat, has a certain measure, the individual must be White or Negro—for the same rates are found in both races. A certain basal metabolism does not show that a person is a Japanese or a White, although the averages of all the individuals in the races compared may exhibit differences. Furthermore, the particular function is so markedly modified by the demands made upon the organism that these will make the reactions of the racial groups living under the same conditions markedly alike. Every organ is capable of adjustment to a fairly wide range of conditions, and thus the conditions will determine to a great extent the kind of reaction.

What is true of physiological function is equally true of mental function. There exists an enormous amount of literature dealing with mental characteristics of races. The blond North-Europeans, South Italians, Jews, Negroes, Indians, Chinese have been described as though their mental characteristics were biologically determined. It is true, each population has a certain character that is expressed in its behavior, so that there is a geographical distribution of types of behavior. At the same time we have a geographical distribution of anatomical types, and as a result we find that a selected population can be described as having a certain anatomical type and a certain kind of behavior. This, however, does not justify us in claiming that the anatomical type determines behavior. A great error is committed when we allow ourselves to draw this inference. First of all it would be necessary to prove that the correlation between bodily form and behavior is absolute, that it is valid not only for the selected spot, but for the whole population of the given type, and, conversely, that the same behavior does not occur when the types of bodily build differ. Secondly, it would have to be shown that there is an inner relation between the two phenomena.

I might illustrate this by an example taken from an entirely different field. A particular country has a specific climate and particular geological formation. In the same country is found a certain flora. Nevertheless, the character of soil and climate does not explain the composition of the flora, except in so far as it depends upon these two factors. Its composition depends upon the whole historical evolution of plant forms all over the world. The single fact of an agreement of distribution does not prove a genetic relation between the two sets of observations. Negroes in Africa have long limbs and a certain kind of mental behavior. It does not follow that the long limbs are in any way the cause of their mental behavior. The very point to be proved is assumed as proved in this kind of argumentation.

A scientific solution of this problem requires a different line of approach. Mental activities are functions of the organism. We have seen that physiological functions of the same organism may vary greatly under varying conditions. Is the case of mental reactions different? While the study of cretins and of men of genius shows that biological differences exist which limit the type of individual behavior, this has little bearing upon the masses constituting a population in which great varieties of bodily structure prevail. We have seen that the same physiological functions occur in different races with varying frequency, but that no essential qualitative differences can be established. The question must be asked whether the same conditions prevail in mental life.

If it were possible to subject two populations of different type to the same outer conditions the answer would not be difficult. The obstacle in our way lies in the impossibility of establishing sameness of conditions. Investigators differ fundamentally in their opinion in regard to the question of what constitutes sameness of conditions, and our attention must be directed, therefore, to this question.

If we could show how people of exactly the same biological composition react in different types of environment, much might be gained. It seems to me that the data of history create a strong presumption in favor of material changes of mental behavior among peoples of the same genetic composition. The free and easy English of Elizabethan times contrast forcibly with the prudish Mid-Victorian; the Norse Viking and the modern Norwegian do not impress us as the same; the stern Roman republican and his dissolute descendant of imperial times present striking contrasts.

But we need more tangible evidence. At least in so far as intelligent reaction to simple problems of everyday life is concerned, we may bring forward a considerable amount of experimental evidence that deals with this problem. We do not need to assume that our modern intelligence tests give us a clue to absolutely biologically determined intelligence—whatever that may mean—they certainly do tell us how individuals react to simple, more or less unfamiliar, situations. At a first glance it would seem that very important racial differences are found. I refer to the many comparative tests of the intelligence of individuals of various European types and of Europeans and Negroes. North Europeans tested in our country were found as a whole decidedly superior to South Europeans, Europeans as a whole to Negroes. The question arises, what does this mean? If there is a real difference determined by race, we should find the same kind of difference between these racial types wherever they live. Professor Garth has recently collected the available evidence and reaches the conclusion that it is not possible to prove a difference due to genetic factors, that rather all the available observations may be easily explained as due to differences in social environment. It seems to me the most convincing proof of the correctness of this view has been given by Dr. Klineberg, who examined the various outstanding European types in urban and rural communities in Europe. He found that there is everywhere a marked contrast between rural and urban populations, the city giving considerably better results than the country and that furthermore the various groups do not follow by any means the same order in city and country; that the order rather depends upon social conditions, such as the excellence of the school systems and conflicts between home and school. Still more convincing are his observations on Negroes. He examined a considerable number of Negroes in southern cities who had moved to the city from rural districts. He found that the longer they lived in the city the better the results of the tests came to be, so that Negroes who had lived in the city for six years were far superior to those who had just moved to the city. He found the same result when studying Negroes who had moved from the south to New York, an improvement with the time of residence in New York. This result agrees with Brigham’s findings for Italians who had lived for varying periods in the United States. It has often been claimed, as was done in the beginning by Brigham, that such changes are due to a process of selection, that more poorly endowed individuals have migrated to the country in late years and represent the group that has just come to the city. It would be difficult to maintain this in view of the regularity with which this phenomenon reappears in every test. Still, Dr. Klineberg has also given definite evidence that selection does not account for these differences. He compared the records of the migrating groups with those who remained behind. The records collected in Nashville and Birmingham showed that there is no appreciable difference between the two groups. The migrants were even a little below those who stayed at home. He also found that the migrants who came to New York were slightly inferior to those who remained in the South.

I have given these data in some detail, because they show definitely that cultural environment is a most important factor in determining the results of the so-called intelligence tests. In fact, a careful examination of the tests shows clearly that in none of them has our cultural experience been eliminated. City life and country life, the South and the North present different types of cultural background to which we learn to adapt ourselves, and our reactions are determined by these adaptations, which are often so obscure that they can be detected only by a most intimate knowledge of the conditions of life. We have indications of such adaptations in other cases. It would seem that among the Plains Indians the experience of girls with bead work gives to them a superiority in handling tests based on form. It is highly desirable that the tests should be examined with greatest care in regard to the indirect influence of experience upon the results. I suspect strongly that such influences can always be discovered and that it will be found impossible to construct any test in which this element is so completely eliminated that we could consider the results as an expression of purely biologically determined factors.

It is much more difficult to obtain convincing results in regard to emotional reactions in different races. No satisfactory experimental method has been devised that would answer the crucial question, in how far cultural background and in how far the biological basis of personality is responsible for observed differences. There is no doubt that individuals do differ in this respect on account of their biological constitution. It is very questionable whether the same may be said of races, for in all races we find a wide range of different types of personality. All that we can say with certainty is that the cultural factor is of greatest importance and might well account for all the observed differences, although this does not preclude the possibility of biologically determined differences. The variety of response of groups of the same race but culturally different is so great that it seems likely that any existing biological differences are of minor importance. I can give only a few instances. The North American Indians are reputed as stoic, as ready to endure pain and torture without a murmur. This is true in all those cases in which culture demands repression of emotion. The same Indians, when ill, give in to hopeless depression. Among closely related Indian tribes certain ones are given to ecstatic orgies, while others enjoy a life running in smooth conventional channels. The buffalo hunter was an entirely different personality from the poor Indian who has to rely on government help, or who lives on the proceeds of land rented by his White neighbors. Social workers are familiar with the subtle influence of personal relations that will differentiate the character of members of the same family. Ethnological evidence is all in favor of the assumption that hereditary racial traits are unimportant as compared to cultural conditions. As a matter of fact, ethnological studies do not concern themselves with race as a factor in cultural form. From Waitz on, through Spencer, Tylor, Bastian, to our times, ethnologists have not given serious attention to race, because they find cultural forms distributed regardless of race.

I believe the present state of our knowledge justifies us in saying that, while individuals differ, biological differences between races are small. There is no reason to believe that one race is by nature so much more intelligent, endowed with great will power, or emotionally more stable than another, that the difference would materially influence its culture. Nor is there any good reason to believe that the differences between races are so great that the descendants of mixed marriages would be inferior to their parents. Biologically there is no good reason to object to fairly close inbreeding in healthy groups, nor to intermingling of the principal races.

I have considered so far only the biological side of the problem. In actual life we have to reckon with social settings which have a very real existence, no matter how erroneous the opinions on which they are founded. Among us race antagonism is a fact, and we should try to understand its psychological significance. For this purpose we have to consider the behavior not only of man, but also of animals. Many animals live in societies. It may be a shoal of fish which any individuals of the same species may join, or a swarm of mosquitoes. No social tie is apparent in these groups, but there are others which we may call closed societies that do not permit any outsider to join their group. Packs of dogs and well-organized herds of higher mammals, ants and bees are examples of this kind. In all these groups there is a considerable degree of social solidarity which is expressed particularly by antagonism against any outside group. The troops of monkeys that live in a given territory will not allow another troop to come and join them. The members of a closed animal society are mutually tolerant or even helpful. They repel all outside intruders.

Conditions in primitive society are quite similar. Strict social obligations exist between the members of a tribe, but all outsiders are enemies. Primitive ethics demand self-sacrifice in the group to which the individual belongs, deadly enmity against every outsider. A closed society does not exist without antagonisms against others. Although the degree of antagonism against outsiders has decreased, closed societies continue to exist in our own civilization. The nobility formed a closed society until very recent times. Patricians and plebeians in Rome, Greeks and barbarians, the gangs of our streets, Mohammedan and infidel, and our modern nations are in this sense closed societies that cannot exist without antagonisms. The principles that hold societies together vary enormously, but common to all of them are social obligations within the group, antagonisms against other parallel groups.

Race consciousness and race antipathy differ in one respect from the social groups here enumerated. While in all other human societies there is no external characteristic that helps to assign an individual to his group, here his very appearance singles him out. If the belief should prevail, as it once did, that all red-haired individuals have an undesirable character, they would at once be segregated and no red-haired individual could escape from his class no matter what his personal characteristics might be. The Negro, the East Asiatic or Malay who may at once be recognized by his bodily build is automatically placed in his class and not one of them can escape being excluded from a foreign closed group. The same happens when a group is characterized by dress imposed by circumstances, by choice, or because a dominant group prescribe for them a distinguishing symbol—like the garb of the medieval Jews or the stripes of the convict—so that each individual no matter what his own character may be, is at once assigned to his group and treated accordingly. If racial antipathy were based on innate human traits this would be expressed in interracial sexual aversion. The free intermingling of slave owners with their female slaves and the resulting striking decrease in the number of full-blood Negroes, the progressive development of a half-blood Indian population and the readiness of intermarriage with Indians when economic advantages may be gained by such means, show clearly that there is no biological foundation for race feeling. There is no doubt that the strangeness of an alien racial type does play an important rôle, for the ideal of beauty of the White who grows up in a purely White society is different from that of a Negro. This again is analogous to the feeling of aloofness among groups that are characterized by different dress, different mannerisms of expression of emotion, or by the ideal of bodily strength as against that of refinement of form. The student of race relations must answer the question whether in societies in which different racial types form a socially homogeneous group, a marked race consciousness develops. This question cannot be answered categorically, although interracial conditions in Brazil and the disregard of racial affiliation in the relation between Mohammedans and infidels show that race consciousness may be quite insignificant.

When social divisions follow racial lines, as they do among ourselves, the degree of difference between racial forms is an important element in establishing racial groupings and in creating racial conflicts.

The actual relation is not different from that developing in other cases in which social cleavage develops. In times of intense religious feeling denominational conflicts, in times of war national conflicts take the same course. The individual is merged in his group and not rated according to his personal value.

However, nature is such that constantly new groups are formed in which each individual subordinates himself to the group. He expresses his feeling of solidarity by an idealization of his group and by an emotional desire for its perpetuation. When the groups are denominational, there is strong antagonism against marriages outside of the group. The group must be kept pure, although denomination and descent are in no way related. If the social groups are racial groups we encounter in the same way the desire for racial endogamy in order to maintain racial purity.

On this subject I take issue with Sir Arthur Keith, who in the address already referred to is reported to have said that “race antipathy and race prejudice nature has implanted in you for her own end—the improvement of mankind through racial differentiation.” I challenge him to prove that race antipathy is “implanted by nature” and not the effect of social causes which are active in every closed social group, no matter whether it is racially heterogeneous or homogeneous. The complete lack of sexual antipathy, the weakening of race consciousness in communities in which children grow up as an almost homogeneous group; the occurrence of equally strong antipathies between denominational groups, or between social strata—as witnessed by the Roman patricians and plebeians, the Spartan Lacedaemonians and Helots, the Egyptian castes and some of the Indian castes—all these show that antipathies are social phenomena. If you will, you may call them “implanted by nature,” but only in so far as man is a being living in closed social groups, leaving it entirely indetermined what these social groups may be.

No matter how weak the case for racial purity may be, we understand its social appeal in our society. While the biological reasons that are adduced may not be relevant, a stratification of society in social groups that are racial in character will always lead to racial discrimination. As in all other sharp social groupings the individual is not judged as an individual but as a member of his class. We may be reasonably certain that whenever members of different races form a single social group with strong bonds, racial prejudice and racial antagonisms will come to lose their importance. They may even disappear entirely. As long as we insist on a stratification in racial layers, we shall pay the penalty in the form of interracial struggle. Will it be better for us to continue as we have been doing, or shall we try to recognize the conditions that lead to the fundamental antagonisms that trouble us?

MODERN POPULATIONS OF AMERICA^[2]

I have been asked to speak on the modern populations of America, and I confess that I feel some hesitation in taking up this important subject. The scientific problems involved are of great and fundamental importance; but unfortunately materials for their discussion have hardly been collected at all, and I do not see any immediate prospect of their being gathered on a scale at all adequate.

We may distinguish three distinct types of populations in modern America. The first type includes those that are entirely or almost entirely descendants of European immigrants, such as the population of the northern United States, of Canada, and of the Argentine; a second type is represented by populations containing a large amount of Indian blood, like those of Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia; and a third type includes populations consisting essentially of mixtures of Negroes and other races. In this last group we may again distinguish between populations in which the mixture is essentially Negro and White and those in which we find a strong mixture of Negro and Indian, or Negro, Indian, and White. Examples of these are the populations of the Southern States, of the West Indies, of some districts of Central and South America, like parts of Brazil, and of certain localities on the west coast of South America.

It will easily be recognized that the mixed populations who are descendants of American Indians and Europeans are found essentially in those large areas in which the aboriginal population at the time of the Conquest was dense. This was the case particularly in Mexico and in the Andean highlands. The extermination of the native population has occurred only in those areas in which at the time of the Conquest the Indian population was very sparse or where a dense population lived in a limited territory, as in the West Indies. The Negro populations occur in all those areas in which there was a long-continued importation of African slaves.

The development of these populations depended to a great extent upon the very fundamental difference in the relations between the Anglo-Saxon European immigrants and the Latin American immigrants. While among the former intermarriages or unions between women of European descent and members of the foreign races were rare, intermixture was not so limited in Latin American countries; and unions between European men and women of foreign races, or of European women and men of foreign races, have always been of more nearly equal frequency. The importance of this difference is great, because in the former case the number of individuals with European blood is constantly increasing, because the children of the women of the White population remain White, while the children of the women of the Negro or Indian population have on the average a considerable amount of infusion of White blood. This must necessarily result in a constant decrease of the relative amount of non-European blood in the total population. This phenomenon may be disturbed to a certain extent by differences in fertility or mortality of the mixed populations, but it is not likely that the total result will be influenced by such differences. In those cases, on the other hand, in which White women marry members of foreign races, or at least half-blood descendants of foreign races, a thorough penetration of the two races must occur; and if marriages in both directions are equally frequent, the result must be a complete permeation of the two types. There is very little doubt that the rapid disappearance of the American Indian in many parts of the United States is due to this peculiar kind of mixture. The women of mixed descent are drawn away from the tribes with a fair degree of rapidity, and merge in the general population; while the men of mixed descent remain in the tribe, and contribute to a continued infusion of White blood among the natives.

The claim has been made, and has constantly been repeated, that mixed races—like the American Mulattoes or the American Mestizos—are inferior in physical and mental qualities, that they inherit all the unfavorable traits of the parental races. So far as I can see, this bold proposition is not based on adequate evidence. As a matter of fact, it would be exceedingly difficult to say at the present time what race is pure and what race is mixed. It is certainly true that in the borderland of the areas inhabited by any of the fundamental races of mankind mixed types do occur, and there is nothing to prove that these types are inferior either physically or mentally. We might adduce, as an example, Japan, a country in which the Malay and the Mongol type come into contact; or the Arab types of North Africa, that are partly of Negro, partly of Mediterranean descent; or the nations of eastern Europe, that contain a considerable admixture of Mongoloid blood. In none of these cases will a careful and conscientious investigator be willing to admit any deteriorating effect of the undoubted mixture of different races. It is exceedingly difficult in all questions of this kind to differentiate with any degree of certainty between social and hereditary causes. On the whole, the half-bloods live under conditions less favorable than the pure parental races; and for this reason the social causes will bring about phenomena of apparent weakness that are erroneously interpreted as due to effects of intermixture. This is particularly true in the case of the Mulatto population of the United States. The Mulatto is found as an important element in many of our American cities where the majority of this group form a poor population, which, on the one hand, is not in a condition of social and economic equality with the Whites, while, on the other hand, the desire for improved social opportunity creates a considerable amount of dissatisfaction. It is not surprising that under these conditions the main characteristics of the group should not be particularly attractive. At the same time the poverty that prevails among many of them, and the lack of sanitary conditions under which they live, give the impression of hereditary weakness.

The few cases in which it has been possible to gather strictly scientific data on the physical characteristics of the half-bloods have rather shown that there may be a certain amount of physical improvement in the mixed race. Thus the investigation of half-blood Indians in the United States which I undertook in 1892 showed conclusively that the physical development of the mixed race, as expressed by their stature, is superior to that of both the White and Indian parents. I also found that the fertility of half-blood women was greater than that of the full-blood Indian women who live practically under the same social conditions. The latter conclusion has been corroborated by a much wider investigation, included in the last Census of the United States. Professor Dixon, under whose auspices the data were collated, not only found that the half-blood women were more fertile than the full-blood women, but he also discovered that the number of surviving children of half-blood women was greater than the number of surviving children of full-blood women. This seems to indicate a greater vigor even more clearly than the data found by a study of the stature of the half-blood race. During the present year I have been able to make an investigation of the population of Puerto Rico; and here a similar phenomenon appears in a comparison between the Mulatto population and the White population. In a study of children it was found that the Mulattoes excel in physical development the children of pure Spanish descent, and that their development is more rapid. Evidently the rapidity of development of the Mulatto, and his better physique, are phenomena that are closely correlated.

A number of tests have been made of the mental conditions of Mulatto children. These, however, I do not consider as convincing, because the differences found are slight, and because, furthermore, the retardation of development due to less favorable social conditions has not sufficiently been taken into account. There is also much doubt in regard to the significance of certain differences in the resistance to pathogenic causes that has been observed in different races. Judging from a general biological point of view, it would seem that an unfavorable effect of mixture of races is very unlikely. The anatomical differences between the races of man that we have to consider here are at best very slight, certainly less than those found in different races of domesticated animals. In the case of domesticated animals, no decrease of vigor has been observed when races are crossed as closely allied as races of man. Since man must be considered anatomically as a highly domesticated species, we may expect the same conditions to prevail, and by analogy there is no reason to suppose any unfavorable effects.

Attention should be called here to a peculiar condition of society in all those regions where the old aboriginal population contributes a large amount to the modern population. In all these cases we observe a continuity of tradition that leads back to pre-Columbian times. It may be that the ancient religious ideas and that much of the oral tradition of the people have been lost and that their place has been taken by ideas imported from Europe. Nevertheless a vast amount of the old customs survives. This may be readily seen by a study of the habitations and of the household utensils in Mexico and in Peru. It is quite obvious that in these cases the ancient tradition survives; and this fact is merely an indication of the tremendous force of conservatism that binds the people of modern times to their past. It is no wonder that in these cases the obstacles to the diffusion of modern ideas are much greater than in those populations that derive their origin entirely from European sources. This is so much more the case, since the European immigrant breaks completely with his past, and develops in a new environment and according to new standards of thought.

The investigation of the ideas and beliefs of the American Negroes throws an interesting side-light on these conditions. Unfortunately this subject has received very slight attention, and it is hardly possible to state definitely what the conditions are in various parts of the continent. It is quite clear, however, that the Negroes, owing to their segregation, have retained much of what they brought from Africa. In this case there is no continuity in the material life, because the houses, household utensils, and other objects are all derived from European sources, while many of the old tales and old religious ideas seem to survive, much modified, however, by American conditions. Owing to the fact that the coast tribes of Africa have been long under the influence of Portuguese civilization, a certain assimilation of Negro ideas had developed; and in all probability this accounts for the similarity of ideas found among American Negroes and Indians of Latin America, so far as these have adopted ideas imported by Spaniards and Portuguese of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Another question relating to the physical type of the mixed populations relates to the question of how far a new type results from their intermingling. Of recent years there has been much discussion in regard to this problem. Galton and his adherents maintain that in a mixture of types a new intermediate type will develop analogous to the appearance of the mule as a result of mixture between horse and donkey. Other investigators, following the important observations of Mendel and his successors, claim that no permanent new type develops, but that the so-called “unit” characters of the parents will be segregated in the mixed population. Assuming, for instance, the blue eye of the North European to be a “unit” character, it is assumed that in the mixed type there will always remain a certain group with blue eyes. More specifically it is claimed that among the descendants of couples in which one parent has blue eyes, the other pure brown eyes, one-fourth of the total number from the second generation on will have blue eyes, while the rest will have brown eyes. In order to avoid technicalities, we might perhaps say that in these cases there must be a certain degree of alternating inheritance, in so far as in a mixed population some individuals will resemble in their traits the one parental race, while others will resemble the other. Some investigators claim that the existence of this type of inheritance—so-called “Mendelian” inheritance—has been definitely proved to exist in man.

It is hardly possible at the present time to answer this important problem with any degree of definiteness, although in regard to a number of traits sufficient evidence is available. I pointed out before that in the case of stature the half-blood shows a tendency to exceed both parental types; in other words, that a new distinctive form develops. On the other hand, the investigation of eye-color has shown that while intermediate eye-colors do occur, there is a decided tendency for a number of individuals to reproduce either the blue eyes of northern Europe or the very dark eyes of other races. In regard to skin-color the evidence is not clear. A certain permanence of type has also been found in the head form. Some types of man may be characterized by the ratio of the longitudinal to the transversal diameter of the head. Sometimes both are not very different, while in other cases the head is very narrow and at the same time very long. It has been found that when two types intermingle in which the parental races show material differences in head form, then a great variety of head forms will occur among the descendants, indicating a tendency to revert to the parental types. Whether or not the classical ratios of Mendelian inheritance prevail is a question that it is quite impossible to answer. On the whole, it seems much more likely that we have varying types of alternating inheritance rather than true Mendelian forms.

If further investigation should show that the tendency to such alternating inheritance is found in mixed types throughout, and that the different features belonging to the distinctive parental types have only slight degrees of correlation, it would follow that in a mixed type we may expect the occurrence of a great variety of combinations of parental types; and we may expect, perhaps, a certain loosening of those correlations that are characteristic for the parental races. This question, however, has never been investigated, and cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.

These questions have also a bearing upon the characteristics of the populations of pure European descent that are developing in our country. In earlier times the provenience of the settlers in each particular area was fairly uniform. In the United States we find settlers from England; in the Argentine, those from Spain; but the rapid increase of population in Europe, and the attractiveness of economical conditions in America, have brought it about that the sources of European immigration have become much wider. In the Argentine Republic we find an immigration coming principally from the shores of the Mediterranean. The modern population of the United States is drawn from all parts of Europe, the most recent influx being principally from southeastern, southern, and eastern Europe. The racial composition of the population of Europe is not by any means uniform; but we find distinctive local types inhabiting the various parts of the continent. The differences between a dark-eyed, black-haired, swarthy South Italian, and a blond, tall, blue-eyed Scandinavian and a short-headed, gray-eyed, tall Servian, are certainly most striking. This fact has led to the assertion that nothing like the modern intermixture of European types has ever occurred in the past in any part of Europe.

Attention should be called here to a peculiar difference between the composition of our American population and that of European populations. After individual land-tenure had developed, and agriculture had become the basis of life of all European peoples, a remarkable permanence of habitat developed in all parts of Europe. In place of the waves of migration that marked the end of antiquity, a local development of small village communities set in, which, after they were once established, came to be exceedingly permanent. The members of these communities were only slightly increased from the outside, and thus a period of inbreeding set in that is equaled only by the amount of inbreeding characteristic of small isolated primitive tribes. It is difficult to obtain exact information in regard to this process; but the investigation of genealogies of a few European communities shows that it has been very marked. It is therefore clear that when we compare, let me say, the population of a small Spanish village and that of a South Italian village, we may find in both communities what appears to the observer as the same type; but we find at the same time that the actual lines of descent of these two groups have been quite distinct for many generations. A peculiar result is found wherever this type of inbreeding occurs. Since all the families are interrelated, it is clear that all the families are very much alike, and that practically any family may be selected and considered as the type of the population that is being investigated. Wherever these conditions do not prevail, and where the ancestry of the various parts of the population is quite distinct, a single family can never be considered as representative of the whole population, and we may expect considerable differences to occur between the family lines. This coming together of distinct lines is characteristic of all the industrial districts of Europe and also of the populations of European descent in America. Thus in the Argentine Republic the people of Spanish and of Italian communities will be brought together. In the United States we find side by side families of English, Irish, French, Spanish, German, Russian, and Italian descent, each of which represents the type of the locality from which it comes. In other words, the family lines composing American populations are much more diverse than those found in the rural communities of Europe.

From a biological point of view there is little doubt that this condition must have an effect upon the physical characteristics of the whole population. Observations are not available, except those bearing upon the relation of sexes in the Argentine Republic. According to the last Argentine census, it has been found that the relation of sexes of children found in families of pure Italian or pure Argentine descent shows considerable differences when compared with that found in families of mixed Italo-Spanish descent, and it may very well be that this has to do with the disturbances of the lines of descent which we have just discussed.

No investigations are available on the physical characteristics of individuals of mixed European descent. All we know is that the alternating inheritance referred to before may be observed also in the descendants of a single people. Thus, for instance, it has been shown that when a long-headed Russian Jew marries a short-headed Russian Jewess, the children resemble in part the father, in part the mother, so that here also a certain reversion of type may be noticed. It has also been found that the laws of inheritance of eye-color are similar to those referred to before. There is therefore every reason to assume that the same laws of inheritance prevail in a mixture of European peoples that have been observed in a mixture of different races.

A word should be said in regard to the claim that the mixture of European types that is characteristic of the population of modern America is of a unique character. The events that occurred in prehistoric Europe do not favor this assumption, because the European continent at that time was the scene of constant migration and of constant intermingling of different peoples. The contrast between medieval conditions and ancient conditions appears, for instance, very clearly in Spain. The oldest inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula of which we know were overlaid successively by Phenicians, Romans, Kelts, Teutonic tribes, and Moorish people from northern Africa, which resulted in an enormous infusion of blood from all parts of Europe. With the Spanish victories over the Moors and the driving away of the Jews, a period of inbreeding set in which has lasted up to the present time. Similar conditions obtain in eastern Europe, where waves of migrations of Slavic, Teutonic, Finnish and Mongol peoples may be traced, each of which represented a certain definite local type. In short, the whole early history of Europe is one continued series of shifts of populations, that must have resulted in an enormous mixture of all the different types of the continent.

The important question arises whether the types that come to America remain stable and retain their former characteristics. A number of years ago I investigated this question, and reached the conclusion that a number of definite, although slight, changes are taking place; more particularly, that under American geographical and social conditions the width of the face decreases, and the head form undergoes certain slight changes. My observations are corroborated by the evidence that may be obtained from studies of European city populations. The differences in social environment there are probably the same as those that I have observed in the city of New York; and the observations also indicate a certain difference between the city population and the country population which cannot be explained by mixture or by selection.

Quite recently I investigated this question in Puerto Rico, and found that the type of the modern population does not conform to any of the ancestral types. The population is derived very largely from Spanish sources, so much so that among the individuals whom I measured a large percentage were sons of Spanish-born fathers. Besides this, we find a considerable infusion of Negro blood, and I presume also a certain survival of Indian blood. The ancestral types, except the Indians, are decidedly long-headed. The Indian blood cannot be very considerable; nevertheless we find that the Puerto Ricans of today are as short-headed as the average of the French of the Auvergne. We may therefore conclude that the movement of populations from Europe to our continent is accompanied by certain changes of type, the extent of which cannot be definitely determined at the present time.

I cannot conclude my remarks without at least a brief reference to the modern endeavors to improve the physical type of the people. It has been claimed that the congestion in modern cities and other causes are bringing about a gradual degeneration of our race, which advocates of eugenics desire to counteract by adequate legislative measures. It is certainly right to try to check the spread of hereditary defects by such measures, but the movement as it is now conceived is not free of serious dangers. First of all, it would seem that the fundamental thesis of the degeneracy of our population has never been proved. Our statistics permit us to count the number of defective individuals, which of course appears to increase with the rigidity of examination. On the other hand, our statistics do not allow us to count the individuals of unusual physical or mental development. It is obvious that, even if the method of counting should remain the same, there would be an apparent increase in the number of defectives if the variability of the total population should increase; in other words, if not all should conform to a standard, but a considerable number should be inordinately gifted, another number inordinately deficient. This would not necessarily mean a degeneration of the population, but would merely be an expression of increased variability. More serious is the question whether the principles of eugenics conform to the natural development of the human species. The fundamental motive that prompts us to advocate eugenic measures is perhaps not so much the idea of increasing human efficiency as rather to eliminate human suffering. The humanitarian idea of the elimination of suffering, which conforms so well with our sentiments, seems, however, opposed to the conditions under which species thrive. What is an inconvenience today will be suffering tomorrow; and the effect of an exaggerated humanitarianism may be to make mankind so sensitive to suffering that the very roots of its existence will be endangered. This consideration ought to receive the most careful attention of those who try to predetermine the development of our populations by legislative devices.

REPORT ON AN ANTHROPOMETRIC INVESTIGATION OF THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES^[3]

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES

The White population of the United States differs from that of Europe not so much in character as in the mode of assemblage of its component elements. The important theoretical and practical problems that arise in a study of the biological characteristics of our population relate largely to the effects of the recent rapid migrations of the diverse types of Europeans. The problem is further complicated by the presence of a large Negro population, of small remnants of Indian aborigines, and by a slight influx of Asiatics.

It would be an error to assume that the intermingling of different European types is a unique historical phenomenon which has never occurred before. On the contrary, all European nationalities are highly complex in origin. Even those most secluded and receiving the least amount of foreign blood at the present time have in past times been under entirely different conditions. An excellent example of this kind is presented by Spain. The Iberians are the earliest substratum of population with which we are acquainted. The coast population was undoubtedly affected by a certain amount of intermixture with Phenician and Greek colonists. There followed a number of migrations of Keltic tribes from northwestern Europe and a thorough colonization of the peninsula by Rome. The Teutonic tribes which invaded Spain came in part from the regions of the Black Sea. Later on we can trace waves of migration from northern Africa, which attained their greatest importance during the time of the Moorish empires. With the development of medieval conditions and the expulsion of the Moors and the Jews, the population of Spain became stable and there was no further disturbance due to important migrations. It is therefore evident that the present population of Spain contains elements derived from practically all parts of Europe and from northern Africa.

Similar conditions may be observed in Great Britain, where there is also clear evidence of a large number of waves of migration. In prehistoric times we find a long-headed type, quite different in appearance and in customs from a later round-headed type. With the beginning of historic times we observe first Roman colonization, then waves of migration entering Great Britain from all parts of the North Sea, from Scandinavia and northern Germany, and, finally, the influx of the Normans. With this event extended migration ceased and the population of the island was gradually welded into the modern English.

Migrations of this kind may be recognized even in very early times. After sweeping over the older population of Greece, north European types established themselves in the Balkan Peninsula and on the Aegean Islands during the so-called Doric migration, which occurred a thousand years before our era. Later on the movements of the Finnish ancestors of the Bulgarians and the migrations of the south Slavic peoples added to the intermixture of types in the eastern European peninsula.

It might seem that a few countries in Europe were not so much exposed to intermixture as those previously mentioned, and it is particularly assumed that Sweden and Norway represent a very homogeneous population. Still, we may recognize here also a considerable differentiation of local types. An investigation of the districts nearest to Finland shows very clearly an approach to the Finnish type which may be due to intermixture. In southern Norway is encountered a strongly aberrant type whose origin cannot be historically determined. In the northern area the Lapps present a foreign element. In later times immigrations were not by any means rare. Thus the development of the mining industry brought in a great many Walloons; and the nobility, at least, is a composite of descendants of natives from many parts of Europe. Historical evidence shows that the central parts of Europe over which migrations have swept periodically were, even more than the outlying districts, exposed to intermixture of different types.

Intermixture in Europe was largely confined to antiquity, although in some parts it continued into the Middle Ages, whereas the intermingling of different local types in the United States is recent. Owing to the social conditions in ancient Europe amalgamation of distinct elements may have been rather slow. Notwithstanding the relatively small numbers of migrating individuals, it may have taken several generations for the intrusive and native populations to become merged. In the United States, owing to the absence of hereditary social classes, the amalgamation is on the whole more rapid and involves larger numbers of individuals than the intermixture which took place in earlier periods in the Old World.

The impression that the population of European countries is comparatively speaking “pure” in descent is founded on its stability. In northern and central Europe this condition developed after individual hereditary landholding was substituted for the earlier forms of agricultural life, and with the attachment of the serf to the soil which he inhabited. These conditions prevailed in the Mediterranean area even in antiquity, but in the northern parts of Europe they did not develop until the Middle Ages, when the more or less tribal organization of the people gave way to feudal states. During the period when the Keltic and Teutonic tribes moved readily from place to place a vast amount of mixture occurred in all parts of Europe. Later on, when families became settled, those parts of the populations which were proprietors of the soil, or otherwise attached to the soil, became stationary, and consequently intermixture between distant parts of the continent became much less frequent than in previous times. On the other hand, the mutual permeation of neighboring communities probably became much more thorough.

These conditions of stability continued until by the development of cities diverse elements were brought together in the same community. This process became important with the growth of modern industrialism and with the concomitant growth of urban populations that were drawn together from large areas. Investigations made in different parts of Europe, particularly in Italy^[4] and in Baden,^[5] show differences in type between city populations and those of the open country. These may in part be explained by the strong intermixture of types drawn from a wide area which assemble and intermarry in the city. Observations of the population of Paris^[6] indicate the same kind of intermixture of north European and central European types.

The settlement of the unoccupied districts of the United States has brought about an intermixture of types similar to that occurring in modern city populations, because settlers from different parts of Europe may dwell in close proximity in newly opened countries. Although in many cases we find a strong cohesion of farmers who come from the same European country, there is also a great deal of scattering.

It should, therefore, be understood that the problems presented by the population of the United States do not differ materially from the analogous European problems. The differences are due to the larger numbers of individuals involved in the whole process, in its rapidity, in its extension over rural communities, and in the forms of cohesion between members of the same group which are dependent upon the mode of settlement of the country. The process resembles earlier European mixtures in so far as many diverse European types are involved. In modern Europe only European types enter into the mixture, but a number of races morphologically removed from the White race enter into certain phases of the problem in America. Even this aspect of the problem was probably present in antiquity when slaves of foreign races formed a considerable part of the population.

The long continued stability of European populations which set in with the beginning of the Middle Ages and continued, at least in rural districts, until very recent times, has brought about a large amount of inbreeding in every limited district. In default of detailed statistical information in relation to the development of populations it is impossible to give exact data, but a cursory investigation shows that inbreeding of this type must have occurred for a very long time. The theoretical number of ancestors of every living individual proceeds by multiplication by two from generation to generation back, so that ten generations (or approximately 300 or 350 years) ago every single individual would have had 1,024 ancestors. Therefore, about 600 or 700 years ago there would be more than 1,000,000 ancestors for each individual. Considering the stability of population, and the fact that brothers and sisters have the same ancestors, such an increase in the number is, of course, entirely impossible, and it necessarily follows that a very large number of individuals in the ancestral series must be identical, which means that there must have been a large amount of inbreeding.

The “loss of ancestors” becomes the greater the further back we go in the ancestry and the more stable the population. It is obvious that particularly in the landholding group of families which remains from generation to generation in the same place, there must have been much inbreeding. Statistical information is available only for a few village communities and for the high nobility of Europe. The genealogies of all these families demonstrate that the decrease in the number of ancestors is very considerable. The calculations for the high nobility of Europe^[7] show that in the sixth ancestral generation there are only 41 ancestors instead of 64; in the twelfth generation, only 533 instead of 4,094. These numbers seem to be quite similar to those found in the stable village communities of Europe. Owing to this intermixture and to the similarity of descent of the families constituting the population, each family represents fairly adequately the whole population, or as we might express it, the whole population is homogeneous, in so far as all the families have the same kind of descent. On the other hand, in a population that results from recent migration and in which individuals from the most diverse parts of the world come together, a single family will not be representative of the whole population, because entirely different ancestral lines will be present in the various families. Therefore the population will be heterogeneous in so far as the different families belong to different lines of descent. To illustrate this point we might assume a community consisting of Whites and Negroes in which the Whites always intermarry among themselves, and the Negroes among themselves. Obviously in such a population, a single family would not be representative of the whole community, but only of its own fraction. On the other hand, if we had a community in which Whites and Negroes had intermarried for a long time, as is the case among the so-called Bastards of South Africa—a people very largely descended from Dutch and Hottentots and in which this intermingling has continued for a long time—we have a homogeneous population in so far as every family represents practically the same line of descent.^[8] It will therefore be seen that homogeneity is not by any means identical with purity of race. In the case of a homogeneous population of mixed descent we may expect, on the whole, a high degree of variability in the family, while all the families will be more or less alike. On the other hand, in a heterogeneous population in which each part is, comparatively speaking, “pure,” we may expect a low variability of each family with a high variability of the families constituting the whole population. On account of its migratory habits the American city population must be heterogeneous. Heterogeneous are also the immigrants and their immediate descendants, whereas in the stationary populations of New England villages and of the Kentucky mountains we have presumably homogeneous groups.

HEREDITY

For determining the characteristics of a population knowledge of the laws of heredity is indispensable. Ordinarily the term heredity in relation to racial^[9] characteristics is used in a somewhat loose manner, and we should distinguish clearly between the hereditary stability of a population and the hereditary characteristics which determine the bodily form and functions of an individual. The concept of hereditary stability in a population can mean only that the distribution of forms which occur in one generation will be repeated in exactly the same way in the following generation. This is clearest in the case of a homogeneous population as defined before. In every population varying bodily forms of individuals will occur with characteristic frequencies. In an undisturbed homogeneous population we must necessarily assume that each generation will show the same characteristic distribution of individual forms. If it did not do so there would be a disturbance of the hereditary stability.

Conditions are quite different in a heterogeneous population like that of the United States. Owing to intermarriages between the various constituent types there must be a tendency toward greater homogeneity, setting aside, of course, the influx of new immigrants. Experience shows that no matter how rigid may be the social objection to intermarriages between different groups, or how strong the pressure to bring about marriages between members of the same group, they will not prevent the gradual assimilation of the population. An instance of this kind is presented by the castes of India in Bengal. Notwithstanding the rigid endogamy of castes it has been observed that the highest castes are similar in type to the peoples of Western Asia, while the lower down in the scale of castes we go the more this type becomes mixed with the older substratum of the native population.^[10] This can be explained only by intermarriage between the different castes which must have occurred notwithstanding the rigid laws forbidding it. The less the tendency toward segregation of different groups, the more rapid will be the approach toward homogeneity. Therefore notwithstanding the laws of hereditary stability in individual strains, there cannot be a hereditary stability of a heterogeneous population until homogeneity has been attained. It may even be considered doubtful whether a disturbance of the distribution of bodily forms may not occur as an effect of the intermingling of two populations similar or even identical in type, but of different ancestry, in which, therefore, a heterogeneity of ancestry exists.^[11]

Thus it will be seen that the physiological laws of heredity are quite different from the statistical expression of the effects of heredity upon a large population. The latter depends upon both the biological laws of heredity and the peculiar social structure of the population which is being considered. These two aspects of heredity must be kept clearly apart.

Unfortunately, the laws of heredity in man are not clearly known, and it is not yet possible without overstepping the bounds of sound, critical, scientific method to apply them to the study of the characteristics of a population. A considerable amount of preliminary fundamental work must be done before we can proceed to the explanation of special complex phenomena. One fundamental point of view may be considered as established, namely, that when a definite couple of parents is given, the probability of occurrence of a given form among the descendants of this couple is fixed. In man it is not easy to demonstrate this fact because the number of children for each couple is small. If we assume, however, an organism in which each parental couple has an infinitely large number of offspring, the laws of heredity may be so expressed that each form that occurs among the offspring has a definite probability. In man these laws can be investigated only by combining many families in which both parents, or at least one of the parents, has the same characteristic form, although in this case the phenomenon is obscured by the fact that the same form in the parent does not necessarily mean the same ancestry.^[12] Observation of various features of the body of man shows that the simple forms of Mendelian heredity are not often applicable. It is true that in a number of cases of pathological modifications, the validity of the simple Mendelian formulas has been established. Even in these cases the number of observations is not sufficient to determine whether we are dealing with exact Mendelian ratios or with approximations. Practically all other cases are still open to doubt. Even in the case of eye color, which has been claimed to be subject to a simple Mendelian ratio with dominance of brown over blue, the available figures are not quite convincing.^[13] For the more complex variable measurements of the body simple Mendelian ratios are certainly not applicable. Up to the present time the complex laws governing the frequencies of occurrence of bodily forms among descendants of an ancestral line are not known.

The investigation of any population must, therefore, take into consideration the detailed study of the laws of heredity.

THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT

In settling in the United States the immigrants have been brought into a new environment, geographically as well as socially, and the question arises whether the new environment exerts an influence upon bodily form and functions. It has been customary to consider certain features of bodily development as absolutely stable, and anthropologists have characterized modern human types as “permanent forms” which have lasted without variation from the beginning of our modern geological period up to the present time. It is fairly easy to show that in this view exaggerated importance is ascribed to the phenomena of observed hereditary stability.

We know that the bulk of the body of an adult depends to a certain extent upon the more or less favorable conditions under which the child grows up. It has been shown that malnutrition or pathological conditions of various kinds may retard growth, and that the retardation may be so considerable that it cannot be made up by long continued growth. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the body at the time of birth is so small as compared to the bulk of the body of the adult that it is easy to understand that environmental conditions must exert a considerable influence upon its development. Proof of this is the gradual increase of stature during the past fifty years, until 1914, which has been demonstrated by investigations in a number of countries in Europe, and the difference in stature which is found in the same nationality for people living under different economic conditions.^[14]

Since many proportions of the body are related to stature and bulk, these will also undergo modifications due to environmental conditions. The influence of environment is not so obvious in those cases in which the bodily form is practically determined at the time of birth, or in those in which the total growth from the time of birth until the adult stage is very slight. It might be assumed that in all cases of this type heredity alone determines the characteristic form of the body.

From a wider point of view the assumption that environment has no influence upon the form of the body does not seem justified. It must be understood that the question of stability or instability of the body in relation to environmental influences has no relation to the question of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Even if we should adhere most rigidly to the dogma of the impossibility of the transmission of acquired characteristics, we must admit that a modification of the bodily form of the individual is easily conceivable without the necessity of assuming any modification of the germ plasm owing to individually acquired variation. We should rather have to say that adaptability of a definite type is one of the hereditary characteristics of the germ plasm. The problem involved is readily understood in the case of plants which appear in strongly modified form according to the environment in which they grow. In many cases the amount of hairiness, the form of the leaves, etc., are subject to the degree of moisture of the soil, and an accurate description of the species would therefore involve a statement that the plant has a certain degree of hairiness, dependent as a definite function upon the moisture of the soil, or that the leaves have a certain form dependent upon outer circumstances. In other words, the plant has a definite form only under a definite environment, and with changing environment, the form changes.

We may include under the group of environmental effects also all those variants of form and function that are dependent upon social habits which influence the organism. An influence upon bodily form is exerted by the habitual uses to which groups of muscles are put. Thus the rest position of the lower jaw is different in different areas. The English seem to hold the lower jaw a little farther forward than the Americans. The people of the western states relax the soft palate more than those of the North Atlantic area. The facial expression is determined by the development of the groups of facial muscles; the variations of certain aspects of the form of the hand and the foot are of this kind. The functioning of organs is even more markedly dependent upon habits, particularly upon habits firmly established during childhood. This is illustrated by the characteristic gait of individuals and of whole groups of people; by the involuntary movements in response to certain stimuli; by many of the expressive movements of the body; by habits of articulation; and by the dexterity and accuracy of movements obtained by early training.

Since we recognize the influence of environment upon the form of body including such features as bulk of body, or muscular forms and the functioning of organs, it seems justifiable to define racial characteristics as we do those of a variable plant, namely, by stating that under definite environmental conditions the bodily form of a race and its functioning are such as we observe, without prejudging the question in how far modifications in form and function may result from changing environment. The actual problem, then, would be to determine whether and how far the traits of the body may be so influenced. We should also bear in mind that it is perfectly conceivable that there may be congenital modifications in forms which are nevertheless not hereditary.^[15] Constitutional changes in the body of the mother may bring about modifications in prenatal growth which to the superficial observer might give the impression of hereditary changes. These considerations demonstrate that it is necessary to consider this problem in any thorough investigation of the characteristics of the American population.

SELECTION

The question must be asked in how far selective agencies may determine the movements of the population, including immigration and emigration, the settlement of the western parts of the United States by the inhabitants of the eastern states, and the migration from country to city. Besides migration, the selective influences of mating, of mortality, and of fertility have to be taken into account. Of late years much stress has been laid upon the effect of selection upon the constitution of a population.

The effect of selection as determined by bodily form can be investigated to advantage only in a homogeneous population. When every family may be considered as representative of the whole population, and when all strata of society present the same physical characteristics, selective forces that are based on social stratification will not influence the selective results, because all social strata will be alike. If it should be found that groups representing different bodily forms have different tendencies to migrate, or different rates of mortality or fertility, we might have an expression of the direct dependence of selection upon bodily form.

As a matter of fact, however, homogeneous populations do not exist anywhere in the world. A greater or less amount of heterogeneity has always been observed, and heterogeneity in our modern civilization, at least, is always connected with social stratification. In a heterogeneous population like that of the United States the difficulties in the way of determining a direct relation between selective influences and bodily form are almost insurmountable. If, for instance, descendants of a certain nationality are attracted to a particular area, as the Scandinavians to the northwest, the Hungarians to the mines of Pennsylvania, the Mexicans to the southern borderland of the United States, or the French Canadians to the New England states and northern New York, we must remember that each one of these social groups represents a certain physical type and that there will be, therefore, an apparent relation between selection and physical type which in reality is based on social factors.

Similar observations may be made with regard to selective mating. Since mating depends upon social contact, marriages will occur among the groups that associate together. Wherever nationalities cluster together, where denominational or racial considerations act as endogamic restrictions, there will be selective mating of similar types due to social heterogeneity. Besides this there may be a certain amount of selection that unites tall with tall or expresses the sexual attractiveness of other bodily features.

Social heterogeneity exerts an influence also upon the mortality and the fertility of different groups. The more recent immigrants are on the whole less well-to-do than the earlier immigrants and their descendants. We know that there is a relation between fertility and economic well-being and we find, therefore, that the number of children of the more recent immigrants is greater than that of the descendants of earlier immigrants, so that, setting aside the question of mortality, there would be a shifting in the distribution of the population in favor of later immigrants. Since the earlier immigrants represent the northwestern European type and the later immigrants the south and east European types, there will appear in this case also a selection according to bodily form, which is due not to the direct relation between physical characteristics and fertility, but rather to the fact that the one economic group is composed of one type, and the other economic group of another type. In many cases the relation between descent and social stratification is so complex that it easily escapes our notice, and for this reason we may observe phenomena of selection apparently related to bodily form but actually due to obscure social causes that are discovered with great difficulty only.

On the other hand it cannot be denied that in some cases at least there must be a direct relation between bodily form and physiological function on the one side and selective processes on the other. It is, for instance, quite obvious that in the settlement of the new western countries a certain bodily and mental vigor was necessary to enable a person to undertake the venture. It has often been pointed out, although it has never been proven empirically, that in this way there must have been a selection from the inhabitants of the New England villages who migrated westward and that the emigrants represented a physically superior type. Even though this conclusion is not based on observation it seems highly probable. To the same group of phenomena would belong the supposed greater susceptibility to certain forms of disease of slightly pigmented individuals, as compared with the greater power of resistance of brunet individuals. I am not by any means convinced that incontrovertible proof of this assumption has been given; but if it were true that the constitution of the blond is weakened by exposure to intense sunlight, there might be a selective influence of this kind when a people move from the cloudy temperate zones to the brilliant sunlight of more southern and more arid climes.

In considering the selective influences of environment it should be borne in mind that the human body is so constituted that all its organs can operate adequately under widely varying circumstances. Our lungs are able to supply the needs of our body under the air pressure that prevails at the level of the sea, and they operate adequately at an elevation of 20,000 feet where the air is highly rarefied. The heart can adjust itself to the variation in demands made upon it, either in sedentary life at the level of the sea, or in active life in high altitudes. Our digestive organs may adapt themselves to a purely vegetable diet or again to a purely meat diet. Our central nervous system is also capable of adjusting itself to the most varied conditions of life. As long, therefore, as the conditions of environment do not exceed very elastic limits, it is not probable that selective influences would become operative to any very great extent, at least not in so far as they are determined solely by the form and functioning of the organs of the body.

RACIAL AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

An investigation of the bodily forms of the individuals constituting a race, homogeneous or heterogeneous, shows that they differ considerably among themselves in every single feature, such as pigmentation, form of hair, size and proportions of the body, physiological reactions. These differences are measurable and express the degree of variability of the race. A complete presentation of the characteristics of a race would contain a statement of the relative frequency of each particular bodily form which occurs among the individuals constituting the race. When comparing, from the point of view of anatomical or physiological characteristics, the racial types of Europe which constitute the bulk of the American population, it appears that the range of variation for the different types is of such a character that a great many individuals belonging to one type correspond to other individuals belonging to another type. In other words, there are certain forms common to all populations of Europe. To give an example: We find strongly contrasting head forms in northern Italy and in Sardinia. Nevertheless an investigation of the distribution of head forms in each one of these districts shows that 27 per cent of the population may belong either to Sardinia or to northern Italy. In other words, there is a very considerable amount of overlapping of bodily form between neighboring types, and it is only when we consider races that are fundamentally different that we find certain characteristics that do not overlap. Comparing, for instance, the blond north European White and the dark Sudanese Negro, there is no overlapping with regard to pigmentation, form of hair, form of nose, form of lips, etc. If, on the other hand, we proceed by steps from northern Europe to the Sudan, a great many intermediate and overlapping steps between these extreme forms will be found, so that only the extremes would really be entirely separate. While it may be that two races are quite distinct with regard to certain features, there are always other features with regard to which the differences are so slight that the assignment of any one individual to either one race or the other would be beset with doubt.

It has been customary to express the differences between racial types by the difference between the averages of each type or between the modes (the most frequent values) that are characteristic for each type. It is easily shown that such a description in misleading. If we wish to express the difference between two individuals, each of whom has constant characteristics, we may proceed in this manner. If one individual measures 170 cm. and another 165 cm., the difference between them is 5 cm. If, however, a certain population has an average stature of 170 cm., and another population an average stature of 165 cm., we cannot say that the difference between the two is 5 cm., because if there is a wide range of variability there will be a large number of individuals among the taller population who have exactly the same statures as individuals of the shorter population. To give arbitrarily selected figures, the one may range perhaps from 150 to 190 cm., the other from 145 to 185 cm. In this case an individual that measures anywhere between 150 and 185 cm. might belong to either class. It must, therefore, be clear that if we speak of differences between two races we do not necessarily mean differences between individuals, and these two concepts must be kept clearly apart. The bulk of our modern literature concerning racial differences is open to misinterpretation owing to a lack of a clear understanding of the significance of the term “difference” as applied on the one hand to individuals and on the other hand to races. The generalization, which is often made (to use our previous instance), that the one population is 5 cm. shorter than the other is often interpreted as meaning that this implies a characteristic of all the individuals of a race, while actually a single selected individual of the shorter race may be much taller than a single selected individual of the taller race. This is equally true of all those anatomical, physiological, and psychological characteristics which exhibit overlapping of individuals. It is also true of those that show no overlapping, because the difference between two selected representative individuals may vary within wide limits. If it is stated that the Whites have larger brains than the Negroes, this does not mean that every White person has a larger brain than any Negro, but merely that the average of the Negro brains is lower than the average of the brains of the Whites. With regard to many characteristics of this kind, we find that the difference between the averages of different races is insignificant as compared to the range of variability that occurs within each race.

An additional point should be considered in connection with this phenomenon. Most of the anatomical characteristics of the body are stable throughout adult life, until senile degeneration begins. On the other hand, physiological and psychological functions are not the same in the same individual at all times. They vary strongly with environmental conditions and particularly with different demands made upon the organism. The variability of physiological and psychological responses is therefore much greater than the variability of anatomical form, because the two former combine the variability due to the difference in the functioning in various individuals with the variations of response under varying conditions. When comparing racial types we must therefore avoid expressing a difference of types simply as a difference of averages.

Another point must be considered which may be illustrated by an example. Let us assume that in one area the color of the hair varies from black to dark brown with an average value on a certain definite shade, and that in another population the color of the hair varies from dark blond to very light blond with an average on a certain shade of blond. In this case the two distributions will not overlap at all. On the other hand, let us assume that we have two populations with the same average shades of brown and of blond as before, but in the one a variation which begins with black and extends into blond shades, and in the other a pigmentation which begins with a very dark brown and extends into very light blond, so that the two overlap. Obviously the two differences will not impress us as the same, notwithstanding the fact that the two averages remain the same. It is therefore indispensable that in an investigation of this kind the significance of the difference between two populations should be clearly expressed, and that the impression should be avoided that the difference between racial types is identical with the difference between individuals.

Still another point deserves attention. Many writers assume that an individual of a certain type represents the same biological type regardless of the racial group to which he belongs. To give an example: a round-headed person of the Tyrols is equated with a round-headed person of southern Italy, at least in so far as the form of the head is concerned. Even if we assume that the round-headedness of the two individuals is of the same kind, this inference is not tenable. It is true that by chance the two individuals may belong to the same lines of descent, but a study of a series of homologous individuals shows that genetically, and therefore physiologically, they are not the same notwithstanding the sameness of the particular trait that is made the subject of study. When we select, for instance, individuals with the same head index of 82 in a population that has the average head index of 85, the children of the selected group will be found to have an average head index of 84; when we select individuals with the same head index of 82 in a population that has the average head index of about 79, the children of the selected group will be found to have an average head index of about 80, for the reason that there will be in each case reversions to the average type of the population to which the selected group belongs. In other words, the individuals which are selected from any population must always be considered as part of this population and cannot be studied as though they were an independent group.

EUGENICS

One of the reasons for the special stress that is laid upon race investigations is the fear of race degeneration. It is assumed that the intermixture between different racial types and the rapid increase of the poorest part of the population have a deteriorating effect upon the nation. In the introductory remarks I have tried to show that there is little reason to believe that racial intermixture of the kind occurring in the United States at the present time should have a deteriorating effect. I do not believe that it has been adequately proved that there is a clearly marked tendency toward general degeneration among all civilized nations. In modern society the conditions of life have become more varied than those of former periods. While some groups live under most favorable conditions that require active use of body and mind, others live in abject poverty and their activities have more than ever before been degraded to those of machines. At the same time the variety of human activities is much greater than it used to be. It is therefore quite intelligible that the functional activities of each nation must show an increased degree of differentiation, a higher degree of variability. Even if the general average of the mental and physical types should remain the same, there must be a larger number now than formerly who fall below a certain given low standard, and also a larger number who exceed a given high standard. The number of defectives can be counted by statistics of poor relief, delinquency, and insanity, but there is no way of determining the increase of those individuals who are raised above the norm of a higher standard, and they escape our notice. It may therefore very well be that the number of defectives increases without influencing the value of a population as a whole, because it is merely an expression of an increased degree of variability.

Furthermore, arbitrarily selected absolute standards of value do not retain their significance. Even if no change in the absolute standard should be made, the degree of physical and mental energy required under modern conditions to keep oneself above a certain minimum of achievement is greater than it used to be. This is due to the greater complexity of our life and to the increasing number of competing individuals. Greater capacity is required to attain a high degree of prominence than was needed in other periods of our history. The claim that we have to contend against national degeneracy must, therefore, be better substantiated than it is now.

The problem is further complicated by the advance in public hygiene which has resulted in lowering infant mortality and has thus brought about a change in the composition of the population, in so far as many who would have succumbed to deleterious conditions in early years enter into the adult population and must have an influence upon the general distribution of vitality.

Notwithstanding the doubtful basis of many of the assertions relating to degeneracy, the problem of eugenics is clearly before the public, and the investigation of racial and social types cannot be separated from the practical aims involved in the eugenic movement.

The fundamental thought underlying eugenic theory is that no environmental influences can modify those characteristics which are determined by hereditary nature. Nurture, it is said, cannot overcome nature.

We should recall here what has been said before regarding the difference between the characteristics of hereditary strains and those of races, and that while it is true that strains differ greatly in physical and mental vigor and in specific characteristics, it is not equally true of races as a whole, because strains which are very much alike in all these characteristics are found in every single race. Even if it is not possible to prove with absolute certainty the complete identity in mental traits of selected strains belonging to races as diverse as Europeans and Negroes, there is not the slightest doubt that such identity prevails among the various European types. Eugenics, therefore, cannot have any possible meaning with regard to whole races. It can have a meaning only with regard to strains. If the task of the eugenist were the selection of that third of humanity representing the best strains, he would find his material among all European and Asiatic types, and very probably among all races of man; and all would contribute to the less valuable two-thirds.

As an objection to this point of view it is sometimes claimed that closely allied animal types are so different in their physical make-up and mental characteristics that members of one race can be clearly differentiated from those of another race. It is, for instance, said that the race horse and the heavy dray horse are so different in character that no matter what may be done to the dray horse its descendants can never be transformed into race horses. This is undoubtedly true, but the parallelism between the races of dray horses and race horses on the one hand and human races on the other is incorrect. The races of horses are developed by careful selection, by means of which physical and mental characteristics are fixed in each separate strain, while in human races no such selection occurs. We have rather a racial panmixture, which brings it about that the racial characteristics are distributed irregularly among all the different families. As a matter of fact, dray horses and race horses correspond to family strains, not to human races, and the comparison is valid only in so far as race horses and dray horses are compared to the characteristics of certain family lines, not to human races as a whole. In Johannsen’s terminology the human races are to a much greater extent phenotypes than races of domesticated animals.

For this reason the task of eugenics cannot be to devise means to suppress some races and to favor the development of others. It must rather be directed to the discovery of methods which favor the development of the desirable strains in every race.

This problem can be attacked only after the solution of two questions. First of all, we have to decide what are the desirable characteristics; and secondly, we must determine what characteristics are hereditary. With regard to the former question, we shall all agree that physical health is one of the fundamental qualities to be desired; but there will always be fundamental disagreement as to what mental qualities are considered desirable—whether an intense intellectualism and a repression of emotionalism or a healthy development of emotional life is preferable. Obviously, it is quite impossible to lay down a standard that will fit every person, every place, and every time, and for this reason the application of eugenic measures should be restricted to the development of physical and mental health. Even if it were possible to control human mating in such a way that strains with certain mental characteristics could be developed, it would seem entirely unjustifiable for our generation to impose upon future times ideals that some of us may consider desirable. It might furthermore be questioned whether the interests of humanity will be better served by eliminating all abnormal strains which, as history shows, have produced a number of great men who have contributed to the best that mankind has done, or by carrying the burden of the unfit for the sake of the few valuable individuals that may spring from them. These, of course, are not scientific questions, but social and ethical problems.

For the practical development of eugenics it is indispensable to determine what is hereditary and what is not. The ordinary method of determining heredity is to investigate the recurrence of the same phenomenon among a number of successive generations. If, for instance, it can be shown that color-blindness occurs in successive generations, or that certain malformations like polydactylism are found repeatedly in the same family, or that multiple births are characteristic of certain strains, we conclude that these are due to hereditary causes; and if parents and children have the same head form or the same or similar statures, we decide that these similarities also are due to heredity. It must be recognized that in many of these cases alternative explanations are conceivable. If, for instance, a family lives under certain economic conditions which are repeated among parents and children, and if these economic conditions have a direct influence upon the size of the body, the similarity of stature of parents and children would be due to environment and not to heredity. If a disease is endemic in a certain locality and occurs among parents and children, this is not due to heredity but to the locality which they inhabit. In other words, wherever the environmental conditions have a marked influence upon bodily characteristics, and wherever these environmental conditions continue for a number of generations, they have an effect that is apparently identical with that of heredity. In many cases the causes are so obvious that it is easy to exclude persistence of characteristics due to environment. Under other conditions the determination of the causes is not so easy.

It is still more difficult to differentiate between heredity and congenital features. For example, if a child before birth should be infected by its mother, there might be the impression of a hereditary disease, which, however, is actually only congenital in the sense that it is not inherent in the structure of the germ plasm. Although the distinction between environmental causes as previously defined and hereditary causes is generally fairly easy, the distinction between congenital causes and true hereditary causes is exceedingly difficult, in many cases impossible. The long continued discussions relating to hereditary transmission of disease are a case in point. Most of these questions cannot be solved by statistical inquiries, but require the most careful biological investigation. The conditions, however, are such that we must demand in every case a clear differentiation among these three causes.

There is little doubt that in the modern eugenic movement the assumption of hereditary transmission as a cause of defects has been exaggerated. Although certain mental defects that occur among well-to-do families seem to be determined by heredity, the mental defects generally included in eugenic studies are of such a character that many of them may readily be recognized as due to social conditions rather than as expressing specific hereditary traits. A weakling who is economically well situated is protected from many of the dangers that beset an individual of similar characteristics whose economic condition is not so favorable, and it must be admitted that criminality in families that may be mentally weak and which are at the same time struggling for the barest subsistence is at least as much determined by social conditions as by heredity. Investigators of criminal families have succeeded in showing frequencies of occurrence of criminality which are analogous to frequencies which may be due to heredity, but they have failed to show that these frequencies may not as well be explained either wholly or in part by environmental conditions. We should be willing to admit that among the poor undernourished population, which is at the same time badly housed and suffers from other unfavorable conditions of life, congenital weakness may develop which lowers the resistance of the individual against all forms of delinquency. Whether this weakness is hereditary or congenital is, however, an entirely different question. Experiments made with generations of underfed rats^[16] suggest that a strain of rats which has deteriorated by underfeeding can be fed up by a careful amelioration of conditions of life, and it may well be questioned whether delinquent strains in man may not be improved in a similar way. Certainly the history of the criminals deported to Australia and of their descendants is very much in favor of such a theory. In other words, it seems very likely that the condition of our subnormal population is not by any means solely determined by heredity, but that careful investigations are required to discriminate between environmental, congenital, and hereditary causes.

FORMULATION OF PROBLEM

From the preceding discussion, we may formulate the principal problems that must be taken up in a study of the population of the United States. We have to investigate first the degree of homogeneity of the population; second, the hereditary characteristics of the existing lines; third, the influence of environment; fourth, the influences of selection. On the basis of the data thus collected, we have to interpret the significance of the differences between various types, and investigate the bearing that our results may have upon public policies.

The study of the adult population alone would not give us adequate data to enable us to clear up the causes which determine the final development of the body—the events which take place during the period of growth must also be taken into consideration.

Familiarity with the bodily forms of children is necessary also from a morphological point of view. On the whole, the development of individuals is divergent, so that the most characteristic forms of each type are found in the adult male. The adult female forms are not quite so divergent, perhaps in part for the reason that the period of development of the female is shorter than that of the male, although it must be remembered that secondary sexual characteristics are present in childhood. The younger the human form that we investigate, the less clearly are racial characteristics expressed. We may, therefore, say that the most generalized forms of a racial type will be found in the infant or, even still more clearly, in prenatal stages, while the most highly specialized local forms will be found in the male adult. A knowledge of the specialized forms ought to include, therefore, a study of progressive differentiation. Particularly for the study of the influences of environment it is indispensable that the development of the body in childhood should be studied while the influences are still at work. We have to know the conditions which bring about retardation or acceleration in the development of various parts of the body, and their ultimate effects upon the human form. We must study other minute changes that may perhaps not be related to retardation or acceleration, but that may be due to a direct effect of environmental causes. In the adult these changes have been completed and can no longer be subjected to analysis, while in the growing child, their gradual development and unfolding may be observed.

The same is true with regard to selection. If selection is related to bodily form, it will probably act with particular intensity during the early years of childhood. It might be revealed by a comparison of the surviving and dying parts of the population of various ages.

These considerations make it quite necessary to include in the study of the population, not only adults, but also children.

One method of approach should consist, therefore, in the study of the growth and development of children, classified according to descent and geographical and social environment. If it were feasible to include records of the longevity of the individuals measured in childhood, the problem of selection could also be attacked. In the study of adults a careful classification according to descent and social position will be necessary.

The phenomena of homogeneity and of heredity make it necessary that the investigation should not be confined to studies of individuals, but that the anatomical characteristics of families should be made the subject of inquiry.

A considerable amount of work has been done by many investigators, throwing light upon a number of aspects of the problems here discussed. The earliest and most extensive series of observations was collected in connection with the War of the Rebellion and was published by Gould and Baxter.^[17] Their well-known statistics, which have been quoted again and again, give data with regard to the stature of enlisted men according to their nativity, descent, and occupation, and reveal the facts that inhabitants of different parts of the United States differ in their physical development; that the differences between the various European nationalities are repeated here; but that in every single case, the members of a certain nationality exceed in bulk of body the corresponding European series; and, finally, that certain differences may be observed between groups of individuals following different occupations.

The next important inquiry relating to our subject was an investigation of school children of Boston by Henry P. Bowditch,^[18] in which similar differences appeared. Bowditch also showed that the differences between various nationalities persisted throughout the period of growth, and that marked differences are found according to social stratification. Classification of the population according to the occupation of the parents showed a better development among the commercial and professional classes than is found among unskilled labor. Soon after Bowditch’s investigation similar inquiries were instituted by Peckham^[19] in Milwaukee, and later on in a number of other cities—Worcester, Mass.;^[20] St. Louis, Mo.;^[21] Toronto, Canada;^[22] Oakland, Cal.,^[23] etc. On the whole, the methods pursued were similar to those applied by Bowditch, and the results proved the occurrence of analogous phenomena. Porter, in his investigation in St. Louis, added to his inquiries the problem of the relative development of the children of varying mental achievement, and demonstrated a difference in the development of what he called precocious and dull children. Work of this type was gradually taken up by educational institutions and the effort was made to correlate physical development with school work, with a view to demonstrating a practical way of assigning a child to his proper developmental stage.

In similar investigations in Europe attention had been called to the fact that the measurement of children of different ages and the calculation of a growth curve on this basis does not give us adequate information with regard to the details of the phenomena of growth, and it was pointed out that repeated measurements of the same individual are necessary to obtain fuller records. In spite of numerous efforts that have been made to obtain such series, it has not been possible up to the present time to follow out the development of the same individual from childhood to adult life, at least not in numbers that are sufficient for a clear understanding of the phenomena involved in this process.

A certain amount of material bearing upon stature and weight has been collected by life insurance companies. This, however, is probably to a great extent so uncertain that it is only of slight use for scientific investigations. Military statistics taken in the United States since the War of the Rebellion are not numerous and not very extensive. A certain amount of work was done during the recent war, but the results have only now been made accessible. The only fairly extended investigation of families that has been undertaken in the United States was made in connection with the work of the Immigration Commission, during which a fairly large number of Jewish, Bohemian, Italian, and Scotch families were studied in such a manner that the phenomena of heredity could be considered in some detail.

We have practically no material whatever bearing upon the facts of racial mixture. It is particularly worth remembering that there are hardly any investigations to speak of that bear upon the physiological development of the Negro and Mulatto population. In view of the ever-repeated claim that the Mulatto is inferior in physical development to either the pure Negro or to the White, and considering the large number of Mulattoes in our population, it seems of fundamental importance that an investigation of this kind should be made.

Although less important from a practical point of view than the Negro problem, race mixture between Whites and Indians has received some attention. Material collected in 1892 shows that the half-blood, so far as fertility and stature are concerned, is superior to the full-blood Indians.^[24] The observations relating to fertility were confirmed by the material collected in the census of 1910.^[25] Recently an inquiry into the characteristics of the half-bloods of Minnesota was made by Professor Albert E. Jenks.^[26] We are still lacking, however, full investigations into the anatomical and physiological characteristics of half-bloods.

The problem of the intermixture between Negro and White and Negro and Indian has hardly been touched at all. A few studies of Negro children and soldiers do not contribute much to our knowledge. A systematic study of the problem was made by Felix von Luschan in 1915, but the results of his observations are not yet available. Another important inquiry is that by Eugen Fischer on the Rehobother Bastards, the descendants mainly of Dutch settlers and Hottentots in South Africa. This is the only work in which the anthropological characteristics of the Mulattoes have been taken up in detail. The theoretical as well as the practical importance of the investigation of the Mulatto question can hardly be sufficiently emphasized. On the one hand, we may hope to obtain by this means an insight into the laws of heredity in man. On the other hand, the well-being of so many millions of citizens of our country is involved that the most painstaking inquiry should be demanded. This is the more urgent since many States have regulated race intermixture by laws which are based simply upon public prejudice without the shadow of knowledge of the underlying biological facts—without even the knowledge of the peculiar form of racial intermixture that characterizes the relations between Whites and Negroes in the United States. In by far the greater number of cases the mother is a Negress and the father a White man. This results in an infusion of White blood into the Negro race without affecting materially the White race. A searching analysis of the hereditary characteristics of the racial groups has not yet been made. It is true that the records of morbidity suggest typical physiological differences, but considering the fact that similar differences are found between different social groups of the same race, it is not possible without further investigation to distinguish definitely between the influences of heredity and of social environment.^[27]

I refrain from giving a detailed bibliography and review of the anthropometric material collected in the United States in view of the very excellent collection of titles made by Professor Bird T. Baldwin, of the Bureau of Child Study of the University of Iowa.^[28]

PROPOSED INVESTIGATIONS

The first and most fundamental inquiry that has to be made relates to a description of the various types constituting the population of the United States. As explained before, it will not be sufficient to describe the adult male and female forms, but it will also be necessary to determine the course of growth and development which is characteristic of each form. In order to carry through this inquiry it is necessary to obtain information with regard to the forms characteristic of each moment of the period of the development, and to determine the sequence of the characteristic developmental stages of each type. It is not admissible to assume that the physiological conditions which are found in a six-year-old Italian child must be the same as those of a six-year-old Scandinavian child. Furthermore, the individuals of each racial group will differ among themselves considerably with regard to the time when certain stages of physical development are reached, and it is therefore necessary to investigate fully the variability of physiological development characteristic of each group. It must be considered one of the most urgent aims of an investigation to determine the sequence of events and the racial and environmental conditions that influence them. There are indications that these problems may be found to be exceedingly intricate. An example may illustrate this point. The development of poor children is considerably retarded. Nevertheless, the second dentition among these children is accelerated. This may perhaps be due to less care given to the deciduous teeth and their earlier loss which stimulates the appearance of the permanent teeth—or it may be due to other causes. It is, however, an indication that the sequence of events indicating the physiological changes in the body are subject to quite diverse causes.

The determination of all phenomena of this kind is very difficult when the attempt is made to derive data by the so-called generalizing method, that is to say, if we merely collect information that children of a certain age show the stage of development in question so and so often, and if we try to derive the rate of development by subtracting the relative frequency of occurrence observed in one year from the relative frequency of occurrence in the next year. If we observe, for instance, that a certain tooth is present in 50 per cent of the children of one age and in 70 per cent of another set of children who are one year older, and conclude that in 20 per cent of the children the tooth in question will erupt in the course of that year, the different composition of the annual groups and the different numbers observed make it difficult to obtain reliable results. It is almost indispensable that for each individual there should be noted the moment of occurrence of the physiological change which is being studied. Material of this type is almost non-existent.

The movability of our modern city populations causes great practical difficulty in the organization of this work. It is not easy for an investigator to remain in touch for a sufficiently long time with the same children, and so many children change from one place to another that an initial number of, let us say one hundred, who are studied when five years old, will have dwindled down to an insignificant number at the time when the adult stage is reached. For this reason an elaborate organization is needed to carry through this work completely. To a greater or less extent, the work must be pieced together of fragments. For children of school age, roughly speaking from four or five years to fourteen years, the investigation might be organized. For older children of high-school age, it will also ordinarily be possible to carry through the inquiry, and in certain cases the transfer of a subject from high school to college may also be followed up. It is, however, obvious that the individuals who can be followed in this way are a group selected according to economic and social conditions. Those groups of the population which are well-to-do and which lay great stress upon the acquisition of a good education will be represented much more fully than other groups. The observations for different ages will therefore require a consideration of the different composition of the series. An organization like the Child Study Bureau of Chicago or the corresponding organizations in Iowa City and Detroit, or the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor in New York, will be best able to control inquiries into these subjects.

The most difficult problem encountered in these investigations is the differentiation between hereditary differences and those due to retardation or acceleration. To give an example: A boy twelve years old may be tall because his hereditary characteristics are such that he belongs to a tall stock, or it may be that he is tall on account of an acceleration of his development. Since, furthermore, the adult stature of the individual will depend not only upon his hereditary characteristics, but also upon environmental conditions that have an effect upon the acceleration or retardation of his growth, it is difficult to determine directly how much is contributed by hereditary and how much by environmental causes. From a practical point of view the demand is always made that the anthropometric investigation of the individual shall differentiate between these two causes.

In most cases, however, it seems almost impossible to do so, except by a very detailed investigation of the physiological conditions of the body. Measurements are always subject to alternative explanations, as being due either to hereditary causes or to acceleration or retardation, while physiological changes are not so likely to be fundamentally different for different hereditary lines. If, for instance, in a certain individual the loss of healthy deciduous canines should be very much retarded, we should have the right to assume that, in whole or in part, his bodily development may be influenced by retardation. This, of course, presupposes a previous investigation which would show that the hereditary characteristics of different strains do not show very great differences in the time element of the loss of the first canine, provided the environmental conditions remain the same. Here, again, we are entirely lacking in material that would enable us to answer this question, and it is evident that a very considerable amount of information would have to be amassed in order to enable us to solve the problem. It does not seem a hopeless task to determine the contributory effect of retardation and acceleration in an individual child, but it presupposes a much more thorough knowledge of the sequence of the developmental stages than we now possess.

The description of racial types cannot be considered complete without an inquiry into the homogeneity or the heterogeneity of the series. It is clear from the remarks made on pages 32 et seq. that this problem can be solved only by an investigation of the forms represented in fraternities, because homogeneity can be proved only by showing that the types represented in different families are the same. In other words, the investigation of homogeneity must be based on an inquiry into the variations presented by different families. The small size of the human family makes it necessary to see to it that the proper weight is given to each fraternity in accordance with its numerical composition.^[29] This investigation must be supplemented by an inquiry into each fraternity, the variability of which will depend upon the more or less composite character of its ancestry.

We are thus led to a consideration of the problem of how far it is possible to discover relative unity or multiplicity in the ancestry of a racial type. The method to be pursued will depend entirely upon the laws of heredity involved. In those cases in which we have some kind of Mendelian inheritance—that is to say, a tendency of certain traits of the offspring to revert to either parental type—we must obviously expect a higher degree of variability in the mixed types than the one found in the pure parental types. Attention has been called to the occurrence of such a phenomenon with regard to the head index of Italians.^[30] The short-headed north Italians are, comparatively speaking, uniform in type, and the long-headed south Italians are also fairly uniform in type, while in the intermediate regions in which undoubtedly the two types have intermingled for a long period, the variability of the head index is very much increased. In a similar way, we find that there is an increase of variability in Sweden in those regions in which there is an admixture of foreign types that are more short-headed than the Swedes.^[31] It has also been shown that in those cases in which father and mother belong to the same racial group, but in which they represent extreme head forms, the one extremely short-headed, the other extremely long-headed, the variability of the children is greater than in those cases in which the parents represent nearly the same type.^[32] We recognize, therefore, that when a Mendelian reversion occurs, increased variability may indicate composite descent.

There are, however, other cases in which the results of mixture have not the effect of increasing variability. Statistics of half-blood Indians have shown that the width of face, which is great in the Indian race and very small in the White race, has an intermediate value among the half-bloods, with a marked tendency, however, of reversion to a form that is narrower than the face of the pure Indian and wider than the face of the pure White, while the values for width of face which are half-way between the characteristic values of the Indians and of the Whites are not so frequent as the two other values previously mentioned. There is, therefore, a certain kind of reversion in this case. Nevertheless, the total variability of the width of the face of the half-bloods is almost the same as that of the pure parental types.^[33] If we assume in this case a pure reversion to either type, we should find that the variability would be considerably more than that of the parental races. It appears, therefore, that we cannot generalize with regard to the phenomenon, and we have not the right to assume that mixture will always be accompanied by increased variability and that slight variability does not always indicate purity of descent.

Whenever the laws of heredity are of a still different type, the variability may be affected in a very different manner. Thus it has been shown that mixture between Europeans and Indians results in a stature which exceeds that of the pure Indians, which in turn is greater than that of the pure Whites. It is obviously quite impossible to predict in this case what the variability of the series may be.

Another method of investigating mixed descent of a race is by means of a study of the correlations of different measurements of the body. To give an instance: when two peoples intermingle, one of which has very long and very narrow heads, while the other has very short and very broad heads, and if, furthermore, reversion to parental forms obtains, then we must expect that among the individuals representing this population very broad heads are commonly associated with shortness, while very narrow heads are associated with greater length. We should, therefore, expect of such a population that the broader the head, the shorter it will be. In other cases, where we have a single line of descent, the condition is reversed. The size of the head depends upon the bulk of the body, and since in such a case broad heads are indicative of length of body, the length of head is also increased, and we find that a broad head is associated with greater length of head. In the case mentioned before, the reversion of the normal correlation is indicative of mixed descent.

Here again many variations may occur. If, for instance, we had two races intermingled with a tendency to reversion to parental forms in which the heads of one group are very high and at the same time narrow and short, while those in the other group are flat and at the same time broad and long, then the result would be that in the study of the correlation between length and breadth of head, the correlation would appear inordinately high, because all the shortest heads would belong to the high type and would, therefore, also be narrow, while all the longest heads would belong to the low type and would also therefore be broad.

A characteristic case in which heterogeneity of a series causes abnormal correlation between physical features is found in Italy. Normally there is practically no correlation between hair color and stature, but in Italy the tall Alpine type has lighter hair than the short Mediterranean type. In Piedmont where the Mediterranean type is practically absent we find the following distribution:

In Sicily where the Alpine type is practically absent we find:

In Venice and Latium, on the other hand, where mixed types occur, we find:

and still more clearly for the whole Kingdom:

On account of the greatly varying laws of heredity it is impossible to predict which method of inquiry will lead to a satisfactory result. By some of the means here described the problem of pure or mixed descent may be approached.

The study of any particular type will, therefore, require a multiplicity of investigations, the most important of which relate to the development of the racial type from childhood on, the homogeneity of the series, and the purity of the ancestry. For these purposes the investigations of children and of families are indispensable and must accompany a generalized investigation of the population as a whole.

For the study of the influence of environment the investigation of growing children is, if anything, more important than for the investigation of racial characteristics. After the adult stage has been reached environment will not exert any further influence. The earlier in life the investigation can begin, the more likely we are to obtain adequate results.

In this investigation the generalizing method of comparing local types or types presented in social strata is of little use, because in order to establish definitely an influence of environmental causes, we must be certain that the hereditary composition of the populations which we study is the same. For instance, when we compare a rural and an urban community, there is nothing that will guarantee to us that both populations are derived from the same ancestry. On the contrary, we may assume that the urban population is drawn from a wider group than the rural population. In the same way, when we compare the inhabitants of a long secluded valley and find differences in bodily form between the people living in the lower part and those living in the upper part, the question would arise whether the ancestry of the two groups is the same and whether the people in the upper regions have not been more isolated than those farther down. It is on the whole easier to exclude obvious environmental influences in an investigation of racial types than to exclude differences of racial descent in studies of the influence of environment. The only way to escape from these complications is by confining the studies strictly to a comparison between parents and children.

It has been explained before that in a number of cases we may find apparent hereditary traits which may be deduced from the similarity of parents and their own children, and which nevertheless are primarily due to environmental causes. If we should find, for instance, a low stature among individuals who have been undernourished as children, and if the next generation will also be undernourished, we may have an apparent similarity in stature which is not due primarily to heredity, but rather to the fact that the same environmental causes act upon the parental group and upon the group of children. In most cases these elements cannot be eliminated unless we have the opportunity to study the same racial type in different forms of environment.

It has been stated before that a modification of bodily form due to environment which is observed by comparing parents and their children does not contradict the phenomena of heredity. If we find, for instance, that the stature of Jewish immigrants into the United States is lower than that of their children, the hereditary stability of stature will nevertheless manifest itself. The children of an exceptionally tall couple who exceed the average stature of the immigrant Jew by a certain amount may be expected to show an excess of stature which is correlated to the excess of stature of the parents, which, however, has to be added to the increased average stature of the children of immigrants. In short, a change in type due to environmental influences simply means that the correlated deviations in the group of parents and of children must be reckoned from the point which is typical for the generation in question.

In some cases in which the environmental influences are very strong, a generalizing method may give adequate results. Bowditch, in his investigation of Boston children, was able to show that Irish children differ in their development according to the economic condition of the parents, and there is little reason to doubt the uniformity of the genetic composition of his various Irish groups. But whenever the differences involved are slight, and when they may be equally well explained on the basis of difference in genetic composition, the comparison between parents and children is indispensable. The data for the study of environmental influences must, therefore, be based on the comparison of the bodily forms of parents and their offspring. In this manner the doubt as to the difference in genetic composition may be eliminated, although it is at least conceivable even in this case that there may have been selective rather than environmental influences. It might be said, for instance, that when some parents have children in charitable institutions while other children stay at home, differences between the two groups of children might not be due to environmental influences only but also to selection. This example indicates that care must be taken to eliminate the influences of selection even when we are dealing with family groups in which diversity of genetic descent has been excluded.

At the present time it is unknown to what extent the influences of environment may determine bodily form. Notwithstanding the numerous claims of the fundamental effect of climate upon the body of man, we have no evidence whatever that will show that pigmentation undergoes fundamental changes under climatic conditions; that the White race would become darker in the tropics; or that the Negroes would become lighter in the north. Whatever statistics we have on this subject show rather a remarkable stability of pigmentation. We have not even any definite indication that the pigmentation of the hair undergoes changes under different climatic conditions, although in this case the change in color from the period of childhood until middle life is so great that we might very well expect environmental influences to express themselves. On the other hand, we know that the bulk of the body is very susceptible to environmental influences, and it is but natural that retardation or acceleration during the period of growth will also leave its effect upon those proportions of the body which depend upon bulk. Other changes which occur very early in life are not so easily explained. I think the evidence showing that the form of the head is susceptible to environmental influences is incontrovertible. I also believe that adequate proof has been given for modifications in the width of the face under changed conditions of life. The causes of these changes are still entirely obscure. It may well be, as suggested by Harvey Cushing, that chemical changes occur under new environmental conditions and unequally influence growth in different directions. This would agree with the changes in chemical constitution found in lower animals living in different types of environment. If it is true that changes of this kind do occur and modify the form of body so fundamentally that according to the ordinary schemes of classification a people might be removed from one group and placed in another one, then we have to consider the investigation of the instability of the body under varying environmental conditions as one of the most fundamental subjects to be considered in an anthropometric study of our population.

CHANGES IN BODILY FORM OF DESCENDANTS OF IMMIGRANTS^[34]

The following is a brief summary of the principal results of a study of the anthropometric characteristics of immigrants and their descendants.

1. American-born descendants of immigrants differ in type from their foreign-born parents. The changes which occur among various European types are not all in the same direction. They develop in early childhood and persist throughout life.^[35]

2. The influence of American environment makes itself felt with increasing intensity, according to the time elapsed between the arrival of the mother and the birth of the child.^[36]

Fig. 1. Cephalic index of immigrants and their descendants.

The changes of the initial values for 0 years which are in the direction of the observed changes deserve attention.

Fig. 1 represents the average values of the cephalic index of the immigrants born in Europe and their descendants born in the United States according to the interval between immigration of mother and birth, respectively according to the age at the time of immigration.

The differences in cephalic index between parents and their own American-born children, born less than ten years after arrival of the mother, and of those born more than ten years after the arrival of the mother, are, -0.83 and -1.92 respectively.^[37] Their difference is, therefore, 1.09 with an error of about ±0.22, so that the significance of this difference is also quite probable.

Fig. 2. Changes of head measurements during period of growth.

3. The observations on intraracial heredity show an increased variability of children of dissimilar parents, which proves a regression of the children to either parental type, not a regression to the mid-parental type.^[38]

It is apparent that the variability increases rapidly for the greater differences between parents.

4. The head measurements show the same acceleration of growth during the prepubertal period as has long been known for measurements of the bulk of the body, i.e., stature and weight^[39] (Fig. 2).

5. The average stature of children decreases with the size of the family^[40] (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Excess of stature over average
stature for families of various sizes.

Incidentally a number of problems were touched upon which are, however, of secondary importance in relation to the whole problem, and the investigation of which was necessary for the correct interpretation of the observations referred to before.

6. The comparison of immigrants and their descendants necessarily refers to groups which immigrated at different periods. For instance, 15-year-old American-born boys are children of parents who immigrated more than 15 years ago; while 15-year-old foreign-born boys are children of parents who immigrated less than 15 years ago. If, therefore, the constitution of the immigration representing a certain people changed, there would be an apparent change of type, which in reality would reflect only the differences in type of the immigrants of various periods. A comparison of individuals born in Europe in a certain year with American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in the corresponding year showed that for each year the differences observed in the total series persist (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Cephalic index of individuals born in Europe who immigrated in certain years compared with that of American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in the corresponding years.

7. The differences between immigrants and their own European-born children are always less than those between them and their own American-born children and the differences agree in direction and value with those obtained from the general population. (Partial Report, pp. 44-50; Abstract, p. 47; Final Report, pp. 69-70, 117-128). Thus the cephalic index of American-born children of Hebrew immigrants is by 1.60 units lower than that of their European born children. For Sicilians it is 1.78 units higher than that of their European-born children. The following table gives the average differences between measurements of foreign-born immigrants and their own American-born descendants.

Fig. 5. Width of face of adult Bohemian males born in Europe who immigrated in certain years, compared with that of American-born descendants of mothers who immigrated in corresponding years.

8. The width of face of American-born children of immigrants is decidedly narrower than that of the foreign-born (Fig. 5). Furthermore there is a decided decline of those born a considerable length of time after the immigration of the mother, so that we get the impression of a cumulative effect of American city environment (Fig. 6). The phenomenon is complicated by the fact that the width of face of the immigrants themselves has been declining, in so far as those born in early years, beginning with 1880, show a wider face than later immigrants.^[41]

Fig. 6. Width of face of Bohemians and their descendants.

9. When the Hebrew boys are classified according to their pubescence in groups of about equal physiological development, as I, II, III (pre-pubescent, beginning pubescence, completed pubescence), the same differences persist (Fig. 7).^[42] This observation is important because it shows that the differences are not due to a retardation of development, for no appreciable differences have been found in the tempo of development of the two groups.

Fig. 7. Relation between stature and maturity for foreign-born and American-born boys.

10. Basing my inquiry on the assumption that the variations of hair color in any particular people follow the exponential law, I have shown that numerical values for pigmentation can be obtained.^[43] I have divided the whole series of pigmentation from black to ash-blond in 20 equidistant steps, excluding reds, 0 being black, 20 ash-blond, but not without pigment like the hair of albinos. In this manner the results given in the accompanying diagram showing the degree of darkening with increasing age were obtained (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Color of hair of foreign-born and American-born Hebrews, showing the increase of pigmentation with increasing age.

According to this table, in the rate the darkening amounts to nearly 5 units—one-fourth of the whole scale of colors. If the amount of darkening of females in the first two groups is less, we have to allow for the dyeing of hair, which is practised by many women, and also for the use of false hair by married Jewesses. For this reason I do not lay great stress upon the figures obtained from observations on adult females, except among the Italians. It would seem as though among them the hair of women averages a little lighter than that of men. This apparent difference may, however, be due to the lighter color of the tips of the long hair of women. The process of darkening progresses at least until the twenty-sixth year, if not longer. An attempt to calculate the annual amount of darkening for the Hebrews shows this very clearly. For dark-haired as well as for light-haired groups the darkening amounts to about 0.2 point a year.

It has been objected^[44] that the number of observations on which these results have been based are inadequate, but a comparison of the values of the observed differences and their errors proves that this criticism is not valid.^[45]

It might perhaps have been said that a psychological cause existed in the minds of the observers, which produced one personal equation for foreign-born and another for American-born. It is well known that an expected result may influence an observation. The study of the personal equations of the observers disproves this assumption. Besides this, the results among various types lie in different directions; the observers did not know what to expect; in many cases the statistical information was recorded by one observer, the measurements by another; and constant changes between foreign-born and American-born occurred in practice. All these make such a psychological explanation highly improbable. Here it must be considered as particularly important that the results agree with the previous observations by Ammon in Baden and Livi in Italy, which are, therefore corroborative evidence of the accuracy of the results.

Other objections have been raised. Thus Fehlinger thinks that the individuals investigated are not of pure descent, but in part children of parents of mixed nationality. This is a misunderstanding of my work. His claim that measurements of stature and head form—which, he says, are exceedingly variable in almost all human types—lead more easily to errors than other measurements, I fail to understand.

Attempts have been made, either to deny that any changes occur, or to explain the observations as due to selection. The former attempt has been made by Sergi,^[46] who interprets the continued occurrence of long, medium and round heads in New York by claiming that they continue to exist but that the relative frequency of their occurrence has changed. I discuss the arbitrary character of this explanation on p. 73 of this book.

I turn to the question of the interpretation of my observations and repeat, first of all, my own conclusions. Starting from the observation that changes in the values of the averages occur at all ages, that these are found among individuals born almost immediately after the arrival of their mothers, and that they increase with the length of time elapsed between the arrival of the mother and the birth of the child, I have tried to investigate various causes that might bring about such a phenomenon. I have, as I believe, disproved the possibility that the difference between the two groups of American-born and foreign-born may be due to differences in their ancestry. This objection has been raised by Professor Sergi.^[47] As mentioned before, the comparison of parents and their own children, and the comparison between immigrants who came to America in one particular year and the descendants who came to America in the same year, seem to eliminate entirely this source of error, which has been considered by me in detail.

Less satisfactory is the attempted proof of the theory that the cradling of infants has no influence upon their head form. The fact remains that among the Hebrews there is a radical difference in the bedding and swathing of infants born abroad and of those born here. Against this fact may be adduced the other one that no such radical difference in the treatment of children exists among the Sicilians, and that, nevertheless, changes occur and that these are in a direction opposite to those observed among the Hebrews. Even more unfavorable to this theory are the changes in width of face among Bohemians which develop among immigrating children who are no longer subject to such mechanical influences. I consider a further investigation into the influences of the method of bedding children desirable.^[48]

It also occurred to me that illegitimate births of children whose fathers were Americans might bring about changes. I have disproved this assumption by proving that the degree of similarity between American-born children and their reputed fathers is as great as that between foreign-born children and their fathers (Abstract, p. 51; Final Report, pp. 154 et seq.). Besides this the social conditions of the Hebrew, Italian, and Bohemian colonies are not at all favorable to such an assumption. This point has been raised again by an anonymous English critic,^[49] without, however, referring to my discussion of the question and the answer given by me.

After disposing of these points which would give the phenomenon an accidental character, without deep biological significance, I have taken up the biological problem itself, and first of all have called attention to the parallel observations by Ammon and Livi and suggested that the changes observed by them as occurring between urban and rural populations may be due to the same causes as those observed in the descendants of immigrants. If this be true, then Ammon’s interpretation of the phenomenon as due to selection, and Livi’s as due to the more varied descent of urban populations, which makes them deviate from excessive values to more median values, must be revised.

I have also referred to the possibility that the breaking of the more or less inbred lines of small European villages after arrival of the people in America and the consequent change in the line of descent may be a cause producing changes in type.

Finally, I have pointed out that the changes can be accounted for by a process of selection only, if an excessively complicated adjustment of cause and effect in regard to the correlation of mortality and bodily form were assumed—so intricate that the theory would become improbable on account of its complexity.

It will, therefore, be seen that my position is that I find myself unable to give an explanation of the phenomena, and that all I try to do is to prove that certain explanations are impossible. I think this position is not surprising, since what happens here happens in every purely statistical investigation. The resultant figures are merely descriptions of facts which in most cases cannot be discovered by any other means. These observations, however, merely set us a biological problem that can be solved only by biological methods. No statistics will tell us what may be the disturbing elements in intra-uterine or later growth that result in changes of form. It may be that new statistical investigations in other types of environment may give us a grouping of these phenomena which suggests certain groups of causes, clues that can then be followed up by biological methods—it is certainly asking too much to expect the solution of this problem from one series of observations. I at least am more inclined to ask for further material from other sources than to force a solution that must be speculative.

This defines my position toward the criticisms of Gaston Backman^[50] and Giuseppe Sergi. The former claims that the explanations given by Ammon are adequate, and simply identifies my observations and his. He overlooks the all-important difference that I have compared parents and their own children, a method which introduces an entirely new point of view and practically disproves Ammon’s claim that these changes are due to natural selection. I have always considered Livi’s theory as the most plausible explanation of the European observations, and still think that it must be a strong contributory cause, although it is not applicable to our series and for this reason can no longer be considered as explaining the whole phenomenon. Backman’s views are, it seems, not in accord with the results of our inquiry. He states: “The causes underlying the alteration will then have to be sought in factors of selection that may be of the most divergent nature. When, nevertheless, Boas wants to maintain that he by his researches has proved the plasticity of human races, this conclusion seems to me to carry further than the facts in question will permit. It seems, on the contrary, to me to be quite plain that it is the change from country life to city life that has been the fact of real importance in the matter of the alterations which the descendants of the immigrants have undergone, and not the special American conditions. The point of weight must be sought in those conditions which the changes from country life to city life carry with them.” I have shown that selection is extremely unlikely to bring about the results observed. That the essential causes may be the city conditions is possible, but not proven. I have not ventured to claim that I have discovered these causes. Besides, what would it help us if we assign the phenomena to city life, since the manner of its influence is as obscure as that of any other causes? I may quote here from my “Abstract” (p. 52), which Mr. Backman reviews (also Final Report, p. 75). When speaking of the differences between urban and rural types, noted by Ammon and Livi, I say: “Our American observations show that there is also a direct influence at work” (in so far as the differences occur also between parents and their own children, in which case selection is highly improbable and mixture excluded). “Ammon’s observations are in accord with those on our American city-born central Europeans; Livi’s, with those on our American city-born Sicilians and Neapolitans. Parallel observations made in rural districts and in various climates in America, and others made in Europe, may solve the problem whether the changes that we have observed here are only those due to the change from rural life to urban life. From this point of view the slight changes among the Scotch are also most easily intelligible because among them there is no marked transition from one mode of life to another, most of those measured having been city-dwellers and skilled tradesmen in Scotland, and continuing the same life and occupations here.”

As long, then, as we do not know the causes of the observed changes, we must speak of a plasticity (as opposed to permanence) of types, including in the term changes brought about by any cause whatever—by selection, by changes of prenatal or postnatal growth, or by changes in the hereditary constitution, as Mr. Backman seems to do. In order to avoid the impression of defining a particular course I have used expressly the term “instability or plasticity of types” (Abstract, p. 53).

Professor R. S. Steinmetz^[51] suggests that the observed changes may be due to the elimination of degenerate types that develop under the unfavorable European conditions and are, therefore, a reversion to the better developed old types. I do not consider this likely, because the conditions under which the immigrants live are not favorable; but this suggestion is worth following up as one of the possible contributory causes.

It has also been suggested^[52] that the lowering of the head index may be due to the increase in stature which occurs in America. I have myself pointed out that the cephalic index tends to decrease with increasing stature, because the correlation between all anteroposterior measurements—in this case length of head and stature—is closer than the correlation between these and transversal measurements. This relation, however, occurs only in a group which has been treated as a statistical unit. As soon as the groups are classified from distinct social or racial points of view, it ceases. This question has been treated by E. Tschepourkowsky.^[53] It is clear that the same relation cannot be expected between stature and head measurements in a group which contains individuals of only one selected stature, as in a group in which all statures are increased owing to some cause that affects the whole group, and which may affect other measurements in peculiar ways. Furthermore, the absolute width of head of the Hebrews born in America decreases, the length of head increases. Among the Italians the reverse is the case.

Professor Sergi criticizes my views from the standpoint that he considers sudden changes in germ plasm in new surroundings impossible and tries to reduce the phenomenon entirely to one of varying composition of the series, that is, if we follow out his ideas, to a differing fertility or mortality of component types of the immigrants. If his remarks, as it may seem, should indicate that he considers brachycephalic, mesocephalic, and dolichocephalic individuals as distinct types, the criticisms made before hold for his view also. His is an attempt to explain the phenomena by natural selection, the success of which, as said before, I consider as extremely doubtful. The particular form in which it is presented by Professor Sergi is based on his method of analyzing the somatological types constituting a people. I cannot consider this method as fruitful, since the analysis which he demands is impossible. If we establish a number of arbitrary types it is always possible to analyze a series of observations accordingly, but this analysis does not prove the correctness of our subjective classification and the existence of the selected forms as types, but is due merely to the fact that the distribution of observations can be made according to any fitting theory; but the correctness or incorrectness of the theory can be proved only in exceptional cases.

The greater the number of types that are to be segregated, the more arbitrary becomes the method, and almost any analysis according to a sufficient number of types can be made. There are, of course, distributions that demand an analysis—like von Luschan’s bi-modal curves of Asia Minor, or my own for width of face of half-blood Indians, and others—but there must be strong internal evidence of a compound character, and even then the analysis will be arbitrary if the component types are not known. This is perfectly evident if we realize that each type must be defined by at least three constants—average, variability, and relative frequency—so that for two component elements five constants must be determined (one value of the relative frequencies being determined by the relative frequency of the constituent series), for three component elements eight, etc. The greater the number of constants to be determined, the better can the theoretical and observed series be made to coincide, regardless of the correctness of the theory which is expressed by the constants.

I conclude from this that the claim that the change must be explained by a different composition of the series of American-born is inadmissible, because it is an entirely arbitrary solution of the problem.

I repeat that I have no solution to offer, that I have only stated the results of my observations and considered the plausibilities of various explanations that suggest themselves, none of which were found satisfactory. Let us await further evidence before committing ourselves to theories that cannot be proven.

Finally, a few words on the opinion that has been expressed or implied, that our observations destroy the whole value of anthropometry, in particular that the study of the cephalic index has been shown to have no importance. It seems to me, on the contrary, that our investigations, like many other previous ones, have merely demonstrated that results of great value can be obtained by anthropometrical studies, and that the anthropometric method is a most important means of elucidating the early history of mankind and the effect of social and geographical environment upon man. The problem presented by the geographical distribution of head forms—for instance, of the cephalic index—has not been solved by our inquiry. All we have shown is that head forms may undergo certain changes in course of time, without change of descent. It seems to my mind that every result obtained by the use of anthropometric methods should strengthen our confidence in the possibility of putting them to good use for the advancement of anthropological science.

In regard to the question of the effect of cradling I have made a study of Armenians living in New York.^[54] One of the most striking characteristics of the Armenian head form is the flatness of the occiput. Von Luschan and others consider this one of the principal characteristics of the type, while Chantre^[55] assumed that the flatness was due to deformation.

Inquiries among the Armenians living in New York showed that according to their own opinion the plan-occipital form of the head is due to the position of the child in the cradle. Formerly the child was placed on a large diaper reaching up to the shoulders and covered thickly with a white clay found in the mountains. The diaper was pulled up between the legs and both ends folded firmly from right and left over the body. Another cloth was placed over the diaper and folded so as to press the arms firmly against the body. Then the child was placed on its back in the cradle. The pillow was often filled with wool. The child was kept permanently in this position. Immediately after birth the midwife pressed the head of the new-born infant so as to give it a round shape and compressed the nose from both sides. It does not seem probable that these manipulations had a permanent effect.

The question whether artificial deformation affects the form of the head can be solved only by comparing the head forms of individuals cradled in the old fashion with those who were not swaddled. The Armenians living in America do not swaddle their children. In the cities of the Orient, particularly among Armenians who are in close relation to missions, the custom is also disappearing, so that among the younger generation its influence is probably less than among the older Armenians.

In order to settle this question I measured a fairly adequate number of Armenians, partly born in Asia, partly in the United States or in western Europe. These measurements show a considerable difference between the two groups. Those born in the United States and western Europe have longer heads than those born in Asia. The length of head of those born in America exceeds by 6 mm. that of those born in Asia, while the width of head is 4 mm. less.

NEW EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO THE INSTABILITY OF HUMAN TYPES^[56]

A number of years ago I carried on, under the auspices of the United States Immigration Commission, an investigation on the physical types of immigrants and of their descendants. One of the results of this inquiry was the establishment of the fact that there is a difference in appearance between the immigrants and their descendants. So far as the bulk of the body is concerned, this information was not new. Analogous phenomena had been observed in 1877 by H. P. Bowditch in Boston, and by Peckham in Milwaukee. It was new, however, that there is also a change in such features as the cephalic index and the width of the face. It was found that on the average the heads of descendants of immigrants of East European types are more elongated, and those of the descendants of South Europeans more rounded, than those of their parents. The data were obtained partly by a generalizing method, partly by a comparison between parents and children.

The results of this inquiry have been attacked by many writers, on the basis that they decline to believe that such changes can occur. I have not found any actual criticism of my method and of the results, except by Corrado Gini, who doubts the inferences drawn in regard to the populations of Italian cities which also show a modification of the cephalic index.

I think the hesitation of many authors to accept the results is due largely to a misinterpretation of their significance. I may be allowed to state concisely here what I think has been proved, and what inferences seem justifiable.

The investigation has a direct bearing upon the question of the classification of human local types, more particularly of European types. Many attempts have been made to give a satisfactory classification of the divergent types that occur in Europe. Pigmentation, stature, form of the head, and form of the face, show material differences in various parts of Europe, notwithstanding the fundamental sameness of the whole race. Authors like Deniker, and many others, have carried out on this basis an elaborate classification of European types in a number of “races” and “sub-races.”

In this classification the assumption is made that each race that we find at the present time in its particular environment is an hereditary type different from the others. In order to express this assumption, I should like to use the term that these races and sub-races represent, “genetic” types—genetic in the sense that their characteristics are determined by heredity alone. The question, however, has not been answered, whether these types are really genetic types, or whether they are what I might call “ecotypes,” in so far as their appearance is determined by environment or ecological conditions. If we include in this term not only environmental conditions in a geographical and social sense, but also conditions that are determined by the organism itself, we might, perhaps, still better call them physiological types, in the same sense in which the biologist speaks of physiological races. My investigation then was directed to the question of how far a certain type of man may be considered a genetic type, of how far a physiological type. If there is any kind of environmental influence, it is obvious that we can never speak of a genetic type per se, but that every genetic type appears under certain environmental or physiological conditions, and that in this sense we are always dealing with the physiological form of a certain genetic type. The question, then, that demands an answer, is, in how far genetic types may be influenced by physiological changes.

I believe, that, on the basis of the material that I collected, we must maintain that the same genetic type may occur in various physiologically conditioned forms, and that so far as stature, head form, and width of face are concerned, the differences between the physiological forms of the same genetic type are of the same order as the differences between the races and sub-races which have been distinguished in Europe. I must add, however, that these remarks do not refer to pigmentation, for, contrary to a widespread belief, we have no proof of environmental influences upon pigmentation. For this reason the classification of European races cannot be considered as proving genetic differentiation.

The whole investigation which I carried on, and certain comparable observations obtained from older literature, do not indicate in any way to what physiological conditions the observed changes may be due. The only physiological causes in regard to which evidence is available relate to the bulk of the body, and to a certain extent to the proportions of the limbs. The size of the body depends upon the conditions under which growth takes place. Growth depends upon nutrition, upon pathological conditions during childhood, and upon many other causes, all of which have an effect upon the bulk of the body of the adult. When these conditions are favorable, the physiological form of a certain genetic type will be large. If there is much retardation during early life, the physiological form of the same genetic type will be small. Retardation and acceleration of growth may also account for varying proportions of the limbs. On the other hand, we have no information whatever that would allow us to determine the cause of the physiological diminution in the size of the face that has been observed in America, nor for the change in the head index that occurs among the descendants of immigrants.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that these changes are in any sense genetic changes; that is to say, that they influence the hereditary constitution of the germ. It may very well be that the same people, if carried back to their old environment, would revert to their former physiological types.

In fact, it can be shown that certain features are strictly hereditary, and that, although the physiological form of a genetic type may vary, nevertheless the genetic type as such will exert its influence. Professor von Luschan has repeatedly called attention to this fact as revealed in the modern populations of Asia Minor, where, notwithstanding the mixture which has continued for at least four thousand years, the characteristic Armenian, Northwest European, and Mediterranean types survive in the mixed population. Similar examples may be observed in Italy. I have calculated the variability of the head form that is found in different parts of Italy, based on the data collected by Ridolfo Livi. The head form of the North Italians is excessively short. The head form of the South Italians is decidedly elongated. In between we find intermediate forms. In the Apennines, we have, in addition to the mixture of these two Italian forms, a marked immigration from the Balkan Peninsula, which introduced another short-headed type. As a result of these long-continued mixtures, we observe low degrees of variability in northern and southern Italy, high degrees of variability in the central regions, particularly in the Abruzzi. These indicate permanence of the component types of the mixed population.

During the last few years some new data have been collected that confirm my previous observations. I have pointed out several times that changes of types have been observed in Europe wherever a careful comparison between city population and country population has been made. Generally the changes that occur there have been ascribed to selective influences; but the intensity of selection would have to be so great that it does not seem plausible that they can be explained by this cause.

In conjunction with Miss Helene M. Boas, I have made a comparison between the head forms of the city populations of Italy and of the rural population in the areas surrounding the cities, and compared these data with the information given in the Italian census in regard to the immigration into cities. I found throughout that the variability of head form in each city is smaller than would be found in a population in which all the constituent genetic types were present without physiological modification. This result has been criticized by Corrado Gini, on the basis that in former times migration was less than what it is now. I grant this point; but nevertheless it is quite obvious that, although no exact data are available, the mixture of population in a city like Rome or like Florence must be very great, since the political conditions for the conflux of Italians, and even of individuals from outside of Italy, have been favorable for a very long period. If this is true, we should expect a very high degree of variability in Rome, which, however, is not found.

Turning to new data, I may mention the observation made by Dr. Hrdlička, who, in a paper read before the Pan American Scientific Congress, has stated that he found the width of face of Americans of the fourth generation—that is to say, of descendants of Europeans who had no foreign-born ancestor after the fourth generation back—was materially decreased as compared to the width of face found among European types. This conforms strictly with what I found among the descendants of immigrants of all nationalities.

A year ago I had the opportunity to make an anthropometric investigation of a considerable number of natives of Puerto Rico. This work was carried on in connection with the Natural History Survey of Puerto Rico organized by the New York Academy of Sciences. The population of Puerto Rico is derived from three distinct sources—from people belonging to the Mediterranean type of Europe, from West Indian aborigines, and from Negroes. The Mediterranean ancestry of the Puerto Ricans leads back to all parts of Spain; but among the more recent immigrants, Catalans, people from the Balear Islands and from the Canary Islands prevail. There are also a fair number of Corsicans. The Spanish immigration has been quite strong even up to the present time. Among the individuals whom I measured, 14 per cent had Spanish-born fathers, some even Spanish-born mothers. From all we know about the history of the people of Puerto Rico, we must consider them essentially as descendants of male immigrants who intermarried with native women. It is evident that in early times this must have led to the development of a Mestizo population, in which, however, the amount of Indian blood must have decreased very rapidly owing to the continued influx of Spanish blood, and the elimination from the reproductive series of the male Mestizo element. The Negro population is settled particularly on the outer coast of the island; while the amount of Negro blood in the interior is apparently not very great, except near the principal routes of travel.

According to European observations, the Spanish ancestors of this population, while living in Spain, are long-headed. The Negro element is of mixed provenience, from many different parts of Africa, but, on the whole, the Negro in Africa is also long-headed. The West Indian element, judging from the few prehistoric crania that have been recovered, represents a very short-headed type. The modern Puerto Rican is short-headed to such a degree that even a heavy admixture of Indian blood could not account for the degree of short-headedness. If we apply the results of known instances of intermixture to our particular case, and assume stability of type, we find that, even if the population were one-half Indian and one-half Spanish and Negro, the head index would be considerably lower than what we actually observe. There is therefore no source that would account for the present head form as a genetic type; and we are compelled to assume that the form which we observe is due to a physiological modification that has occurred under the new environment. The head form of those individuals whose fathers were born in Spain is noticeably more elongated than that of the individuals whose parents are both Puerto Ricans. The head index of the Mulatto population is intermediate between the index of the native Puerto Ricans and that of those whose one parent is Spanish. The average index of the Puerto Rican is 82.5. The average index of the Spaniard in Spain is less than 77. We find, therefore, an increase of five units here, which can in no way be accounted for by genetic considerations.

I may mention in this connection that the average stature of the Puerto Ricans is apparently almost the same as that of the Sicilians in New York, and that throughout the period of growth the stature follows about the same curve as that represented by Sicilian children living in America. If anything, the stature is a little lower, and there is no indication of that acceleration of development which is so often claimed to be characteristic of a tropical environment. Undoubtedly poor nutrition, and probably also pathological causes, have a retarding influence here, which might easily be overcome by better hygienic conditions.

It is unfortunate that we have no accurate statistics of Puerto Rican immigration and emigration, which would enable us to state with much greater definiteness what genetic type should be expected here. There is a popular belief in Puerto Rico that in certain parts of the island, in the so-called “Indiera,” Indian types have persisted to a greater extent than elsewhere. I have not been able to find any definite indication of a difference in type; but I have measured only a few individuals from these districts. The material that I have been able to study comes from all parts of the island, but principally from the western-central part. The phenomena here described occur with equal intensity in all parts of the island.

The question of the degree of instability of human types seems to my mind an exceedingly important one for a clear understanding of the problems of physical anthropology. It would be particularly desirable to study the problem among immigrants living in different rural communities of the United States, and it would be even more desirable to have information in regard to the types that develop among the East Europeans and South Europeans who return to Europe and settle in their old geographical environment.

INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT UPON GROWTH^[57]

We have seen that among the individuals composing a population considerable differences in the rate and ultimate result of development are found and that these depend largely on external conditions under which growth and development take place. The question arises whether it is possible to separate the variability caused by environment from hereditary conditions.

In an attempt to answer this question we have to investigate the relations between the bodily forms of parents and children and those between members of fraternities. The method by which these relations can be investigated may be explained by the example of the head index.

If in a given population fathers with unusually rounded heads are compared with their children, it is found that their children have also the tendency to have rounded heads, but less so than the selected group of fathers. For instance, if the average head index of a population is 80% and a sufficiently large number of fathers with an index of 86% is picked out, the average head index of the children of this group will be 82%, about one-third^[58] of the deviation of the fathers from the norm of the selected group of fathers. In this way all the body parts may be investigated and a relation similar to the one just mentioned may be established. In populations which have lived for a long time in the same place and whose families have intermarried the “similarity” of fathers and children, as here defined, is about one-third. The same value has been found for the similarity of mothers and their children. The similarity among brothers and sisters is much greater. In a population like the one just referred to a group of men may be selected whose headform is characterized by the index 86%. Then the average index of their brothers will be 83%, in other words the difference between the norm and the average of the brothers of the selected group is about one-half of the difference between the norm and the value of the selected group. We may say that the similarity of the brothers is about one-half.

Observations regarding the similarities between parents and children and those between brothers and sisters are similar to those mentioned here: about one-third and one-half. Often the values are a little different. Much larger values have been found for twins, particularly for identical twins—that is, those developed from a single ovum. For the present the values given here may be considered as the norms for European populations.

In parts of the body which in the course of growth undergo marked individual changes, such similarities may be considered in the following way: Besides the hereditary similarities which are determined by the values just given each individual develops independently of all the others, with varying tempo and intensity, according to more or less favorable conditions of life. If these causes are of such a character that they are expressed in the bodily form of the adult, there must be, besides the hereditary causes, other accidental ones which are different for the different individuals. In this case a weakening of the similarities may be expected. Therefore, if the observed similarities are so arranged that the similarities of those forms which are permanently established shortly after birth are compared with those which take their permanent forms later in life, it may be expected that the latter group will show lower degrees of similarity.

I have carried through this inquiry for the statures of East European Jews measured in New York. The results show a considerable decrease for the degree of similarity as compared to that of the measurements of the head. The similarity between parents and children for length and width of head, which are established early in life, obtained from more than 2,300 observations is about .36, while that for stature referring to parents and their adult children is only .21. The similarity of siblings (brothers and sisters) in regard to stature is .33 as compared to .56, the similarity for head measures. We may conclude from this that the reduction of variability is essentially due to external differences under which the individuals develop.^[59]

If it is assumed that the hereditary part of the similarity is the same for all parts of the body—an assumption that needs proof—it is possible to determine the part of the variability to be ascribed to heredity and the other to be ascribed to environment.

I have assumed that every individual is advanced or held back in his development entirely independently of all the others. This hardly corresponds to actual conditions. Comparing poor and well-to-do families, all members of each family are obviously more or less exposed to similar conditions. The poor are less favorably developed than the rich, so that a secondary family resemblance develops not dependent upon heredity but upon sameness of environment. The same may be said of various parts of a population forming social strata or inhabiting different geographical localities.

At present the real amount of the environmental influences to which families are subjected cannot be determined.

We must furthermore remember that even those forms that reach their final form at an early age are exposed to outer influences, and that the values obtained by the assumption that the values observed for early completed forms are maximal values express only a minimum for the effects of environmental determinants. This is indicated by the increased similarity of heterozygous twins which must be explained as due to the sameness of their prenatal life.

It follows from these considerations that we may expect not only differences between individuals due to exogene causes, but that there will also be differences between populations due to the conditions under which they live. We may also conclude from available data that among individuals of the same descent such variations in stature may be measured by a standard variability of ± 3.5 cm., so that in the same population according to outer conditions differences in stature of several centimeters may be expected. This is quite in accord with the observation made both in Europe and America showing that stature has increased by about 3 cm. during the last fifty years.

I repeat that the maximal value for similarity obtained from head measurements must not be considered as an expression of hereditary influences only, but that a certain amount of external influences is contained in it. The same considerations that we made before may, therefore, be applied, and, as we found that the stature in populations must be variable according to environmental conditions although the hereditary character of the population remains constant, so we may say in general that modifications of type may result from environmental conditions without any fundamental, hereditary changes in the hereditary character of populations. It seems to me that this explanation of the changes observed in the United States is quite adequate and that it is, for the present at least, unnecessary to look for hereditary changes.

It should be emphasized again that I have assumed here that the degree of hereditary similarity for all characters is equal—an assumption that may not be taken for granted without further investigation. Thus it seems probable that in a mixed population, descendants of one population with high and another with low head index, while the hereditary element of stature is the same in either, the degree of similarity for head index and for stature would be quite different. Nevertheless the material used in this discussion seems to indicate that the method can be used in fairly homogeneous populations. Extended investigations on similarity are needed in order to show whether the suggested approach is admissible.

THE TEMPO OF GROWTH OF FRATERNITIES^[60]

I have shown that when the period of maximum rate of growth is early, the whole growth proceeds at a rapid rate from early years on, at least as far as our material permits us to follow it; the onset of the puberty spurt is early, its intensity great, its duration short. Conversely, when the period of maximum rate of growth is late its intensity is slight, its duration long. This is expressed by the values of the maximum rates of growth which are low for those who reach maturity late, high for those who reach it early.

It is a most important question to decide whether this unity of the tempo of development that prevails until maturity has been reached will extend over later life. As far as I am aware the only reliable material that shows an interrelation of phenomena of aging and of the life span is that discovered by Dr. Felix Bernstein, who has proved that early presbyopia indicates an early death by senile degeneration. All others are more or less impressions of medical practitioners who believe, for instance, that early calcification of the larynx indicates an early onset of arterial degeneration. It seems most important that by organized effort the life history of individuals should be followed up in order to show whether the rate at which physiological development and decay occur are constitutionally determined. Studies on longevity also suggest that this is the case, but they can never be quite convincing.

The observations here discussed refer to individual development. We had to investigate next whether the conditions that determine the speed of the life cycle are hereditary or determined by environment. If they are hereditary we may expect that members of fraternities are alike in their tempo, provided the social conditions of the whole community investigated are fairly uniform. The best material at my disposal is contained in the records of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum in New York, for here the conditions of nutrition, shelter and mode of life are as uniform as can be obtained. I have already shown that there is a fairly strong positive correlation between the dates of first menstruation of sisters.^[61] Unfortunately it was not possible to classify the material relating to growth in the same manner as was done for other series because, on account of gaps in the series of observations, the moment of maximum rate of growth cannot be determined for all members of each family and the material would have been too scanty. On account of the asymmetries of the increment curve, particularly during adolescence, I did not use correlations, but classified the material in three groups, about equal in numbers—children tall, medium and short at a given age—and compared the curves of growth of their brothers and sisters. Then it appeared that the brothers and sisters of the tall ones, who include many of those with rapid tempo of development, will also have a rapid tempo, an early time for the maximum rate of growth, a rapid rate and an early termination of growth, while the brothers and sisters of the short ones, who include many of those with sluggish tempo of development, have a slow rate of growth of less intensity and longer duration (Fig. 1). Since the conditions under which these children live are unusually uniform, we may conclude that proof for the heredity of the tempo of growth has been given. This agrees with the results obtained by Pearl by experimentation with animals and with observations on plants of short and long vegetative periods. An analogous study of children in the Horace Mann School gave the same result. In this case it might be suspected that similar home environment is a contributory cause to the similarity of the growth curve of members of each fraternity (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Annual growth of brothers and sisters, tall, medium-sized and short, at the selected ages of 7, 9, 11, and 13 years. Continuous observations. Hebrew Orphan Asylum.

Fig. 2. Annual growth of brothers and sisters, tall, medium-sized and short, at the selected ages of 7, 9, 11, and 13 years. Continuous observations. Horace Mann School.

It is obvious that a phenomenon of such complexity as length of body and tempo of development must be governed by many hereditary factors and that we are dealing with a phenomenon of general organization of the body and that a search for genes would not be advisable. Is not there some danger anyway, that the number of genes will depend rather upon the number of investigators than upon their actual existence?

CONDITIONS CONTROLLING THE TEMPO OF DEVELOPMENT AND DECAY^[62]

I venture to bring to your attention a number of observations regarding the life span which I hope may be of interest to you.

The life span is usually understood to be expressed by tables of expectation of life; but this is not what I mean to discuss. I wish to exclude all deaths due to infections, contagious diseases and accidents, and consider only the life span that we should find, if the strength of the organism were allowed to exhaust itself and death were to occur as a result of senility.

Even here certain allowances have to be made, for we may distinguish between an hereditary, purely biologically determined element and another one that depends upon conditions of life. Ample or deficient nutrition, more or less exhausting daily labor, abuse of the body, greater or lesser nervous strains are elements that modify the life span as it may be determined by heredity. Even geographical conditions may have their influence. Tropical or temperate climate, the degree of humidity, altitude, all have their influence upon the life span. It is, therefore, impossible to speak of the life span of an individual as determined absolutely by hereditary constitution. It must always be understood as the result of a hereditary constitution subject to a given set of environmental conditions. Therefore, even in a population of the same descent, the life span will depend upon social and economic conditions.

A closer examination of the problem shows that the simple statement that a certain length of life may be expected for an individual of known hereditary character and living in a known environment does not exhaust it. The life span is the result of physiological processes that go on throughout life and that have to be observed from the time of birth until death. When we study the distribution of moments of the occurrence of definite physiological changes, it appears that the variability of the time of occurrence increases with great rapidity during life. Measured by standard variations, the period of pregnancy has a variability of a few days, the appearance of the first teeth of a few weeks, the time when puberty is reached varies by more than a year, the time of menopause by several years, and death by arteriosclerosis by more than seven years. These rapid increases are not the same for different types of physiological phenomena. The teeth, for instance, behave quite differently from the skeleton. All, however, show the characteristic rapid increase in variability. This may be due to one of two causes. Either the increase of variability may be due to a high degree of variability of the changes which occur during a given interval without any relation to the time when a previous stage is reached, or the given interval may have a marked correlation with the time when the previous stage has been reached. If the former is the case, it would be impossible to predict the future, if the latter we may be able to predict the course of the life span. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance for the understanding of the life span to determine whether there is any correlation between the rapidity of physiological processes during life.

Unfortunately it is very difficult without a somewhat rigid organization to follow individuals from birth to death. Continuous observations on individuals are most easily obtained during school life, and I have asked myself the question whether during youth there is any evidence of a consistent speed of physiological changes. The observations show clearly that such consistency prevails. Following young children of six years up to maturity it may be observed that growth is completed earlier for tall ones than for short ones, both for boys and girls. During adolescence all children show a decided increase in the speed of development. Among girls this occurs earlier than among boys. This sudden spurt is followed by a rapid decrease in the rate of growth. Among young children, those who are tall have the spurt earlier than those who are short. Tall girls have their first menstruation, on the average, earlier than short ones. The criterion of size of young children is not as clear as might be desired, because some children are tall because they are accelerated in development, others are tall because by heredity they belong to a tall strain. It is, therefore, more instructive to compare all those who have the period of maximum rate of growth at the same time. Then it appears that the whole growth period for those who mature early is condensed.^[63] The bodily growth occupies a short period and proceeds with great energy. The reverse is true of those with a late spurt. They develop slowly and the whole period of growth is extended. The same observation may be made on girls arranged according to the time when they reach maturity, but it is not quite so clearly defined, because the relation between sexual maturity and bodily growth is more indirect. It is, however, evident from all the material collected that the period of bodily development is a unit which in some individuals proceeds rapidly, in others slowly.

The next important question to be decided is whether this unity of the rate at which the physiological life process runs on is determined by heredity or by the influence of outer conditions. The latter may be proved by a number of observations. Many investigators have shown that the average stature of European populations has increased considerably since the middle of the past century. Previous studies do not show us how this change comes about, whether it is a result of speeding the process of development and of an incidental final increase, or whether it is a general rise of the standards for each age. So far as the material collected to date allows us to judge, there is a speeding up of growth which brings about very great differences during the growth period. These differences decrease when growth begins to slow up, but result in a somewhat higher stature of the adult. The groups compared were measured, the one in 1909, the other in 1935. It would seem that the changed conditions result in a change of the tempo of development. In other words, we find here proof that the tempo of the life cycle in youth may be strongly modified by conditions of life. I do not venture to speculate on the causes that may underlie these changes, for it is not apparent that the social and economic conditions of the groups concerned have changed noticeably during the interval of twenty-five years. The only other series known to me is one of measurements of children in Jena^[64] in Germany; one taken from 1878-1880, the other in 1921. This shows also a considerable increase in stature among the children measured in 1921 notwithstanding the malnutrition of the preceding years. It is not convincing because during the interval Jena had become an industrial center which attracted people from a distance. Since the native Thuringian population is markedly short, that of the wider environment taller, I was inclined to ascribe the difference to the differing ancestry of the two series. The phenomenon observed here in New York in a more homogeneous group indicates, however, that conditions similar to those prevailing here may have contributed to the increase in stature.

These observations conform with the experimental results of observations on rats. Between 1912 and 1919 Gudernatsch^[65] administered dried endocrine glands to successive generations of white rats. He observed that the feeding of dried thymus gland brought it about that the animals treated were healthy, had numerous pregnancies, large litters and long life. Recent work by L. G. Rowntree, J. H. Clark, and A. M. Hanson^[66] showed that injections of thymus extract (Hanson) accelerated the rate of growth and development, hastened the onset of adolescence in the offspring of the treated rats and increased the fertility of parent rats. It is still more interesting to note that the acceleration is much greater in later litters of the second generation and is more marked in each succeeding generation under treatment. Omission of the injection in one generation caused the loss of all these changes. Analogous observations were made by Dr. Otto Roth.^[67] There is still some doubt as to the active principle that causes the acceleration. Both the experiments on rats and the observations on man show clearly that the tempo of development and the ultimate size may be influenced by outer conditions.

Nevertheless, the importance of hereditary determinants may not be neglected. Many attempts have been made to investigate the correlations between the ages at death of parents and children, and it has been found that a fairly marked positive correlation exists. The same is true for members of a fraternity. The material is not quite convincing because it is difficult to eliminate complex social causes and to confine the cases strictly to death due to senile degeneration. I have investigated the question in how far the tempo of development of one member of a fraternity may be repeated among other members of the same fraternity. The data prove that a child tall for its own age will have brothers and sisters who mature early, while others who are short for their own age will have such of a slow tempo of development. These data are from an orphan asylum, where all the children were under the same environmental conditions, so that external influences, if any, were very slight. This also agrees with observations made on animals. Pearl^[68] particularly has raised from a mixed series strains differing materially in life span.

All these observations may be summarized in the statement that each individual has by heredity a certain tempo of development that may be modified by outer conditions. The gross, generalized observations available at the present time suggest that in a socially uniform group the tempo of development may be considered as an hereditary characteristic of individuals.

The data which we have at our disposal end with the completion of growth and the important question arises whether the characteristic tempo of the individual extends over later periods of life; whether a rapid tempo of growth will also be associated with rapid decay and earlier death, or whether other types of relation exist. Unfortunately it is quite impossible at the present time to obtain adequate data which, as you will readily observe, must be based on long continued observations of the same individual. If we can obtain the coöperation of the proper authorities such data might easily be secured from the officer corps of the Army and Navy and in similar organizations that require periodic health examinations.

We owe the knowledge of data in regard to later life to Dr. Felix Bernstein^[69] who proved by means of life insurance records that an early onset of presbyopia is associated with other early degenerative processes which lead to an earlier death by arteriosclerosis. I do not doubt that many records of death in the archives of life insurance companies could by appropriate search be associated with the growth curves of individuals. Private schools which keep such records remain in touch with their graduates, and by means of proper organization, policyholders among them could be found in sufficient number to give the required information. Furthermore, since we know that the tempo of development is hereditary we might investigate the degree of presbyopia among the parents of children whose growth curve is known. This might also be secured with the help of private schools.

The general problem of the tempo of physiological processes in relation to the life span is certainly not only of theoretical interest, but may also enable us to predict with increased accuracy the expectation of life even in early years.

REMARKS ON THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY OF CHILDREN^[70]

If I venture to lay before you some brief remarks on the anthropological study of children, I do so for the reason that problems of hygiene are necessarily based on the consideration of the anatomical, physiological, and pathological conditions of masses of individuals, phenomena with which anthropological science is intimately concerned, for anthropology deals with the racial and social influences that determine form and function of the body, without reference to the peculiarities of the individual as such, although the range of variations in form and function in individuals who constitute a social group is a most important topic of our investigations. I wish to deprecate, therefore, at the outset all attempts at an individualistic interpretation of our results, which express only the general conditions that have to be considered in a study of the life of the individual, and which are modified in each individual by his peculiar life history and hereditary conditions that cannot be expressed in our generalized results. Nevertheless, the importance of these is great, for they express in a concise way the general effects of social and racial conditions that cannot be formulated in any other manner, and set definite problems to the student of hygiene as well as of anatomy and physiology.

The phenomena that interest us here are those of the development and growth of the child. The first attempt to study growth by metrical methods was made by Quetelet, in Belgium; but our first accurate knowledge is due to the investigations of Henry P. Bowditch, in Boston, and, later on, to those of Roberts, in England. These were followed by work on similar lines in America, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, and Japan. New lines of research were developed by the application of more rigid biometrical methods, the development of which we owe in large part to the influence of Francis Galton and to the work of Karl Pearson.

The results of these studies and the present status of the problem may be summarized as follows: The rate of growth of the body, measured by weight and stature, increases very rapidly until the fifth month of fetal life. From that time on the rate of growth decreases, first rapidly, then more slowly, until about four years before the age of puberty. During adolescence the rate of growth is considerably accelerated, and decreases again rapidly after sexual maturity has been reached. Thus the curve of growth represents a line which possesses a very high maximum at about the fifth month of fetal life. It decreases rapidly, and has a second although much lower maximum shortly before sexual maturity is reached, and not long afterwards reaches the zero point. The increase in bulk of the body continues much longer than that of length. In the beginning the rates of growth of the two sexes are about equal, that of the male probably exceeding slightly that of the female. Since, however, sexual maturity begins to develop earlier in the female than in the male, the concomitant acceleration also sets in at an earlier time, with the result that for a few years girls have a larger bulk of body than boys.

Although the periods of most active growth of the parts of the body differ considerably, it would seem that the characteristics of the curve of growth as here outlined are repeated in many if not in all organs and parts of the body. For instance, although the head reaches nearly its full size at an early time, so that its rate of growth shows a much more rapid decrease with age than that of the bulk of the body, there is an acceleration of growth during the period of adolescence. The differences between the sexes are in this case quite marked in early life, the head of the girl being always considerably smaller than that of the boy. The early prepubertal acceleration of the girl is not sufficient to bring the head measurements of girls up to those of boys, even during the prepubertal period. The difference in the measurement of the sexes is, therefore, not by any means solely due to the shorter period of development of girls, as might be supposed from a study of stature and weight alone, but important secondary sexual characteristics exist in early childhood.

These prove that the difference in physiological development between the two sexes begins at a very early time, and that in the fifth year it has already reached a value of more than a year and a half.

I give here a tabular statement of the available observations:

These data are not very accurate and must be considered a first approximation only.

When we remember that growth depends upon physiological development, it will be recognized that we must not compare the stature of girls of a certain age with that of boys of the same age, but that from the fourth year on a girl of a certain age should be compared with a boy a year and a half older than she is.

If this view is correct, then it appears that the relation in size of the two sexes persists even in childhood.

I think no better proof can be given of the correctness of this view than the peculiar behavior of those parts of the body which complete their growth at a very early time; for instance, that of the head.^[71] The total amount of the growth of the head from the second year on is slight. If, therefore, girls are ahead of boys in their development by about a year and a half or two years, the total amount of growth of the head in their favor will be the small amount of growth accomplished during this period of a year and a half or two years. If, then, there is a typical difference between the size of the body of male and female in childhood of the same character as found in adult life, then the head of the girl ought to be at all periods smaller than the head of the boy; and this is what actually happens. The phenomenon has been interpreted as indicating a less favorable development of the head of the woman; but the previous remarks show that it is obviously due solely to the different rate of physiological development of the two sexes. The results of physiological tests which show very generally that girls do better than boys of the same age may be another expression of the general acceleration of their development.

While we may thus speak of a curve of growth and development of the whole body and its organs, which has characteristic values for each moment in the life of the totality of individuals that compose a social group, not all the individuals pass through these stages of development with equal rapidity. It is easiest to make these conditions clear to ourselves by stating the various ages at which certain points in the physiological development of the individual are reached. Data are available for the periods of pregnancy, eruption of teeth, pubescence, sexual maturity, and development of long bones. So far as these can be reduced according to fairly accurate methods, the following results have been obtained: The average period of pregnancy is 269.4 days. One-fourth of all the children observed have been born in the periods of pregnancy between 265 and 273 days, one-half, between 260 and 278 days, and three-fourths, between 254 and 285 days. According to the laws of large numbers, the ratio of children born between any other limits of time can be determined, if any one of the pairs of values here mentioned is known; for instance, the pair which indicates the limits in which the middle half of all the children are born. In our case these limits are, accurately speaking, 269.4 days (the average), plus and minus 9 days. We may, therefore, call 9 days the measure of the variability of the period of pregnancy. I repeat that this means that one-half of all the children are born within the period limited by 269.4 days (the average), minus 9 days (i.e., 260.4 days), and plus 9 days (i.e., 278.4 days). In this way the variabilities shown in table on page 98^[72] have been determined.

It appears, from this table, which may be represented in the form of a curve, that the variability of the physiological stages of development increases very rapidly, probably so that its logarithm is in a ratio approximately proportional to the actual age, or, to use the term applied by Dr. Crampton and Dr. Rotch, to the chronological age. The causes that lead to this rapidly increasing variability are so far entirely unknown. It is certain, however, that there must be definite causes at work which bring about this phenomenon; for, if the variability were due to accidental causes only, it would increase much more slowly than in a ratio proportional to the increasing age, namely, proportional to its square root. The study of the general curve indicating the increase of variability in physiological development points to an irregularity at the time of approaching maturity. At this period the variability seems to increase at an unusually rapid rate, and either to be stationary or to decrease again at a later time.

I have spoken here of the variability of the physiological development of the body as though this were a unit. In 1895, in a discussion of Porter’s observations on the growth of school children in St. Louis, I pointed out the fact that a general variability in physiological development accounts for the close correlation between the distribution of children of the same age in school grades and the variations in the size of the body and its organs; and this problem was later on worked out by myself and Dr. Clark Wissler in regard to various measurements. These correlations have also been proved in a most interesting manner by Dr. Crampton’s observations on pubescence, and by Dr. Rotch’s study of the development of the epiphyses. It is true that a close correlation between the states of the physiological development of the various parts of the body exists, but there exists also a certain amount of variability in the development of one organ when another one has reached a certain definite stage. The correlation is so close that the condition of the bones, or that of pubescence, gives us a better insight into the physiological development of the individual than his actual chronological age, and may therefore be advantageously used for the regulation of child labor and school entrance, as Dr. Rotch and Dr. Crampton advocate; but we must not commit the error of identifying physiological development with physiological age, or of considering chronological age as irrelevant.

The clearest proof that is available is found in the data relating to increase of stature, and in observations on pubescence made according to Dr. Crampton’s methods. Bowditch was the first to investigate the phenomenon of growth of individuals who are short or tall at a given age, but his method was based on a statistical error. Later on, I showed that retarded individuals possess a late acceleration of growth, and these results were amplified by studies made by Dr. Beyer and Dr. Wissler. Recently I had occasion to make a more detailed statistical analysis of the phenomenon of growth,^[73] which shows that groups whose prepubertal accelerated growth begins late in life have rates of growth that exceed by far those of the normal individual; in other words, that, among the retarded groups, the whole energy required for growth is expended in a very brief period. In the case of stature, the phenomenon is complicated by the great differences in hereditary stature among the various parts of the population. It appears more clearly in observations on pubescence. Thus it can be shown that, if the first pubic hair appears in one group of boys at 11½ years, and in another at 15½ years, it will take the former much longer than the latter to attain the full development of pubic hair, and the rate of change found among them will be much greater than that of normally developed individuals. In other words, individuals who exhibit the same stages of physiological development are not the same, physiologically speaking, if their actual chronological ages differ; their past is not the same, and prospective physiological changes in their bodies will proceed in different ways. It is clear, therefore, that the greater the retardation or acceleration in any one particular respect, the greater also will be the disharmonies that develop in the body, since not all the other organs will follow the same rate of acceleration and retardation. The causes of these phenomena are unknown, but we may perhaps venture on the hypothetical explanation that all the cells of the body undergo certain progressive changes with increasing age, and that the internal secretions which become active at the time of puberty exert a stimulus upon the cells which causes accelerated growth in the cells, which depends, however, also upon the state of development of these cells. This may refer to the whole body, as well as to the glands that have a direct influence upon the rate of growth. In retarded individuals many of the cells have advanced in their development more nearly normally than the groups of cells involved in sexual maturity; and when their action sets in the cells of the body are stimulated much more vigorously than the less developed ones of an individual that reaches maturity at an earlier time. This hypothesis, however, would have to be tested experimentally. It is intended only to bring nearer to our understanding the complicated phenomena of retarded and accelerated growth.

It seems very likely that the abnormally large amount of energy expended upon rapid growth during a short period is an unfavorable element in the individual development. A study of the phenomena of growth of various groups of the same population has shown that early development is a concomitant of economic well-being, and that for the poor the general retardation in early childhood and the later accelerated growth are characteristic. It follows from this that there is a corresponding, although not equal, retardation in early mental development, and a crowding of developmental processes later on that probably places a considerable burden on the body and mind of the poor which the well fed and cared for do not suffer.^[74] The general laws of growth also show that a retardation kept up for an unduly long period cannot be made up in the short period of rapid growth; so that it would seem that, on the whole, excessive retardation is an unfavorable element in the growth and development of the individual. Whether there are similar disadvantages in a considerable amount of early acceleration is not so clear.

A word may also be said in regard to the evident increase in the general statures of the people of Europe, which has been proved by the study of military statistics. I presume this is partly due to better nutrition and earlier development, but it seems likely that much of it may be due to the better control of infantile diseases, which exert a long retarding influence upon the growth during the earlier years of childhood.

When we turn from the more general phenomena of growth to a consideration of their controlling causes, particularly of the influences of heredity and of environment, we have to confess our ignorance of the most elementary facts. While there is no doubt that the bodily size of the parents determines to a certain extent the growth of the bulk of the body of the children, it is not by any means clear in how far part of this may be due to the controlling effect of environmental causes to which parents and their children are equally subject. It is quite obvious that the earlier in fetal life certain traits are formed, and the earlier they reach their full development, the stronger will be the hereditary influence; while the later in life the full development is attained the greater will be the influence of environment, not only on account of the longer time of its action but also owing to the greater diversity of its form. Thus, if the anterior part of the palate has very nearly reached its final form and size in the sixth year no amount of subsequent change of food or use will materially influence its form; while weight and stature, and, even more, mental development, will be modified by the influences to which the individual is subject during the first two or three decades of his life. The problem of growth must, therefore, be studied for every organ independently.

Some observations have been made that illustrate the influence of environment, not only upon growth of the bulk of the body but also upon some of the forms that develop very early in life. Thus, it has been shown that urban and rural populations in Europe exhibit characteristic differences in size and form of the head. These differences are slight, and the attempt has been made to explain them as due to selection or mixture; but reasons can be brought forward that suggest other causes for the modification of the bodily forms. It has also been observed that a fairly homogeneous people like the East European Jews develop distinctive forms in the different parts of Europe that they inhabit, and that Italians, Bohemians, and Jews who come to America develop distinctive characteristics. Whatever the causes of these changes may be, whether due to selection or to internal changes brought about by the new environment, they indicate that heredity is not the sole factor that determines the development of the body.

The few observations which we possess on the growth of children of different races seem to show that there are definite characteristics of the growth curve for each group. Thus, Indian children seem to be shorter than European children, while the adult Indian is as tall as or taller than the European; but it is impossible to tell in how far this is due to the mode of life and how far to the influences of heredity. It is not too much to say that all the work on these problems remains to be done. Our ignorance of these facts should make us hesitate to judge rashly of the mental and bodily inferiority or superiority of races, since the data for forming a judgment are entirely lacking, and since most of the features on which we are accustomed to form our judgment develop late in life, and are therefore, as explained before, to a great extent subject to the influence of environment.

Related to these questions is the problem of the period of development of racial traits. At a very early stage of development children of all races are much alike, and many of the most characteristic traits do not develop until maturity is reached. Traces of these racial traits may be observed at an early time, but their accentuation occurs comparatively late. Here we have undoubtedly traits that are determined by a long line of ancestors, not by environment. Thus, parts of the body that are alike in childhood are subject to a more active growth in one race than in another. For instance, the elevation of the nose of the European, the prominence of the face of the Negro, the great length of the leg of the Negro, the great width of face of the Mongol and Indian are due to a marked growth of these features. Others, on the other hand, lag behind. Thus we are confronted with the ontogenetic problem of the origin of the diversity of human types, and of the oft-claimed but never-proved phenomena of early arrest of development in certain groups.

On the whole, what little we know would indicate that the periods of growth are the same everywhere, but that the rate of growth of various parts of the body is greater in one group than in another, and that in this manner the racial characteristics are developed. Too little is known, however, to express any definite opinion on this important subject.

The subject is one that, in its general aspects, as well as in the questions relating to the influence of heredity and environment, has a direct bearing upon questions of social well-being and upon our estimate of racial characteristics, and for this reason deserves systematic study, not only for the sake of its scientific interest but also on account of its practical importance.

GROWTH

Early studies of growth have proved that from birth on the rate of the absolute value of growth of the body as a whole is decreasing until shortly before adolescence, and that at this time a rapid increase of the rate of growth develops which lasts for a few years. It is followed by a decrease which continues until the maximum stature is attained. Bowditch,^[75] Peckham^[76] and Roberts,^[77] who made these early studies also showed that the distribution of statures and weights were asymmetrically distributed. In 1892 I investigated these asymmetries and showed that they were probably due to the changing rate of growth. I assumed that the physiological development of children did not proceed at the same rate, that some might be retarded, others accelerated and that their physiological status would be distributed symmetrically according to the laws of chance. This would result in an asymmetrical distribution of statures.^[78]

William Townsend Porter’s^[79] measurements of St. Louis children showed that children of a certain age in higher school grades were taller and heavier than those of the same age in lower grades, and concluded that bright children grow more rapidly than dull ones. In reviewing his results I wrote as follows.^[80]

I should prefer to call the less favorably developed grade of children retarded, not dull; these terms are by no means equivalent, as a retarded child may develop and become quite bright. In fact, an investigation which I had carried on in Toronto with the same object in view, but according to a different method, gives just the reverse result. The data were compiled by Dr. G. M. West, who found that the children pronounced by the teacher as bright were less favorably developed than those called dull. Furthermore, I do not believe it is correct to say that the facts found by Dr. Porter establish a basis of precocity and dullness, but only that precocious children are at the same time better developed physically; that is to say, the interesting facts presented by Dr. Porter prove only that children of the same age who are found in higher grades are more advanced in their general development than those found in lower grades. Dr. Porter has shown that mental and physical growth are correlated, or depend upon common causes; not that mental development depends upon physical growth.

This brings me back to the question of the cause of the asymmetries of the observed curves. According to the above interpretation of Dr. Porter’s results (which is merely a statement of the observed facts), we must expect to find children of a certain age to be at different stages of development. Some will stand on the point corresponding exactly to their age, while others deviate from it. This was the assumption which I made in the paper quoted above, when trying to explain the asymmetries of the curves, and I consider Dr. Porter’s observations a strong argument in favor of my theory, which may be briefly summarized as follows:

When we consider children of a certain age we may say that they will not all be at the same stage of development. Some will have reached a point just corresponding to their age, while others will be behind, and still others in advance of their age. Consequently the values of their measurements will not exactly correspond to those of their ages. We may assume that the difference between their stage of development and that belonging to their exact age is due to accidental causes, so that just as many will be less developed as further developed from the average child of a particular age. Or, there will be as many children at a stage of development corresponding to that of their age plus a certain length of time as corresponding to that of their age minus a certain length of time.

The number of children who have a certain amount of deviation in time may be assumed to be arranged in a probability curve, so that the average of all the children will be exactly at the stage of development belonging to their age.

At a period when the rate of growth is decreasing rapidly, those children whose growth is retarded will be further remote from the value belonging to their age than those whose growth is accelerated. As the number of children above and below the average of development is equal, those with retarded growth will have a greater influence upon the average measurement than those whose growth is accelerated, therefore the average value of the measurement of all the children of a certain age will be lower than the typical value, when the rate of growth is decreasing; higher than the typical value when the rate of growth is increasing. This shows that the averages and means of such curves have no meaning as types. I have shown in the place quoted above, how the typical values can be computed and also that for stature they differ from the average up to the amount of 17 mm.

These considerations also show clearly that the curves must be asymmetrical. Supposing we consider the weights of girls of thirteen years of age, the individuals composing this group will consist of the following elements: girls at their normal stage whose weight is that of the group considered, advanced girls, and retarded girls. In each of these groups which are represented in the total group in varying numbers, the weights of the individuals are probably distributed according to the laws of chance, or according to the distribution of weights in the adult population. What, however, will be the general distribution? As the rate of increase of weight is decreasing, there will be crowding in those parts of the curves which represent the girls in an advanced stage of development, and this must cause an asymmetry of the resultant general curve, which will depend upon the composition of the series. This asymmetry does actually exist at the period when the theory demands it, and this coincidence of theory and observation is the best argument in favor of the opinion that advance and retardation of development are general and do not refer to any single measurement.

Furthermore, the increase in variability until the time when growth begins to decrease, and its subsequent decrease, are entirely in accord with this theory. I have given a mathematical proof of this phenomenon in the paper quoted above (p. 103, note 4). . . . Dr. Porter’s formulation of the phenomenon, namely that “the physiological difference between the individual children in an anthropometric series and the physical type of the series is directly related to the quickness of growth” does not quite cover the phenomenon.

It will be seen from these arguments that the very natural supposition that some children develop more slowly than others is in accord with all the observed facts. It was necessary to prove this in some detail because the further interpretations made by Dr. Porter largely hinge upon this point.

These conclusions are based on the assumption that “the type at a certain deviation from the mean of an age will show the same degree of deviation from the mean at any subsequent age; for example, a type boy in the 75 percentile grade at age 6 will throughout his growth be heavier than 75 per cent of boys of his own age.” This assumption which I have criticised on a former occasion^[81] is incorrect.

The criticism made in this paper against the assumption that children will always remain on the same percentile grade, as assumed by Bowditch and Porter was empirically supported by Henry G. Beyer.^[82] In reviewing his paper^[83] I said:

Fig. 1. Change in percentile position of individuals starting at 15 years with the percentile grades of 27 and 73 respectively. U. S. Naval Cadets.

“The most important part of the investigation is the discussion of individual growth which proves beyond a doubt that the assumption made by Bowditch and Porter, namely, that on the average individuals of a certain percentile rank retain this rank through life does not hold good . . .” (Fig. 1).

Another important phenomenon brought out in this paper is that tall boys of 16 years grow much less than short boys, because they are nearer the adult stage (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Amount of total growth from 16 years to adult of males of various statures.

From data collected in Worcester, Mass.,^[84] I proved that in early years short children grow more slowly than tall children^[85] (Fig. 3); that is to say, their general development continues to be slow. Later on, during the period of adolescence, they continue to grow, while tall children have more nearly reached their full development. Small children are throughout their period of growth retarded in development, and smallness at any given period as compared to the average must in most cases be interpreted as due to slowness of development. During early life slowness of development which has manifested itself is likely to continue, while some of the effects of retardation will be made good during the period of adolescence, which is liable to be longer than in children who develop rapidly in early life.

Fig. 3. Average amount of growth of tall and short children. Worcester, Mass.

On account of these intricate relations between the amounts of growth and stature attained at a given moment the percentile position of individuals or of groups of individuals does not remain the same, but approaches the average.

The results of this investigation suggest that the differences of growth observed in children of different nationalities and of parents of different occupations may also be partly due to retardation or acceleration of growth, partly to differences in heredity.

In order to decide this question we may assume that in the averages obtained for all the series representing various social groups only accidental deviations from the general average occurred. Then it is possible to calculate the average deviation which would result under these conditions. When the actual differences that have been found by observation are taken into consideration another average deviation results. If the latter nearly equals the former, then the constant causes that affect each social group are few and of slight importance. If it is much larger than the former, then the causes are many and powerful. The ratio between the theoretical value of the deviation and the one obtained by observation is therefore a measure of the number and value of the causes influencing each series.

I have applied these considerations to the measurements of Boston school children obtained by Dr. H. P. Bowditch. I have used thirteen different classes in my calculations, namely, five nationalities: American, Irish, American and Irish mixed, German and English; and eight classes grouped according to nationalities and occupations: American professional, mercantile, skilled labor and unskilled labor, and the same classes among the Irish.

The observed and theoretical values are indicated in the following diagram (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Variability of social and national groups as observed and as expected, if only chance determined the variability.

The values obtained by actual observation are always greater than those obtained under the assumption that only accidental causes influence the averages for each class. These causes reach a maximum during the period of growth and decrease as the adult stage is reached. The maximum is found in the fourteenth year in the case of girls, i.e., in those years in which the effects of acceleration and retardation of growth are strongest. Although the values given here cannot claim any very great weight on account of the small number of classes, this phenomenon is brought out most clearly.

The figures prove, therefore that the differences in development between various social classes are, to a great extent, results of acceleration and retardation of growth which act in such a way that the social groups which show higher values of measurements do so on account of accelerated growth, and that they cease to grow earlier than those whose growth is in the beginning less rapid, so that there is a tendency to decreasing differences between these groups during the last years of growth.

The interpretation here given explains the simultaneous advance of stature, weight, and school achievement. The question is of sufficient importance to demand further corroboration. If the general development affects all the traits of the body, being dependent upon physiological age, we may expect that the correlation of measures during the period of rapid growth is increased, because all are affected at the same time in the same way. This was shown to be the case for school children of Worcester, Mass., and for selected years for those of Milwaukee and Toronto^[86] (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Correlation of measurements during period of growth. Worcester, Mass.

The theory is further corroborated by the observation of those children who have their maximum rate of growth during a given annual interval and who may be supposed to be nearly at the same stage of physiological development. The typical increase of variability which is found in the total series and which is due to the combination of individuals who differ in the stage of physiological development disappears almost completely in many of these selected, uniform groups^[87] (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Variability of stature of boys and girls having the same periods of maximum growth, compared with variability of total series. Horace Mann School.

Considering that on account of the inaccuracy of measurements the period of maximum growth is not exactly determined, it seems plausible that if the classifications were made more rigidly the ill defined maxima would disappear entirely.^[88] The reduction in variability and the weakening of the maximum prove again that the great increase in variability of the total series at the period of adolescence is solely an effect of the retardation and acceleration of different individuals, for during the period of rapid growth those who are retarded will be much shorter than those who are accelerated.^[89]

The theory is finally proved by the determination of the tempo of development as shown in the moments when certain physiological stages are reached and by their variability.^[90]

As might be expected individual differences in the tempo of development occur. Even children of the same family do not all develop at the same rate. Some of these differences are hereditary, but others due to outer conditions are at least equally important. Satisfactory nutrition and absence of pathological processes accelerate growth. Poor nutrition and frequent diseases retard it. Therefore we have to investigate in how far individuals of the same population vary at various periods of life; for instance, at what age the canines of individuals of the same group erupt. The investigation of various events in the life of man which are characteristic of certain age classes shows that the variability of the age in which such an event takes place increases rapidly with increasing age. For example, the period of pregnancy varies by a few days, the eruption of the first deciduous tooth by a few months, puberty by more than a year, and death by arteriosclerosis by more than ten years. The degree of variability is expressed by the mean square deviation from the average age.^[91]

An increase in variability occurs also in the grouping of children according to mental maturity as expressed by their standing in school grades.^[92] Thus girls in Worcester, Mass., in 1890 were distributed as follows:

It appears from these data that the increase in variability of physiological age is rapid until the fifth or sixth year. From the sixth to the twentieth year it increases slowly. At a later age the increase is very rapid.

I have described here the variability of the physiological development as though the whole body were a unit. There are, however, differences in the speed of development of various organs. This is brought out most clearly by a comparison of the dates for eruption of teeth of boys and girls. While in all other traits girls of a given age are much more mature than boys of the same age, there are very slight differences only in the eruption of teeth, proof that these are subject to influences different from those acting upon the skeleton.

It is not admissible to assume with Crampton that physiological development is equal to physiological age.

This appears in a comparison between growth and menarche. The earlier the age of maximum growth, the longer is the interval between this moment and the date of menarche.^[93]

A general comparison between the data for males and females shows that the whole development of the female is more rapid than that of the male. This brings about a curious relation between the measures of the two sexes.^[94] It has been assumed that the sexes develop at approximately the same rate until the prepubertal spurt of the girls sets in, about two years before that of the boys. During this period stature and weight of girls exceed those of boys and this lasts until the prepubertal spurt of the boys begins while the girls are concluding their period of growth.

When we remember that growth depends upon the physiological state of the body, we recognize that from four years on girls should be compared with boys who are about a year and a half older than they themselves. If this view is correct it will be seen that the relation of size of the sexes found in the adult is also present in childhood.

Fig. 7. Length and width of head of boys and girls.

The best proof of the correctness of this view is given by the peculiar relation of the measures which complete the principal part of their growth at an early time. The growth of the head offers a good example. The total amount of increment from the second year on is slight. Therefore, if girls are ahead of boys by one year and a half the increment of growth corresponding to this period is slight. If the typical difference between the sizes of the sexes should be present during early childhood the heads of girls ought to be smaller than those of the boys of the same age. This is actually the case. The length of head of the adult woman is about 96% of that of men. In childhood the length of head of girls is about 97.4% of that of boys of the same age (Fig. 7). The ratio of 96% would be found among girls chronologically three years younger than boys.^[95] For stature the normal relation of sizes of adult men and women is found for girls chronologically one and a half years younger than boys which corresponds to their physiological acceleration. The results of psychological tests also show better results for girls than for boys of the same age, which may also be due to a greater speed of development of girls.

The general growth curve, being composed of individuals of markedly different physiological stages becomes clearer when those having the same physiological stage at some moment of their development are segregated. I chose for this moment the time when the maximum rate of growth of stature occurs, since this moment is in all probability most closely related to the development of stature. The following curve shows the growth of the various groups (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Growth curves of boys and girls for those having maximum rate of growth at the same time. Horace Mann School.

It has been shown before that in these groups the increase in variability which coincides approximately with the period of maximum growth all but disappears.

A comparison of the rates of annual growth for those who have the maximum rate of growth at the same time, during the periods preceding and following that moment, show that development proceeds the more rapidly the earlier it sets in (Figs. 9, 10).

Fig. 9. Annual increments for boys who have the same periods of maximum rate of growth. Annual intervals to be read from apex of each curve. Horace Mann School.

Fig. 10. Annual increments for girls who have the same periods of maximum rate of growth. Annual intervals to be read from apex of each curve. Horace Mann School.

This is also indicated by the total amount of increment during longer periods preceding and following the moment of maximum rate of growth, for example, during a period of 4½ years before and 4½ years after this moment.

During this period, girls^[96] who have their maximum rate of growth between

The character of the growth curve may be analyzed still further by considering those children who have the maximum rate of growth and the same stature at a given time. We may then expect that accelerated individuals will have attained the selected stature on account of their acceleration, and since they are nearer the end of their growth period the remaining amount of growth will be less, so that genetically they belong to a short type while the retarded individuals would have the same stature because they are tall by heredity. An examination of the growth curves compiled in this manner shows that the later the time of maximum rate of growth for a selected stature, the greater is the adult stature; also that the higher the selected stature for individuals with the same time of maximum rate of growth the greater is the adult stature. Conversely during the years preceding the selected stature for a given year those who are accelerated are taller than those retarded. This is clearest in the later years of growth (Figs. 11, 12).

Fig. 11. Growth curves of girls who have the same stature at 10 years and the same period of maximum rate of growth. Horace Mann School.

Fig. 12. Growth curves of girls who have the same stature at 17 years and the same periods of maximum rate of growth. Horace Mann School.

Fig. 13. Growth of boys in the Newark Academy with the same period of maximum rate of growth.

Unfortunately the available data do not permit us to follow the observation up to absolutely completed growth. Some scanty data on boys of the same social stratum who have been followed up to the completed adult stage (Fig. 13) do not indicate that acceleration has any result on the final stature, while the observations on girls followed up to 17 years on which the data discussed above refer would indicate a slight effect. It is exceedingly difficult to obtain data containing an adequate number of continuous observations up to the adult stage.

The observations for 8-year-old girls^[97] may be represented by the equation

x representing the deviation from the average stature at 8 years in centimeters, y the deviation in years from the average moment of maximum rate of growth.

The variability of menarche is ± 1.6 years. According to this, girls whose menarche is twice the variability, i.e., 3.2 years before the average age, would be 3.2 x .96, or about 3 cm. shorter than those of average physiological development. On the other hand stature in young years, on account of its great variability, will have a much more marked influence. The variability is approximately ± 5.5 cm. Consequently retarded individuals whose deviation from the norm is twice the variability, i.e., 11 cm. too low, will be as adults 10.9 cm. shorter than the average girl. In other words, what is presumably hereditary stature has a much stronger influence than tempo of development.

At the same time the tempo of development does not depend entirely upon environment. This has been demonstrated by our discussion on pp. 86 et seq., which showed that familial traits influence the rates of growth of brothers and sisters.

The general increase in stature which has been observed in every part of Europe proves that non-hereditary influences affect the growth of the body. Various studies have shown that children of parents living under modern conditions exceed their parents in stature. The recent study of the stature and other bodily measurements of Harvard students compared with those of their own fathers^[98] demonstrates this definitely.

A study of growing children of each age shows that those born in recent years are taller than those born earlier. In order to avoid possible errors I investigated the statures of the parents of immigrant children contained in my report on Changes in Bodily Form of Immigrants.^[99] These measurements were taken in 1909. The ages of the adults give, therefore, at the same time the year of birth.

Figure 14 indicates merely the gradual decrease of stature with increasing age. If there should be any increase with time of birth it would be very slight. I think we may safely say that the stature of Hebrew immigrants has remained the same from 1845 to 1890. This corresponds to the stability of their economic and social condition in Europe during this period.

The condition of the children admitted to the Hebrew Orphan Asylum and the Hebrew Shelter and Guardian Society shows, on the contrary, a very considerable increase in stature according to their dates of birth. Only observations at the time of admittance were used in the diagrams (Fig. 15) which give the average differences between the stature of the entering child and the general average for quinquennial periods of data of birth. The observations in Horace Mann School which are contained in the same diagram show similar results. The increase for the population consisting of children of American-born parents, represented here by the Non-Hebrew population of Horace Mann School, is less than that of children of more recent immigrants, represented by the other groups. The increase is most marked for the Negro population of the Riverdale Orphan Asylum.

Fig. 14. Decrease of stature with increasing age.

A comparison of a number of measures of adult Hebrews living in America, mostly born in the United States, taken in 1909 and in 1937 shows also increases in all measures although not in equal proportional amounts.

Fig. 15. Difference between average stature in centimeters, of a number of total series (regardless of year of birth) and of subgroups of individuals born in quinquennial intervals. All ages combined.

The tempo of development has also become quicker during this period. Girls in the Hebrew Orphan Asylum born in the quinquennial period 1905-1909 had their first menstruation at the average age of 14.8 years, those born in the quinquennial period 1915-1919 at the average age of 13.1 years. Negro girls in the Riverdale Orphanage reached maturity in the period 1910-1914 at the age of 14.3 years, in the period 1920-1924 at the age of 13.3 years. For Horace Mann School the acceleration between 1886 and 1918 amounts to about five months. The acceleration for the period of maximum rate of growth for the same period is approximately 6.5 months.

The influence of outer conditions upon growth may also be studied by a comparison of various social strata. As an example I give the statures of Hebrew children in an expensive private school compared with the general East Side population of Hebrews, both series belonging to the same period (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16. Growth curves for Hebrew boys and girls.

The importance of environmental influences appears also in the development of Hebrew infants in a well conducted orphan asylum. It seems that the children at the time of their admission are in a very poor condition. Under the excellent medical care they enjoy, their weight increases favorably (Fig. 17). When they enter they are much lighter than the average American children,^[100] but the older they are and, therefore, the longer they have been in charge of the Institution, the heavier they are, and after 29 months they begin to exceed children of the general population. At the same time the eruption of their deciduous teeth remains much retarded.

Fig. 17. Weights of Hebrew infants in an orphan asylum compared with the weights of infants of the general American population.

A study of the effect of institutional life upon children has given further evidence of the effect of environment on growth. This investigation was made in the Hebrew Orphan Asylum in New York City, first in 1918, and repeated in 1928 on children entering after 1918. The former investigation had shown that life in the Orphan Asylum affected growth during the first few years unfavorably, and that it took a long time before the loss could be made up. In 1918 the general policy of the administration changed. There was a change in diet, less regimentation, more outdoor exercise and an effort to meet the needs of individual children.

The results of the measurements of children at entrance are given in Figure 18.

Fig. 18. Statures of children admitted to the Hebrew Orphan Asylum before and after 1918.

It will be seen that the children placed in charge of the Hebrew Orphan Asylum before 1918 were, at the time of admission, shorter than those admitted after 1918.

According to the statement of Mr. Simmonds, the director of the asylum, the selection of families before and after 1918 has remained the same. The larger value in the columns after 1918 must, therefore, be due to the larger statures of those born in later years. In Figure 19 the effect of residence in the Orphan Asylum is indicated. For children in the Asylum before 1918 we find first a deficit of stature during the first few years of residence. It reaches its maximum after about four years of residence. After almost seven or eight years normal growth is attained. For children admitted after 1918 there is an increasing improvement over the norm with increasing time of residence.

Fig. 19. Difference between average statures in centimeters of children of all ages at time of admission to the Hebrew Orphan Asylum, and statures after from 1-9 years of residence.

Fig. 20. Comparison of growth curves of boys of the same stature at 12 years of age in Newark Academy and in the College of the City of New York. The curves show the amount of growth from 12 years on for boys of statures from 130-150 cm. in 5 cm. groups.

Racial determinants of growth curves are difficult to determine on account of the strong environmental influences that affect growth. The tempo of growth seems to be little affected by racial descent, but depends rather upon environment. The average time of maturity of girls in New York is practically the same for North Europeans and Hebrews.^[101]

A larger number of cases observed in the Abraham Lincoln High School gave an average of 13.1 ± 1.0 for 1714 Jewish girls. The period of maximum rate of growth of girls in Horace Mann School is 12.0 ± 1.2 for Non-Hebrews, 12.1 ± 1.2 for Hebrews; for North European boys of Newark Academy 14.4 ± 1.1, for boys of City College (almost all Hebrew)^[102] 14.7 ± 1.1.

Fig. 21. Growth of Non-Hebrew and Hebrew children in Horace Mann School.

A difference in the growth curves of Non-Hebrews and Hebrews appears in a comparison of the total amounts of growth for boys of the same statures at 12, 13, and 14 years observed respectively in Newark Academy and City College. The short boys of City College, largely Hebrew, grow up to a certain point more rapidly than the Newark Academy boys who after this time grow more rapidly than the City College boys (Fig. 20). The diagram shows that the decline of the rapidity of growth sets in earlier in the short Hebrew boys than in the short Non-Hebrew boys. The greater stature of young Hebrew children appears also in a comparison of Hebrew and Non-Hebrew children in private schools. Still, it is doubtful whether this is mainly a racial characteristic, for when the same comparison is made for children of the Horace Mann School whose economic conditions are more strictly comparable, the Hebrew children are very little shorter than the Non-Hebrew ones (Fig. 21). For boys in the same school the statures of the children of these two groups are practically the same. In most of the series the adult statures of Hebrews is considerably below that of Non-Hebrews, but in this respect also the results are not consistent, for the statures of Hebrew and Non-Hebrew males at 17 and 18 years are almost equal. The results are not such that we can infer with certainty an effect of racial descent. It seems most plausible for adult stature, but even there it is not certain.

Fig. 22. Annual increments for Negro girls having maximum rates of growth at various periods.

Fig. 23. Annual increments of Negro and White girls.

A comparison of Negro and White in New York shows that the time of adolescence and of the period of maximum rate of growth coincide, or at least, that the difference in period is very slight. As among the Whites, the earlier the period of maturation the more intense is the growth (Fig. 22).^[103] Besides this we find that on the average the intensity of growth among the Negroes is greater than among the Whites. It is not possible to decide whether this is a racial characteristic or due to environmental factors (Fig. 23).

The total growth curve of Negro orphan girls agrees with that of other groups growing up under unfavorable conditions (Fig. 24).

Fig. 24. Comparative growth curves of girls.

STATISTICAL STUDY OF ANTHROPOMETRY^[104]

During the last few decades a vast amount of anthropometrical material has been collected. By far the greatest part of this material and the most valuable has been collected by the directors of gymnasia connected with colleges, schools, and associations of young people, so that the average anthropometric type of the young American may be said to be fairly well known.

The material has been collected largely from a practical point of view. The main object of the measurements is to determine how the physical development of a given individual compares with the average physical development of the group to which he belongs. The observed deficiencies in his development determine the selection of gymnastic exercises by which the physical development of the subject may be improved. The application of anthropometry to practical work in the gymnasium is founded on two fundamental assumptions: First, that the average measurement represents an ideal type; and, secondly, that small variations from the type may be considered as physiological variations. I wish to discuss these two fundamental assumptions in some detail.

It has often been pointed out that the average type obtained by a series of anthropometrical examinations includes not only those individuals who are perfectly healthy and normally developed, but also others who are deficient in one or the other respect. If abnormality had an equal tendency to increase or to decrease the normal measurement, this cause of variation might be disregarded. It would seem, however, that most of the causes of abnormalities bring about a retardation of development with the result of a final diminution of the value of the measurement. Malnutrition causes decrease of stature. Deficient development of the lungs results in small thoracic circumference and capacity. Disuse of muscles results in lacking development of muscular parts. We may therefore conclude that the types, as obtained from miscellaneous measurements, represent a somewhat pathological type, not by any means the ideal that would be observed if the type were constructed from measurements of individuals of absolutely perfect health record. Since the general sanitary conditions improve with increasing wealth, it is probably safe to assume that the differences observed between the physical development of the poor and those of the wealthier portions of our communities are due largely to the elimination of unfavorable influences.

From this point of view it would seem desirable to subdivide the subjects measured in a number of classes according to their health records. Such classification must be founded partly on the history of each case, partly on the observations of the gymnasium director. The metrical results obtained from the best class would be most likely to give us an insight into the form of the normal individual. As defined in this way, the normal individual would not be the one whose form is the most frequent, but the one whose form would be most frequent if conditions were as favorable as possible during the period of development.

A second important question which arises in this connection is whether it is justifiable to assume that there is one and only one ideal type, which all the individuals of our community approach. If different classes of our community represent different types, it would evidently be incorrect to measure the abnormality of an individual by comparison with one single ideal type.

As a matter of fact the individuals measured in our gymnasia differ in regard to their ages, their descent, and the environments in which they live, and it is necessary to decide whether it is justifiable to disregard all these influences. Our American population embraces descendants of practically all European nationalities, and, therefore, includes representatives of all the different types inhabiting Europe. Speaking in a general way we may say that we must distinguish at least three types among the European populations: the blond, tall, long-headed type of Northern Europe; the dark, tall, short-headed type of Central Europe; and the short, dark, long-headed type of Southern Europe. These three types must have been distinct for exceedingly long periods, and possibly the present distribution of European types may be considered as a resultant of their intermixture. I do not mean to say that the three types enumerated here are the only fundamental European types. The views of anthropologists on this point vary to a certain extent, but it is sufficient for our purpose to recognize that in our population the three types enumerated here are represented with a rather strong preponderance of the North European type.

If we happen to measure an individual belonging to the Central European type, we must compare his measurements with the ideal Central European type. It would, evidently, be wrong to compare him with the standard obtained from measurements of North Europeans. For this reason the method of judging the physical development of an individual belonging to a population of mixed descent by comparing him to the general type does not seem free of objection.

The same is true in regard to the effect of age, which factor becomes of the greatest importance in work among growing children. When we measure a sixteen-year-old boy we are by no means certain how near the particular boy is to the adult stage, how nearly he has completed his development. The most superficial examination of the physical and mental development of children and of adults brings out the fact that the physiological development of the individual cannot be measured by years only. We observe children who are precocious; who are in every respect in advance of their age. We observe others who are physically and mentally retarded; while later on the same children will overtake those who previously were far ahead of them. The same phenomenon may be observed when we compare the physical development of older people. With some, the period of decadence begins before the fortieth year is reached, while others retain their full vigor until much later times. The distinct signs of old age also appear in different individuals at widely differing times. It is, therefore, evident that the whole current of life must not be measured by years alone, and that individuals vary, if we may use the expression, in regard to the tempo with which they run through their life’s course.

This way of considering the phenomena of growth, development and decay gives a sufficient explanation of all the peculiarities observed in anthropometrical statistics of children, and for this reason I regard this mode of considering the course of human life as fully consistent with observation.

Bearing in view this fact, it is evidently not sufficient to classify individuals according to their ages, but we must also bear in mind the acceleration and retardation of individual development.

But, it may be asked, how is it possible to determine in each and every case the type with which the individual must be classed, and the period of development which he represents?

It would seem that at the present time neither of these questions can be definitely answered. The correlations of the series of measurements characterizing the various European types have never been determined, and the correlations characteristic of various periods of development are also unknown. It would therefore, in the present stage of our knowledge, be largely a matter of judgment on the part of the gymnasium director how to classify each individual according to his general characteristics; or it would be necessary to establish a number of tentative classes in which the individuals might be arranged.

It appears, however, from these considerations, that it is highly desirable to subdivide the anthropometrical material collected in gymnasia in a most minute and painstaking way in order to investigate in how far it will be feasible to class any individual with a definite type. I do not wish to convey the impression that I consider it feasible even after the most extended statistical investigation of anthropometrical material to establish a number of clearly distinct types, the variability of each of which would be so small as to allow us to class any individual with a definite type. I only desire to point out the necessity of classifying our material from various points of view, and of placing each individual in the class to which he most probably belongs.

A diversity of types manifests itself in a series of measurements. It is one of the fundamental laws of correlation that in a homogeneous series deviations from any typical measurement are proportionate to the excess or deficiency of any other measurement. Taking, for instance, stature as a standard, the following condition would be found: If one man is, let us say, ten centimeters in excess of the ordinary stature, another man twenty centimeters in excess of the ordinary stature, then the excess of chest circumference of the second man will be twice as large as the excess of chest circumference of the first man. If, however, the tall individuals should happen to belong to a type different from that to which the majority of short individuals belong, then this law would no longer hold good. We have, therefore, a means of discovering in our extensive anthropometrical series a mixture of divergent types. This investigation is an important one and should be taken up at an early date.

I wish to bring to your attention another point which seems to me of vital importance. We are accustomed to consider the types represented in our tables as constant. We speak, for instance, of the typical measurements of an entering class, and of those of a graduating class. There is a change in the values obtained from these two classes. This change is due to a gradual development. Our point of view is, therefore, only a rough approximation to the actual conditions. The anthropometrical problem is not a statical one, but a dynamical one, and we should take into consideration the rates of changes characteristic of various individuals and their effect upon the distribution of measurements. If we include this problem in our plan of researches it becomes vastly more complex, but at the same time vastly more interesting, because the physiological changes in the individual and the types and variabilities of these changes become accessible to investigation.

For these purposes we need repeated measurements of the same individuals. We must not confine ourselves to comparisons of general anthropometric tables, but we must compare individual measurements with individual increments. The study is still in its infancy, but its importance is far-reaching. It makes it incumbent on our observers to use the most painstaking care in their measurements, and to avoid all rounding off. The increments are in most cases so small that errors introduced by the process of rounding off may be larger than the values which must be investigated. If, for instance, measurements of statures of boys of 16 or 17 years are made, it will be seen that the small average increase may be completely obscured by the inaccuracy of measurement and by the process of rounding off to the nearest full or even half centimeter. If we wish to make progress in this important branch of our inquiry, the very highest accuracy of method of measurement must be demanded.

It is important to bear in mind that questions of this character are not merely of theoretical value, but will also lead to a new point of view in the practical application of anthropometrical results.

The second question which I desire to discuss relates to the scope of physiological variation. We know that no two organisms are absolutely alike, and that various processes lead to slight differences of form in different individuals belonging to the same type. It is only when these variations assume excessive values that we are justified in speaking of pathological cases in so far as the combination of measurements observed is a rare one, and therefore likely to be due to abnormal causes. What, then, is the range of physiological variation? When we are dealing with single measurements we may, perhaps, assume that all those individuals are normal which represent the middle half of the total series of measurements. The lowest measurements and the highest measurements, both of which combined constitute the other half of the series, might be considered as abnormal. When we consider two measurements of the same individual, the question becomes somewhat more complicated. If the two measurements are not correlated at all, if the one changes without influencing in the least the other, we might say again that that series is normal which embraces the middle half of the two measurements. Evidently we should measure the normality or abnormality of a certain combination by the frequency of its occurrence. The average type in regard to both measurements will be the most frequent one, and slight deviations in both directions will have comparatively high probabilities. In the particular case which we are discussing here, namely, when both measurements are entirely independent of each other, it is evident that an individual who has a small deviation in one respect and no deviation at all in regard to the second measurement, will be more frequent than an individual who stands, as we are accustomed to say, in both respects on the same percentile grade. Supposing that stature and transversal diameter of the head were entirely independent of each other, it would be more probable to find a tall man with the average transversal diameter of the head than a tall man with a correspondingly large transversal diameter of the head.

As a matter of fact, there are hardly two measurements that do not influence each other to a certain extent. This fact is easily seen when we tabulate the measurements of tall people and of short people. It will be found that on the whole the measurements of tall people are larger than those of short people, although the proportional increase of the average measurement is not the same for all measures. In all these cases that combination is most probable for which the second measurement bears a certain characteristic relation to the first measurement, which is determined by what we call the coefficient of regression.

It appears from these considerations that a type which is characterized by a series of measurements, all of which represent the same percentile grade, and which, on our anthropometrical charts, would be represented by a number of points standing very nearly on the same level, is not as probable as a type which in one of its measurements deviates considerably from the average type, while in all other respects it has only a comparatively small deviation from the average type. This considerable deviation may occur in any of the numerous measurements which we are in the habit of taking. And for many combinations of deviations, one of which is large while the others are small, the frequency of the type will remain the same. We find, therefore, as a result of these considerations, that the most frequent types, and for this reason the types which we must consider as inside the limits of physiological variations, are not by any means those which in all respects are enlarged or reduced replicas of the average type, but such that deviate more or less from this type in regard to their correlated measurements.

I have tried to point out in these remarks a few directions in which it would seem that our anthropometrical material may be made more useful and more significant than it is at the present time. I am fully aware of the difficulties and of the vast amount of labor involved in carrying out any of the suggestions here outlined, but I fully believe that any labor devoted to this matter will be repaid by results interesting from a scientific point of view and valuable for the gymnasium director. Much can be attained by hearty co-operation, and I hope that our deliberations may lead to a way of making the vast amount of anthropometric work that we are doing more useful in scientific and practical lines.

THE HALF-BLOOD INDIAN^[105]

There are few countries in which the effects of intermixture of races and of change of environment upon the physical characteristics of man can be studied as advantageously as in America, where a process of slow amalgamation between three distinct races is taking place. Migration and intermarriage have been a fruitful source of intermixture in the Old World, and have had the effect of effacing strong contrasts in adjoining countries. While the contrasts between European, Negro, and Mongol are striking, their territories are connected by broad stretches of land which are occupied by intermediate types. For this reason there are only few places in the Old World in which the component elements of a mixed race can be traced to their sources by historical methods. In America, on the other hand, we have a native race which, although far from being uniform in itself, offers a marked contrast to all other races. Its affiliations are closest toward the races of Eastern Asia, remotest to the European and Negro races. Extensive intermixture with these foreign races has commenced in recent times. Furthermore, the European and African have been transferred to new surroundings on this continent, and have produced a numerous hybrid race the history of which can also be traced with considerable accuracy. We find, therefore, two races in new surroundings and three hybrid races which offer a promising subject for investigation: the Indian-White, the Indian-Negro, and the Negro-White. The following study is devoted to a comparison of the Indian race with the Indian-White hybrid race.

It is generally supposed that hybrid races show a decrease in fertility, and are therefore not likely to survive. This view is not borne out by statistics of the number of children of Indian women and of half-blood women. The average number of children of five hundred and seventy-seven Indian women and of one hundred and forty-one half-blood women more than forty years old is 5.9 children for the former and 7.9 children for the latter. It is instructive to compare the number of children for each woman in the two groups. While about ten per cent of the Indian women have no children, only 3.5 per cent of the half-bloods are childless. The proportionate number of half-bloods who have one, two, three, four, or five children is smaller than the corresponding number of Indian women, while many more half-blood women than full-blood women have had from six to thirteen children. This distribution is shown clearly in Figure 1, which represents how many among each one hundred women have a certain number of children. The facts disclosed by this tabulation show that the mixed race is more fertile than the pure stock. This cannot be explained by a difference of social environment, as both groups live practically under the same conditions. It also appears that the small increase of the Indian population is almost entirely due to a high infant mortality, as under better hygienic surroundings an average of nearly six children would result in a rapid increase. It is true, however, that a decrease of infant mortality might result in a decreased birth rate.

Fig. 1. Number of children of Indian women and half-blood women.

Among the Indians of the Pacific Coast the infant mortality is also very great, but we find at the same time a still larger proportion of women who bear no children.

It is of some interest to note the average number of children of women of different ages as indicating the growth of families. Among the Indians there is an average interval of four years and a half—as shown in the following table—which, however, must not be confounded with an average interval between births:

Among the half-bloods the interval is shorter, but the number of available observations is insufficient for carrying out the comparison in detail.

The statures of Indians and half-bloods show differences which are also in favor of the half-bloods. The latter are almost invariably taller than the former, the difference being more pronounced among men than among women. The White parents of the mixed race are mostly of French extraction, and their statures are on an average shorter than those of the Indians. We find, therefore, the rather unexpected result that the offspring exceeds both parental forms in size. This curious phenomenon shows that size is not inherited in such a manner that the size of the descendant is intermediate between those of the parents, but that size is inherited according to more intricate laws.

From investigations carried on among Whites we know that stature increases under more favorable surroundings. As there is no appreciable difference between the social or geographical surroundings of the Indians and of the half-bloods, it seems to follow that the intermixture has a favorable effect upon the race.

The difference in favor of the half-blood is a most persistent phenomenon, as may be seen by a glance at the following table:

The last two entries in this table embrace mainly the Indians of the Southwest and of the Pacific Coast.

The facts which appear so clearly in the preceding table may be brought out in a different manner by grouping all the Indian tribes in three classes according to their statures: those measuring more than 169 centimeters, or tall tribes; those measuring from 165 to 169 centimeters, or tribes of medium stature; and those measuring less than 165 centimeters, or short tribes. The frequencies of various statures in each of these classes have been plotted in Figure 2. The horizontal line represents the individual statures from the lowest to the highest. The vertical distance of the curves from any point of the horizontal line shows how many among each one hundred individuals have the stature represented by that particular point. Thus it will be seen that 14.4 per cent of the full-blood men of the tallest class have a stature of 172 centimeters, while only 12.3 per cent of the half-blood of the same class have the most frequent stature belonging to them—namely, 178 centimeters. Among the Indian women of the tall, full-blood tribes 16.8 per cent have a stature of 158 centimeters, while only 14.4 per cent of the half-bloods have their most frequent stature—namely, 160 centimeters.

Fig. 2. Statures of Indians and of half-bloods.

This tabulation brings out the peculiarity that the statures of the half-bloods are throughout higher than those of the full-bloods; and that, at the same time, the most frequent statures are more frequent among the pure race than in the mixed race. This is expressed by the fact that the curves illustrating the distribution of statures among the half-bloods are flatter than those illustrating the same feature among full-bloods. This peculiarity may be noticed in all the curves of Figure 2, with the exception of that of the men of the second group.

The statures near the average of each group are most frequent and as these values do not occur as often among the half-bloods as among the full-bloods, the values which are remote from the average are at the same time relatively more frequent. Thus it becomes apparent that the mixed race is less homogeneous than the Indian race.

Fig. 3. Growth of Indian and half-blood children.

Another important phenomenon is revealed by a comparison of the growth of Indians and half-bloods (Figure 3). When the average statures of children of both races are compared, it appears that during the early years of childhood the Indian is taller than the half-blood, and that this relation is reversed later on. This is found in both the groups for tall tribes and for tribes of medium stature. It is to be regretted that this comparison cannot be carried on for Whites also. The social surroundings of the White child are, however, so entirely different from those of the Indian and of the half-blood children that no satisfactory conclusions can be drawn from a comparison. It is difficult to see why the laws of growth of the Indian and half-blood should differ in this manner; why the Indian child at the age of three years should be taller than the half-blood child, and then develop more slowly than the latter.^[106] This peculiarity is most striking in the growth of the tribes of medium stature, as in this case the difference in the statures of adults is so considerable. Unfortunately, we do not know if the same difference prevails at the time of birth; but even if this were the case the difference in the rate of growth would remain mysterious. The various phenomena described here merely emphasize the fact that the effect of intermixture is a most complicated one, and that it acts upon physiological and anatomical qualities alike. We observe in the mixed race that the fertility and the laws of growth are affected, that the variability of the race is increased, and that the resultant stature of the mixed race exceeds that of both parents.

Fig. 4. Breadth of face of Indians, half-bloods, and Whites.

One of the most striking characteristics of the Indian face is its great breadth as compared with that of the Whites. It is therefore of peculiar interest to compare this measurement among the full-blood Indian, the half-bloods, and the Whites. The curves on Figure 4 show the result of this inquiry. Among adult students of American colleges we find an average breadth of face (between the zygomatic arches) of 140 millimeters, while the average value among Indians is nearly 150 millimeters. The facial measurements of the half-bloods are intermediate, the average value being near the typical Indian measurement and remote from the White measurement. We find in these curves also the peculiarity observed before—that the half-blood is more variable than the pure race. This fact is expressed in the greater flatness of the curve.

Fig. 5. Breadth of face, Sioux.

Fig. 6. Breadth of face, eastern Ojibwas.

It will be noticed that the central portion of the curve illustrating the distribution of the measurements of breadth of face of half-bloods is markedly irregular, particularly that it shows a depression in its central portion. This might seem accidental, but it will be seen that in Figures 5 and 6, where the same measurements for the Sioux and Ojibwa are given, the same phenomenon appears. We see in all these curves that the measurements which are near those of the parental races appear more frequently in the mixed race than the intermediate measurements. It is true that the number of observed cases may seem rather small to draw this deduction with absolute certainty; but I have noticed that all tabulations of face and head measurements which include more than five hundred individuals give very regular curves except in the case of half-bloods, so that I believe I am justified in interpreting the phenomenon illustrated in Figure 4 as a real one, and that it is not due to the small number of measurements. The correctness of this view can be proved definitely by an appropriate grouping of the available material according to the following point of view: The breadth of face and the breadth of head of man are closely correlated. The broader the head, the broader the face. Irregularities in the distribution of the measurement of the face will, therefore, appear more distinctly when individuals who have the same breadth of head are grouped together. I have grouped the material in four classes, with the result that the double maximum of frequency, corresponding to the breadth of face of the parental types, appears more strongly marked in every class. Therefore we must draw the important inference that the face of the offspring has a tendency to reproduce one of the ancestral types—not an intermediate type. The effect of intermixture in this case differs, therefore, fundamentally from the effect observed in the measurements of stature.

When comparing the average breadth of face for Indians, half-bloods, and Whites, another interesting phenomenon may be seen. The average breadth of face of the half-blood stands between that of the Indian and that of the White, but nearer the former. When computing this average from year to year, it is found that the same relation prevails throughout from the fourth year to the adult stage, and in men as well as in women (Fig. 7). The relation of the three groups remains unchanged throughout life. The amount of White and Indian blood in the mixed race is very nearly the same. We find, therefore, that the Indian type has a stronger influence upon the offspring than the White type. The same fact is expressed in the great frequency of dark hair and of dark eyes among half-bloods.

Fig. 7. Breadth of face of Indian, half-blood and White children.

Two reasons may be assigned for this fact. It may be that the dark hair and the wide face are more primitive characteristics of man than the narrow face and light eyes of the Whites. Then it might be said that the characteristics of the Indian are inherited with greater strength because they are older. It must, however, also be considered that half-bloods are almost always descendants of Indian mothers and of White fathers, and this may have had an influence upon the race, although there is no proof that children resemble their mothers more than they resemble their fathers.^[107]

In carrying out the comparison of breadths of face it would be better to study the curves of distribution for each year, but the number of observations is insufficient for applying this method. As stated before, the distribution of measurements is such that the parental types are more frequent than the average; for this reason the latter has no real biological significance. It must be considered merely as a convenient index of the general distribution.

Among the eastern Ojibwa I was able to make a classification into three groups: Indians, three-quarter bloods, and half-bloods. In this case (Fig. 6) it will be noticed that the influence of the white admixture is very slight in the three-quarter bloods. The maximum frequency of the breadth of face remains at 150 millimeters, and we observe that a small increase in frequency takes place at 140 millimeters.

From the breadth of face I turn to the consideration of the height of face—i.e., the distance from the chin to the suture between the nasal bones and the frontal bone (Fig. 8). This measurement is subject to considerable variations, on account of the difficulty of determining the initial points of the measurement with sufficient accuracy. This accounts for the irregularity of the curves. It appears clearly that the face of the half-blood is shorter than that of the White. I am not able to say whether this phenomenon is due to a general shortening, or whether the nose, the jaw, or the teeth contribute most to this effect. The difference between full-blood and half-blood is much smaller than in the case of the breadth of face.

Fig. 8. Height of face, Sioux.

The two measurements combined show that the Indian face is considerably larger than the face of the half-blood, while the latter is in turn larger than the face of the White. As the head measurements of the tribes which have contributed to these statistics prove that there is no appreciable difference between these races regarding the size of the head, we are led to the conclusion that the Indian face is also relatively larger than that of the half-blood and of the White.

Another characteristic difference between Indians and half-bloods will be found by comparing the breadth of nose of both races. It is well known that the nostril of the Indian is round, and that it is bordered by thick alæ, while the nostril of the White is elongated and has fine alæ. Unfortunately, there are no measurements of the nose of the White available, but a comparison of the transversal breadths of the nose of Indian and half-blood (Fig. 9) makes it clear at once that intermixture has the effect of making the nostril narrower and the alæ thinner, thus producing a much narrower nose. It appears at once that the nose of the half-blood man is not wider than that of the full-blood woman. The three-quarter bloods of the Ojibwa (Fig. 10) are found to take an intermediate position between full-bloods and half-bloods.

Fig. 9. Breadth of nose, Sioux.

Fig. 10. Breadth of nose, eastern Ojibwas.

We will finally consider the effect of intermixture upon the length of head from the point between the eyebrows (the glabella) to the occiput among a tribe with a head that is shorter than that of the American White. The Ojibwa has a head which measures about 191 millimeters, while that of the White measures about 195 millimeters. A comparison of the three classes (Fig. 11) shows a gradual increase in length from the full-blood, through the three-quarter blood, to the half-blood.

Fig. 11. Length of head, eastern Ojibwas.

We find, therefore, that the laws of heredity in the forms of the head and face are uniform, in so far as intermediate forms are produced. I presume, however, that in all these cases the middle forms are not found as frequently as forms resembling the two parental types.

REVIEW OF PAUL EHRENREICH, “ANTHROPOLOGISCHE STUDIEN UEBER DIE UREINWOHNER BRASILIENS,” 1897^[108]

The present volume is of great importance, not only on account of the detailed information given in the special part of the work, but also on account of a critical examination of the methods of somatology. The following lines are intended as a review of this general part of the work.

Dr. Ehrenreich is one of the few anthropologists who have an equal command of somatological, ethnological and linguistic methods. His criticism of modern somatology is directed mainly against the excessive weight given to measurements as compared to morphological description and to the loose use of the terms race and type.

He would reserve the term “race” for the principal divisions of mankind, while he would call the varieties of these main divisions “types.” He objects strongly to the application of the term “race” to closely affiliated varieties which differ in regard to a few measurements, while their fundamental morphological features are much alike. He justly attributes much of the confusion prevailing in anthropological literature to a lack of clear distinction between the main groups and their subdivisions, and particularly to the tendency which has developed in recent years to consider a few anthropometrical criteria as a sufficient basis for the establishment of a new race.

In determining the “races,” or the main divisions of mankind, Ehrenreich demands the consideration of three principal phenomena. He claims that each race is characterized by similarity of anatomical traits, geographical continuity of habitat, and similarity of the structure of the languages spoken by the people constituting the race. The first two points are well taken. They refer, of course, to conditions prevailing before the modern migrations of races. I doubt, however, if it is admissible to introduce the last point of view in the definition of the principal divisions of mankind. Ehrenreich is led to include languages in the characterization of races by three considerations. He says: (1) Every race has developed a greater or lesser number of characteristic linguistic stocks. (2) These stocks are not found outside the limits of each race, excepting a few instances which are explained by certain peculiar conditions. (3) There are fundamental differences between the structures of the languages spoken by the different races, and no connecting links between them exist. Based on these arguments he distinguishes six races, leaving the position of the Papuas and of the black peoples of Asia doubtful. I will not lay great stress upon the fact that these principles of classification lose their applicability among the last-named people, as in their case peculiar conditions prevail. But there are other cases which show that these principles do not help us to establish a definite number of races. The linguistic considerations would make it impossible to include the pre-Aryan peoples of Europe and western Asia, in what Ehrenreich terms the Caucasian or Mediterranean race, although the anatomical characteristics of these peoples are identical with those of the Mediterranean race. On the other hand, the American race shows considerable anatomical uniformity as compared to other races, and, nevertheless, there is no unity of structure of language in Ehrenreich’s sense of the word. It is no less possible to imagine a connecting link between the principles of structure of the Algonquin and Eskimo than between the Eskimo and Ural-Altaic languages. If we are willing to consider American languages as a unit, and include only those principles in the general characterization of American languages that hold good in all of them, there is nothing to prevent us from including Ural-Altaic languages in the same group. Ehrenreich agrees in these opinions with the views expressed by Brinton in his discussion of the characteristics of American languages. (Essays of an Americanist, pp. 350 et seq.)

Dr. Ehrenreich’s second criticism of modern anthropology is directed against the excessive weight given to measurements as compared to morphological descriptions. He expresses the opinion that the classification according to cephalic indices which has held sway since the days of Retzius has greatly hampered the development of somatology and has made efforts at classification futile, since these were based on measurements, particularly on indices, alone, while they must be based on morphological descriptions. These latter, he holds, cannot be replaced by numerical values. While heartily agreeing with this view, particularly with the objection to the exaggerated value given to the length-breadth index of the head, I do not think that Dr. Ehrenreich’s condemnation of anthropometry is quite justified. He defines the object of somatology as the somatic investigation, description, and if possible explanation of racial characteristics. With this, I believe, all anthropologists will agree. The only question is what methods are best adapted to these ends. A broad view of the history of anthropology shows that measurements were originally introduced in order to give precision to certain descriptive features which could not be expressed satisfactorily in words. This appears to have been the leading view of Daubenton and Camper, who were the first to introduce measurements in discussions referring to comparative anatomy. The nearer alike the types which we compare, the more difficult it is to describe in words their nice distinctions. Anthropology was the first branch of descriptive biology to deal with closely allied varieties, and for this reason the need of substituting exact numerical values for vague descriptions was soonest felt. Since zoology, more particularly the study of mammals and of birds, has begun to take into consideration the geographical races of the same species we observe the same tendency of adding measurements to verbal descriptions.

In so far as Dr. Ehrenreich’s criticism is directed against the substitution of measurements for descriptions that they should supplement, it is most timely and ought to be taken to heart by investigators. The terms dolichocephalic and brachycephalic as indicating two groups of head forms determined by measurements have by some investigators been raised almost to the rank of specific characters, although, as Ehrenreich justly emphasizes—and in this he has the support of Sergi, Harrison Allen and others—the sameness of the index does not by any means signify sameness of morphological type. He disclaims the significance of these characters when not supported by general morphological agreement. In all this the author is certainly right. But he overlooks entirely the principal and fundamental value of numerical measures as illustrating the range of variability of types which cannot be given by any verbal descriptions. The type inhabiting a certain region cannot be defined satisfactorily by a substitution of descriptive features selected by even the closest observation. It is not possible, as Ehrenreich says, to represent a type by a typical individual. The description must include all the individuals in order to illustrate the composition of the group that is being studied. In order to give an adequate description it is necessary to illustrate the frequency of different types composing the group. While the types found in two adjoining areas may be almost identical their distribution may differ. The attempts to treat the same subject by means of composite photographs or composite drawings, which from a purely theoretical point seem very promising, offer serious practical obstacles which make it difficult to use these methods. The variability of a type can, therefore, be expressed only by means of carefully selected measurements. Dr. Ehrenreich states with great clearness that none of the proposed series of measurements are satisfactory, but we must add that a way exists of discovering such measurements. This way is shown in Professor Karl Pearson’s admirable investigation on correlations which was suggested by Galton’s important work on heredity. By its means laws of correlation may be discovered which express morphological laws. It seems to me, therefore, that the author’s condemnation of anthropometrical methods for determining geographical varieties is too sweeping.

The skepticism with which the author regards the results of anthropometry leads him also to the conclusion that sameness of type is not a sufficient proof of common descent; that the latter is only proved if supported by historical and linguistic evidence. This opinion is open to serious objections. It is certainly true that it is impossible to determine by anatomical characteristics alone to what people a single individual belongs. But it is perfectly feasible to identify a series of individuals belonging to a certain people or district, if the series is sufficiently large. Dr. Ehrenreich, it would seem, has been misled by the fact that all types are variable and cannot be represented by a single typical individual to consider the whole task a hopeless one. Even though it is not possible to establish for a people a single anatomical type to which all individuals conform and which is characteristic of that people and no other, this does not prove that we cannot trace its genesis by means of a study of the various types constituting the people and their distribution among the people itself and its neighbors. The author acknowledges this fact to a certain extent, saying: “Whoever tries to rely in these investigations on physical characters alone will certainly be led astray. A consideration of the geographical point of view and of historical evidence will give much greater certainty to his conclusions.” Here, as in the discussion of the races of man, the author strongly emphasizes the geographical point of view, and in this he agrees with F. Ratzel. He urges the necessity of considering the geographical probability of blood-relationship before generalizing from anatomical similarities. The considerations of this point of view, on which the reviewer has also repeatedly insisted, will certainly prevent anthropologists from forming rash conclusions and propounding extravagant theories.

But I do not believe that the introduction of linguistic considerations in the somatological problem will be found to be of advantage. It is true that wherever we find two tribes speaking affiliated languages there must have existed blood-relationship; but we have abundant proof showing that by infusion of foreign blood the anatomical types have changed to such an extent that the original type has been practically swamped by the intruders. Such is the case in North America among the Athapascan tribes of the Southwest, among the widely scattered Shoshonean tribes, and in many other cases. The laws according to which anatomical types are preserved are not the same as those according to which languages are preserved, and for this reason we must not expect to find the results of classifications based on these two considerations to coincide. Dr. Ehrenreich seems to think that types are too variable to give any satisfactory basis for deductions of this character. But, notwithstanding the fact that certain anatomical features are easily affected by the influence of environment, I cannot acknowledge that any proof of the transformation of the fundamental features of types exists.

In our investigations on the early history of mankind three methods are available, each directed to a certain series of phenomena—physical type, language, customs. These are not transmitted and do not develop in the same manner. The one persists when the other changes, but all may be made to contribute to the solution of the general problem. The study of the distribution of languages permits us to make nicer divisions and to follow historical changes in greater detail than that of the distribution of physical types. But often the latter give evidence in regard to phenomena which cannot be approached by linguistic methods. The distribution of the Alpine type of man in Europe, or that of the Sonoran type in North America, may be mentioned as instances of this kind. It would be absurd to state that in these cases similarity of type does not prove blood-relationship because there is no linguistic evidence to support it. On the contrary, the physical investigation supplies evidence that cannot be gained by linguistic facts. The three methods mentioned above are all equally valuable, but since they do not refer to the same classes of facts it must not be expected that they will clear up the same incidents in the early history of mankind, but all may be utilized with equal advantage in the study of this subject.

In regard to the affinities of the American race to other races Dr. Ehrenreich seems to be inclined to consider it as equally closely related to the Asiatic and to the European races. He lays particular stress upon the proportions of the body and the form of the hair as distinguishing the Americans from the Asiatics. In this opinion he agrees to a certain extent with Brinton. It would seem to me that in determining the position of a race we should be guided by the morphology of its most generalized forms, namely of women and children. The far-reaching similarity between American and Asiatic children and women is striking. They have in common the wide and rather low nose, the form of the eye and of the maxilla. The physiognomic similarity is so great that it would seem to be of greater weight than the variable proportions of the body which are much more subject to influences of environment.

REVIEW OF WILLIAM Z. RIPLEY, “THE RACES OF EUROPE”^[109]

The primary object of Professor Ripley’s studies is the explanation of the present distribution of human types in Europe. Four factors determine the same: heredity, environment, chance variation and selection.

It is a difficult task to ascribe to each of these its proper sphere of influence in the development of the human types inhabiting a continent whose people have undergone so many changes of location as those of Europe. Professor Ripley agrees with most authors in recognizing three fundamental types in Europe: the long-headed, dark Mediterranean; the short-headed, brunet Alpine; and the long-headed, blond Teutonic type. The author rightly dwells on the fact that, on the whole, human types are comparatively stable in given areas, and for this reason prefers to give to the types geographical names (p. 128). He suggests that it would have been desirable to designate the type of northwestern Europe also by a geographical term—such as Deniker’s “Nordic”—rather than by a national term, such as “Teutonic,” which he uses throughout. The prevalent types of various regions he explains largely as due to mixtures of these fundamental types, and as modifications due to environment, chance variation and selection.

The multiplicity of these causes and our lack of knowledge of the mode of their action make all conclusions based on them very doubtful. The causes may be combined in various manners to explain a given phenomenon. The lower stature of mountaineers is explained by less favorable influence of the highest region and said to be counterbalanced by its selective influence, which eliminates the less vigorous elements of the population. When the obscure effects of social or geographical environments are insufficient to explain existing conditions, heredity as expressed by mixture, and selection or chance variation, enter as convenient factors which enable us to find a plausible explanation. The ease with which the extremely complex phenomena can be explained by various combinations of these causes seems to me a reason of weakness of the conclusions set forth by Professor Ripley. Our ignorance of the conditions which influence modification of inherited form suggest that before accepting a given theory we should seek for historical corroboration of the same. This has been given in a few cases, as in the discussion of the types of Britanny (p. 101); but sufficient historical and archaeological evidence is not available or has not been given to raise many conclusions beyond serious doubt. It would seem that combinations of causes such as are brought forward to explain the conditions in Burgundy (p. 144) are so uncertain that they cannot be considered more than a very risky hypothesis. The uncertainty of this method is also well illustrated in the discussion of the characteristics of the types of the Alps. The author is led to explain in many places the permanence of the Alpine types by the remoteness and unattractiveness of Alpine valleys, while in others the high variability of the Alpine population is explained by the assumption that the valleys contain the “ethnological sweepings of the plains” (p. 106). Historical evidence is just as much necessary in the study of physical types as it is in that of geographical names, which are very liable to lead to erroneous results, unless studied in their oldest accessible forms. Only when our knowledge of the causes influencing human types is much more definite than it is now may we hope to reconstruct the details of their history without the corroboration of historical evidence. Many of the explanations contained in the book are certainly plausible, and add much to its attractiveness; but I should be inclined to emphasize the elements of uncertainty much more than the author does.

On the whole, Professor Ripley considers economic attractiveness as one of the principal causes that regulate the distribution of types. According to his theory the fertile plains were always subject to foreign invasion, while the less fertile hills contain the most ancient types. While in historic times, when population had reached a considerable density, this cause must have been very effective, we may doubt if it acted in the same manner in early times, when the continent was sparsely settled, when agriculture was not the only means of subsistence and when dense forests and swamps, difficult of access, or steppes that are now fertile covered the plains. The author calls attention to the fact that the invasion of the Alpine type cannot be explained in this manner.

I feel least in accord with Professor Ripley’s ready resort to mixture as an explanation of peculiarities of type. This view is closely connected with the interpretation of what constitutes a type or a race. I do not think the term “Races of Europe” a fortunate one, but, with Gerland and Ehrenreich, I am inclined to reserve the term for the largest divisions of mankind. The differences between the three European types are certainly not equal in value to the differences between Europeans, Africans and Mongols; but they are subordinate to these. The term “type” appears most appropriate for the subdivisions of each race.

It would seem that if the author had given us in his work not only an analysis of what differentiates the various types of Europe, but also a description of what is common to them—a subject that would seem eminently proper in a discussion of European man—his views might have been somewhat modified. The important anatomical characteristics of the race as a whole have found no place in his work; in the chapter on European origins (pp. 457 et seq.), in which he deals with the general question of race, only the anthropometric evidence and pigmentation are treated. Considering the most generalized form of the European race as it reveals itself in the child, we should be inclined to consider it a highly specialized form of the Mongoloid type from which it departs principally, by the peculiar development of the nose and adjoining parts of the face and by a general decrease of pigmentation. On account of the high degree of variability; of the originally limited distribution of this type, and of the apparent tendency of hybrids with other races to revert to the other parental race rather than to the European race, I should be inclined to consider the European one of the latest human types. In early times this race was probably slightly specialized in a number of areas, each area exhibiting a considerable degree of variability. The loss of pigmentation, and change in facial form, were not equally pronounced everywhere, so that one region would be darker colored or broader faced than another, although not by any means uniform in itself. For this reason the occurrence of blonds or of narrow-faced and elongated heads in an otherwise dark, broad-faced and short-haired region does not necessarily prove mixture. At present we have no means of telling how stable these types had become before the extensive mixture which certainly has taken place throughout Europe. For this reason it seems a vain endeavor to seek for individuals representing the “pure type,” even if there had been no mixture. In his discussion of the “Three European Races” (Chap. VI) Professor Ripley acknowledges the variability without, however, discovering that it makes conclusions as to mixture exceedingly doubtful, except in very pronounced cases.

It does not seem to me justifiable to consider all the individuals that are short-headed and brunet, although living in an area which, on the average, is long-headed and blond, as belonging to the Alpine type, and to explain their presence as due to mixture between the two types. They may simply represent the remoter variations from the long-headed blond type. This question has a most important bearing upon the explanation of facts of social selection (pp. 537 et seq.) by the assumption of different tendencies in the two types.

The problem can hardly be solved satisfactorily until we have acquired a much better knowledge than we now possess of the variabilities of the various types and of the degrees of correlation between the features that characterize each type. This information is not yet available. No method has yet been devised for measuring the variability of pigmentation. The military selection, which vitiates so many anthropometric results, unfortunately often obscures the actual variability entirely. Thus all curves of stature in Livi’s great work on Italy are asymmetrical on account of the elimination of all individuals below 155 cm. and the decreasing frequency of rejection correlated with increasing stature. This selection increases all the averages, and lessens the variabilities the more, the shorter the average of the type. Neither is it quite safe to take the irregularities of curves of distribution as evidence of mixture, unless they are subjected to a very careful analysis.

The author considers as the most valuable anthropometric characteristic the form of the head as expressed by the cephalic index, and deprecates the value of facial proportions and of absolute measurements. We cannot quite agree with this view. The cephalic index is often a most valuable means of distinguishing the types composing a race, but not by any means the only one. Our selection of characteristic measurements must always be guided by existing differences, whatever these may be. Two types may have the same cephalic index and still differ in the general form of the skull and of the face to such a degree as to require separate treatment. Neither must we disregard the absolute values of the diameters of the head. The great length of the Negro cranium as compared to its small capacity has a meaning quite different from the same length of the European cranium of large capacity. For this reason we cannot accept the daring map of the distribution of the cephalic index the world over (p. 42) as signifying any racial relationships. Cephalic index alone cannot be considered a primary principle of classification.

Neither are cephalic index and pigmentation alone a sufficiently broad basis for the characterization of racial types. The consideration of these two features leads the author to designate the European race as intermediate between the African and Asiatic races, without considering the objections to this theory which are founded in the form of the face, the size and form of the brain, the proportions of the extremities. Neither do we feel it safe to explain the fine, wavy hair of the European as due to a mixture between the frizzly African and the straight Asiatic hair.

We most heartily concur with the author’s emphatic demand for treating physical, ethnographical, and linguistic methods separately. The misconception of what constitutes a racial type, a cultural group, and a linguistic stock has caused a vast amount of futile speculation. The three methods may be used, each in its particular domain, for reconstructing part of the history of mankind, and each may be used, to a limited extent, as a check on the two others. When two groups of people speak closely related languages the inference may be drawn that they are in part related in blood, although the strain of common blood may be so slight as to escape anthropometrical methods entirely. Cultural similarity is no proof of blood-relationship, since culture may be easily disseminated among tribes of different descent.

REVIEW OF ROLAND B. DIXON, “THE RACIAL HISTORY OF MAN”^[110]

During the last quarter of a century, particularly since the development of studies on heredity, the attempts to unravel the history of human types have been based more and more on the investigation of morphological forms. The more mechanical classifications according to metrical features which dominated anthropological inquiry during the end of the past century do not play as important a part as they used to do. An excellent instance of this kind is the detailed investigation of the history of the Melanesian-Australian type given by Sarasin in his study of New Caledonia.^[111] The same tendencies manifest themselves in the study of the ancient remains of man, particularly of those belonging to the paleolithic period. It is recognized more and more clearly that metrical values must be considered merely as a means of a quantitative statement of descriptive features.

Professor Dixon’s attempt to unravel the racial history of man runs counter to this whole development. His book is based on the thesis that three measurements of the head—length, breadth and height—and two measurements of the nose—height and breadth—have remained stable since paleolithic times. The second hypothesis on which his analysis is based is the assumption that all those human types which are characterized by the extreme forms of the length-breadth and length-height index of the head and the height-breadth index of the nose are primary forms and that all intermediate forms are due to intermixture between these primary forms. In this way he obtains necessarily eight fundamental races, representing the eight possible combinations of three independent features.

From a biological point of view it is difficult to see how these two fundamental hypotheses could be maintained. First of all, we have no evidence that human types may be considered as absolutely stable. It is true that not all types of organisms react equally energetically to environmental influences, but there is no evidence that would permit us to assume that man is absolutely resistant to them. We have the best possible evidence that the size of the body and proportions of the limbs are strongly influenced by environment and, so far as I can see, no observations have been made that would contradict my own observations on the changes of head and face form of immigrants in the United States and of the descendants of Spaniards living in Puerto Rico. The proof may not have been given that the differences between town population and country population observed in Europe is due to direct environmental influences, but even if we assume with Ammon^[112] that it is due to selection, it would show that the constitution of a group of people may be materially changed.

The strongest argument in favor of the plasticity of skeletal form is shown in observations of domesticated animals. Changes in head form and in size of the skull have been noted not only in many domesticated animals, but also among animals born in captivity. Differences have been observed between wild lions and lions born in zoological parks and between wild rats and rats raised in cages. Attention has been called by Eduard Hahn and by the writer to the fact that men must be considered a domesticated form and this thesis has been most fully worked out by Eugen Fischer and recently by Berthold Klatt.^[113] With these observations in mind, the thesis of the absolute stability of human forms from paleolithic times to the present would require proof before it could be accepted. This view is practically a restatement of the thesis of J. Kollmann, who considered the modern human types as “Dauerformen.”

In order to maintain the second hypothesis, Professor Dixon has assumed (p. 17) that the three features which he discusses are not subject to Mendelian inheritance. While we do not know in detail how the three features are inherited, there is fairly conclusive evidence that there is a tendency towards reversion to parental types. A study of the data collected by Walter Scheidt^[114] shows that the formation of middle types as a result of crossings is not probable.

It would seem to the reviewer that an attempt to establish the extremes of a variable series as fundamental types is based on a misconception of the meaning of variability. We know from the studies of inbreeding carried out by Miss King^[115] on rats and by Johannsen^[116] on beans that even in extreme cases of long continued inbreeding there will always remain a considerable amount of variability. This is not surprising, considering the complexity of the organism and the many ways in which it is subject to formative influences which can never be fully controlled. We are fairly familiar with the variability of the two head indices and of the nasal index. If we assume for a moment that we have a human type which, in regard to the three classes established by Professor Dixon, occupies exactly a middle position and if we assume furthermore the variability in this group to be equal to one-half of the space occupied according to his definition by the middle group and if, furthermore, we disregard the correlations between the various measurements, we should find that in a group of this kind all the extreme groups would be represented by 0.5 per cent of the whole series; all the groups containing two extreme forms and one middle form would be represented by 1.8 per cent; those representing one extreme and two middle forms each by 7.6 per cent and those representing three middle forms by 28.7 per cent. As a matter of fact, the variability here assumed for the three ratios considered by Professor Dixon is lower than the normal variability that occurs in any given type and we would have to say, therefore, that in a group of people of this kind all the extreme forms would be represented. Professor Dixon would go on to say that all the middle forms are mixed and he would thus obtain 12.5 per cent for each one of his primary types as the ancestry of the group. The assumption that the variability of a series of this kind is due to mixture is entirely arbitrary. In short, the proof is not given that the extreme forms are actually fundamental forms. On the contrary we should rather be inclined to assume that the extreme forms are due to certain excessive conditions that determine the particular form of the individual in question.

It seems, therefore, that the theoretical basis of the whole investigation would require proof of the two fundamental hypotheses and this the author fails to give, and it is my belief that it cannot possibly be given.

It is, of course, true that the human races have intermarried to such an extent that the attempt to find a pure race anywhere is futile. Notwithstanding this fact, we ought not to overlook the similarity of the phenomenon to the analogous variability of plants and animals which occur over extended areas. Exactly the same method might be applied to forms of bears or to forms of mice. Here also extreme forms might be established and all the intermediate forms might then be explained as due to mixture. This simplification of the problem would, however hardly appear justifiable because here, also, the dogmatic assumption would be made that the forms are permanent and not in any way subject to environmental influences.

The difficulties of these hypotheses made by the author appear very clearly when he compares his fundamental types as occurring in different parts of the world. As might be expected he does not find any kind of correlation between the ratios which he studies and other anatomical traits, such as pigmentation, hair form and so on. It is quite obvious that when we compare long-headed, high-headed, flat-nosed individuals living in the Alps of Europe with similarly proportioned individuals from Australia and West Africa, there must be serious differences in regard to other traits. Because Professor Dixon assumes that these three values are fundamental, he is compelled to assume that none of the other traits are permanent and are all subject to change. No attempt it made to prove this conclusion, which is merely an inference drawn from the assumed permanence of the given traits. It is, of course, true that there is a possibility that features like kinky hair may have developed independently in different races, as Sarasin assumes, but this assumption does not overcome the objections based on the failure to consider any other bodily features.

On account of our fundamental disagreement with the general position of the author it does not seem advantageous to enter into a detailed discussion of the distribution of the various types which is given in a number of maps. It must be understood, of course, that the maps are analogous in character to the usual maps showing the distribution of, for instance, short statures and tall statures, or low cephalic index and high cephalic index and that all of these are only fragmentary reproductions, because the plotted values depend upon two factors, the average and the variability of the measurements. The author’s maps ought to be labeled as expressing approximately the frequency of occurrence of certain combinations of features. The maps certainly do not prove that these are fundamental races.

It is quite impossible to check up the data contained in the book because the general tables are not given. This is obviously impossible in a book which evidently is intended to appeal not only to the specialist but also to the general reader, but furthermore, the summary tables given on page 22 and those contained in the conclusion do not agree and the numbers are so small that any general inferences drawn from them seem rather risky.

In the final chapter Professor Dixon tries to prove that those groups which agree in regard to the selected ratios also agree in regard to other metric features. He uses for this purpose a series of fourteen measurements, eight of which are the length, breadth and height of the head and length and breadth of nose and the three ratios on which his whole system is built up. He tries to show that the six remaining measurements agree. One of these is the breadth-height index which is derived from the same material as the length-breadth and length-height indices. The others and the bizygomatic diameter, two facial indices, the gnathic index and the capacity of the skull. It is not surprising that the measurements on which his classification is based should agree fairly well. However, in my judgment, the rest do not show any satisfactory agreement, particularly considering the small number of individuals upon which the comparisons are based.

A word should be said also in regard to Professor Dixon’s general attitude towards the question of the relation between racial ability and anatomical form. In one place he expresses himself as quite convinced that achievement proves hereditary ability (p. 518). I cannot consider this argument conclusive. If it were valid, then at different periods it would justify entirely different views. It is not very long since Russia would have seemed in cultural achievement very much inferior to western Europe. The conclusion as to racial inferiority is in this case contradicted by the considerable number of eminent scientists and artists produced by Russia since social conditions have changed. If the ancient Greeks or still earlier the Egyptians or Chinese had used the same argument, they would have classified the northern Europeans as belonging to an inferior race, incapable of ever attaining cultural eminence. The proof of racial superiority certainly has to be based on other evidence. It is curious to note that when it suits the author’s emotional attitude he changes his argument completely and indulges in flings at the assumed claim of racial pre-eminence on the part of the Germans—an attitude which hardly helps to make convincing a treatise that attempts to be scientific.

SOME RECENT CRITICISMS OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY^[117]

During recent years a number of severe attacks against the methods of physical anthropology have been made, which are directed mainly against two points—(1) the possibility of classifying mankind according to anatomical characteristics, and (2) the practicability of description of types by means of measurements.

Before we attempt to reply to these criticisms, it may be well to make a few brief remarks on the development of the methods of physical anthropology. The living representatives of the various races of man were originally described according to their general appearance—the color of the skin, the form and color of the hair, the form of the face, etc. Later this general description was supplemented by the study of the skeletons of various races, and a number of apparently characteristic differences were noted. One of the principal reasons that led to a more detailed study of the skeleton and to a tendency to lay the greatest stress upon characteristics of the skeleton, was the ease with which material of this kind could be obtained. Visitors to distant countries are likely to bring home skeletons and parts of skeletons, while not much opportunity is given for a thorough examination of a considerable number of individuals of foreign races. The difficulty of obtaining material relating to the anatomy of the soft parts of the body has had the effect that this portion of the description of the anatomy of man has received very slight attention. In comparatively few cases have we had opportunity to make a thorough study of the characteristics of the soft parts of the body of individuals belonging to foreign races. The desire to find good specific characters in the skeleton has also been stimulated by the necessity of studying extinct races. The conditions in these cases are the same as those found in paleontological studies, where the osseous remains alone of extinct species are available. Researches into the earliest history of man must be based on studies of the skeleton.

Studies of the human skeleton had not been carried very far when it was found to be not quite easy to determine racial characteristics with sufficient accuracy by mere verbal description. This led to the introduction of measurements as a substitute for verbal description. With the increase of the material, the necessity of accurate description became more and more apparent, because intermediate links between existing forms were found with increasing frequency. These conditions have led to a most extensive application of the metric method in the study of the human skeleton and also in the study of the external form of the living.

The results of the minute studies that have been carried on in this manner appear discouraging to many students, because we have not been able to find any criterion by which an individual skeleton of any one race can be distinguished with certainty from a skeleton belonging to another race, except in a very general way. A typical full-blood Negro may be distinguished from a White man, and an Indian of Florida from an Eskimo; but it would be difficult to distinguish the skeleton of a Chinaman from that of certain North American Indians.

This lack of definite individual descriptive features has led many investigators to conclude that the method is at fault, and that the skeleton cannot be used as a satisfactory basis for a classification of mankind. This view has been strengthened by the belief, frequently expressed, that the characteristic features of each race are not stable, but that they are influenced to a great extent by environment, geographical as well as social.

It seems to me that these views are not borne out by the observations that are available. The first objection, which is based on the lack of typical characteristics in the individual, does not take into consideration the fact that anthropological study is not a study of individuals, but of local or social varieties. While it may be impossible to classify any one individual satisfactorily, any local group existing at a certain given period can clearly be characterized by the distribution of forms occurring in that group. I do not hesitate to say that, provided we had satisfactory statistics of the distribution of human forms over the whole globe, an exhaustive description of the physical characteristics of any group of individuals belonging to one locality would enable us to identify the same without any difficulty. This clearly emphasizes the fact that anthropological classification must be considered as a statistical study of local or social varieties. But it will be asked, How does this help in classifying individual forms? The problem must be considered in the following way:

Each social unit consists of a series of individuals whose bodily forms depend on their ancestry and on their environment. If the opinion of the critics of physical anthropology regarding the predominant effect of environment is correct, then we cannot hope to make any discoveries as to ancestry of local or social groups by means of anatomical investigations. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that heredity is the predominant factor, then the prospects of important discoveries bearing on the early history of mankind are very bright indeed. It seems to the writer that a biological consideration makes it very probable that the influence of heredity should prevail, and thus far he has failed to find conclusive proof to the contrary.

The critics of the method of physical anthropology will of course concede that a Negro child must be a Negro, and that an Indian child must be an Indian. Their criticism is directed against the permanence of types within the race; for instance, against the permanence of short or tall statures, or against the permanence of forms of the head. It must be conceded that muscular development may exert an important influence on the form of bones, but it does not seem likely that it can bring about an entire change of form. The insufficiency of the influence of environment appears in cases where populations of quite distinct types inhabit the same area and live under identical conditions. Such is the case on the North Pacific coast of our continent; such was the case in successive populations of southern California and of Utah.

While this may be considered good evidence in favor of the theory of predominance of the effect of heredity, the actual proof must be looked for in comparisons between parent and offspring. If it can be shown that there is a strong tendency on the part of the offspring to resemble the parent, we must assume that the effect of heredity is stronger than that of environment. The method of this investigation has been developed by Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, who have given us the means of measuring the degree of similarity between parent and child. Wherever this method has been applied, it has been shown that the effect of heredity is the strongest factor in determining the form of the descendant. It is true that thus far this method has not been applied to series of generations, and under conditions in which a considerable change of environment has taken place, and we look forward to a definite solution of the problem of the effect of heredity and of environment through the application of this method. In the study of past generations we cannot, on the whole, compare directly parent and offspring, but we have to confine ourselves to a comparison between the occurrence of types during successive periods. The best available evidence on this subject is found in the populations of Europe. It does not seem likely that the present distribution of types in Europe can be explained in any other way than by the assumption that heredity had a predominant influence. Much has been made of the apparent change of type that takes place in the cities of Europe in order to show that natural selection may have played an important part in making certain types of man predominant in one region or another. Ammon has shown that the city population of southwestern Germany is more short-headed than the country population, and concludes that this is due to natural selection. All the phenomena of this character that have been described can be explained satisfactorily by the assumption that the city population is more mixed than the country population. This point has been brought out most clearly by Livi’s investigations in Italy. He has proved that in regions where long-headed forms prevail in the country, in the city the population is more short-headed; while in regions in the country in which short-headed forms prevail, in the city the population is more long-headed.

Under present conditions, it seems best not to start the study of the anatomical characteristics of man from far-reaching assumptions in regard to the question of the effect of heredity and environment, but first of all to ascertain the distribution of types of man. This is a definite problem that requires treatment and investigation just as much as the study of languages or the study of the customs of various tribes. At the present time we are far from being familiar with the distribution of types on the various continents. No matter what the ultimate explanation of the distribution of types may be, we cannot evade the task of investigating their present distribution and of seeking for the explanation of the reasons for such distribution.

Before entering into this subject more fully, it may be well to take up the second criticism of the method of physical anthropology, which has been made with increasing frequency of late years. A number of investigators object to the metric method of anthropology, and desire to bring about a substitution of description for measurements. This proposition is based on a misunderstanding of the function of measurements. The necessity of making measurements developed when it was found that the local varieties of mankind were very much alike—so much so that a verbal description failed to make their characteristics sufficiently clear. The process by means of which measurements have been selected has been a purely empirical one. It has been found that certain measurements differ considerably in various races, and are for this reason good classificatory criteria. The function of measurements is therefore solely that of giving greater accuracy to the vague verbal description. It is true that in the course of time a tendency has developed of considering as the sole available criteria of race the measurements which by experience have been found to be useful. This is true particularly of the so-called cephalic index; that is, the ratio of width to length of head. There are anthropologists who have subordinated everything else to the study of the cephalic index, leaving out of consideration altogether the forms of the skull and of the skeleton as expressed by their metric relations or as expressed by means of drawings or diagrams. It has frequently been pointed out that the same cephalic index may belong to forms that anatomically cannot be considered as equivalent. We find, for instance, that the same cephalic index belongs to the Eskimo, to the prehistoric inhabitant of southern California, and to the Negro. Still these three types must be considered as fundamentally different. Anthropologists who limit their work to the mechanical application of measurements, particularly of single measurements, and who try to trace the relationships of races by such means, do not apply the metric method in a correct way. It must be borne in mind that measurements serve the purpose only of sharper definition of certain peculiarities, and that a selection of measurements must be adapted to the purpose in view. I believe the tendency of developing a cast-iron system of measurements, to be applied to all problems of physical anthropology, is a movement in the wrong direction. Measurements must be selected in accordance with the problem that we are trying to investigate. The ratio of length and breadth of head may be a very desirable measurement in one case, while in another case it may be of no value whatever. Measurements should always have a biological significance. As soon as they lose their significance they lose also their descriptive value.

The great value of the measurement lies in the fact that it gives us the means of a comprehensive description of the varieties contained in a geographic or social group. A table that informs us of the frequency of various forms as expressed by measurements that occur in a group gives us a comprehensive view of the variability of the group that we are studying. We can then investigate the distribution of forms according to statistical methods; we can determine the prevalent type and the character of its variation. The application of rigid statistical methods gives us an excellent means of determining the homogeneity and the permanence of the type that is being studied. If a group of individuals who present a homogeneous type is not subject to changes, we must expect to find the types arranged according to the law of probabilities; that is to say, the average type will be the most frequent one, and positive and negative variations will be of equal frequency. If, on the other hand, the homogeneous type is undergoing changes, the symmetry of arrangement will be disturbed, and if the type is heterogeneous we must expect irregularities in the whole distribution. Investigations of this character require the measurement of very extensive series of individuals in order to establish the results in a satisfactory manner. But the character of the distributions that may thus be obtained will furnish material for deciding a number of the most fundamental questions of physical anthropology.

I may now revert to the question previously under discussion. I have tried to show that the metric method may furnish us material proving the homogeneity or heterogeneity of groups of certain individuals. This test has been applied to a number of cases. I have examined from this point of view the North American half-bloods, that is, individuals of mixed Indian and White descent. I have shown that the transverse development of the face, which is the most distinctive difference between Indian and White, shows a tendency in the mixed race to revert to either of the parental races, and that there is no tendency toward the development of an intermediate form. Bertillon has shown similar irregularities to exist in France. On the other hand, extensive series of measurements of enlisted soldiers of Italy show in many parts of the kingdom a comparatively homogeneous series. Hand in hand with this phenomenon go remarkable differences of variability. In places where we have reason to believe that distinct types have intermingled, we find a great increase in variability, while in regions occupied by homogeneous populations the variability seems to decrease. These facts are strong arguments for the assumption of a great permanence of human types. It is necessary that the analysis of distributions of measurements be carried much further than it has proceeded up to the present time; this done, I believe we shall obtain a means of determining with considerable accuracy the blood-relationships of the geographical varieties of man.

I wish to say a word here in regard to the question of the relationship between the earliest prehistoric races and the present races. In so far as the reconstruction of the characteristics of prehistoric races can be based on extensive material, there will be a certain justification for a reconstruction of the soft parts, if a detailed comparison of the osteological remains of prehistoric types and of present types proves them to be conformable. Where, however, the similarity is based on a few isolated specimens, no such reconstruction is admissible, because the attempt presupposes the identity of the prehistoric race with the present. Since remains of the earliest man are very few in number, it is hardly possible to gain an adequate idea of what the characteristics of the soft parts of his body may have been except in so far as the forms of muscular attachments allow us to infer the size and form of muscles.

When we base our conclusions on the considerations presented in this paper, we must believe that the problem of physical anthropology is as definite as that of other branches of anthropology. It is the determination and explanation of the occurrence of different types of man in different countries. The fact that individuals cannot be classified as belonging to a certain type shows that physical anthropology cannot possibly lead to a classification of mankind as detailed as does the classification based on language. The statistical study of types will, however, lead to an understanding of the blood-relationship between different types. It will consequently be a means of reconstructing the history of the mixture of human types. It is probable that it will lead also to the establishment of a number of good types which have remained permanent through long periods. It will be seen that that part of human history which manifests itself in the phenomena that are the subject of physical anthropology is by no means identical with that part of history which manifests itself in the phenomena of ethnology and of language. Therefore we must not expect that classifications obtained by means of these three methods will be in any way identical. Neither is it a proof of the incorrectness of the physical method if the limits of its types overlap the limits of linguistic groups. The three branches of anthropology must proceed each according to its own method; but all equally contribute to the solution of the problem of the early history of mankind.

THE RELATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY^[118]

During the last decades physical anthropology and social anthropology have drifted more and more apart. This seems unavoidable on account of the difference in subject matter and the necessity of a thorough biological training for the one branch, while the other requires a knowledge of ethnological methods. With the wide extent of either field it is hardly possible to combine the two adequately.

Nevertheless some method must be found, if the important borderland between the two is not to be neglected—much to the detriment of either.

It may be conceded that the purely morphological study of early forms of man and of races is a matter that should be treated by the morphologist. It is more doubtful whether the study of living races can be left entirely to him. He must include in his study the determining factors that stabilize or differentiate racial types: heredity, environment, and selection as well as the occurrence of mutations. The social anthropologist is interested in the history of society and for this reason he has to know the origin and history of each type. Its distribution may throw important light upon historic events. The physical anthropologist has to answer many questions asked by the student of society. Is the similarity of types living in remote countries due to genetic relationship or to parallel mutations? Is, for instance, the type of the Ainu due to an old genetic relationship with Europeans, or is it a spontaneous mutation in the Mongoloid race? What rôle has domestication played in the development of races? In how far have anthropometric measures a taxonomic value showing genetic relationship, or in how far are they determined by environment or selection? When the biologist—for so we may call the physical anthropologist—wants to answer these questions, he must be familiar with ethnic data. The attempts of certain anthropologists to analyze on the basis of measurements and observations a population and to discover the constituent races is, at present at least, a hopeless task. Without the most detailed knowledge of the laws of heredity of each feature considered, as well as of the effects of environment, the task is like that of a mathematician who tries to solve without any further data a single equation with a large number of unknown quantities. If anything is to be done on these lines the historical composition of the population has to be known in detail.

Any attempt at a morphological classification of races, excepting the very largest groups, like Negroes, Mongoloids, Australians, does not lead to satisfactory results without knowledge of the conditions that have made the type what it is. A purely taxonomic description of local types determined by means of those traits that strike the observer as most frequently occurring in the population in question, or that may be proved to be so, do not clear up the history of the population. We might claim that the frequency of various values of the head index in southern Italy indicates descent from distinct hereditary groups and state that a certain percentage of “Alpine” types have intermingled with the “pure” Mediterranean strain; or we might claim that the frequency of blue eyes in Sicily corresponds to the amount of Norman blood. These conclusions are valueless if it cannot be shown that the cephalic index is solely determined by heredity and that in a “pure” race its variations do not exceed very narrow limits, and that blue eyes may not originate by mutation, as they certainly must have done at one time, and that this mutation may not occur again in any one of the strongly depigmented European populations.

Added to these difficulties is that of an adequate definition of type. Actually the type of a population is always an abstraction of the striking peculiarities of the mass of individuals which are assumed to be represented combined in a single individual. What the striking peculiarities are depends largely upon the previous experiences of the observer, not upon the morphological value of the observed traits. This explains the diversities of opinion in taxonomic classification. They all contain so many subjective elements without necessary morphological checks that conclusions based on them have slight value. A result of historical significance can be obtained only by a study of the many genetic lines constituting the population, not selected from the arbitrary point of view of which is “typical,” but with due consideration of the variety of forms that occur, of their frequencies in succeeding generations, and of their response to varying environmental influences.

Classifications made on the basis of a selected number of traits, like those of Deniker and many others, have an interest from a purely statistical point of view, showing how certain traits are distributed, but they do not give us any right to differentiate between racial strains.

These difficulties are the greater the less marked the difference between two populations, either on account of their genetic relationship or on account of intermingling of types. They disappear only in those cases in which no overlapping of types occurs.

A purely subjective selection of racial types according to their local distribution, and even more so the attempts to select by subjective judgments typical forms as constituent elements of a population, will never give us a true picture of racial history.

Where it can be proved historically that a population is mixed, such as the American Mulattoes, the half-blood Indians, or the half-castes of the Orient, biological questions arise that require a thorough knowledge of social conditions. If it were true, as has been claimed so often, that mixed bloods are inferior in physique to their parents of pure stock, or that disharmonies of forms will develop that have detrimental effects, it must still be asked who were the parents? Were they of normal value, or of inferior strains in the race to which they belong, and are the conditions under which the mixed population live equal to those of the two parental stocks? Without an answer to these questions, which require sociological knowledge, the biological inferences have little value. Data like those available on American Negroes show the strong influence of unfavorable social conditions, while those obtained from Pitcairn Island, from the South African Bastards, from Kisar, or from North American Indians show that mixed populations may preserve full vigor.

The considerations relating to the significance of taxonomic differences are the more important the greater the environmental influences upon the feature studied. Among bodily traits this is true, for instance, of stature and weight, which are quite variable under varying conditions. Still more significant is this variability in the study of physiological and psychological functions.

While the physical anthropologist is liable to look at functional phenomena as expressions of structure, the ethnologist will bear in mind the varying conditions influencing functions. Undoubtedly these are, to a certain extent, determined by structure, but they vary in the same individual according to conditions, so that in a large population, containing many distinct hereditary lines, similar outer conditions may produce functional similarities that may give the impression of being determined by racial descent, while actually they are due to similar conditioning. The interpretation of such phenomena requires the greatest caution, on account of the constant danger of considering as causally related anatomical and functional characteristics that are only accidentally related. This is particularly true of the attempts to correlate mental characteristics of populations and bodily form. It may be that differences in personality exist in races fundamentally distinct, but no convincing proof has been given so far that the observed differences are actually structurally determined, while the modification of various aspects of personality of members of the same race who live under changed conditions has been proved.

In this field particularly a clear understanding of the meaning of social conditions is essential if the grossest errors are to be avoided. Sameness of conditions is altogether too readily either assumed or overlooked. If Davenport and Steggerda assume equality of all social groups in Jamaica they overlook group differences which can be evaluated only by those intimately familiar with the social life of the people. On the other hand the experimentally determined similarities in very simple reactions of identical twins are overvalued when applied to complex activities dependent upon cultural situations.

THE ANALYSIS OF ANTHROPOMETRICAL SERIES^[119]

The criticisms of my investigations relating to the bodily forms of descendants of immigrants in New York in comparison with those of their European-born parents are based largely upon the current method of subdividing anthropometric series in a number of arbitrary groups and to describe the whole series by the percentual frequencies of these groups. For instance, it is said that a certain population contains such and such percentages of short, medium and tall individuals, or such and such percentages of individuals with elongated, medium and rounded head forms; or a larger number of groups are distinguished or characterized by various combinations of forms.

Since the applicability of this method, particularly the interpretation of the frequencies of these groups, is of fundamental importance for the formulation of many problems a consideration of the theoretical basis of this procedure seems desirable.

In support of this method the statement is always made that averages have no meaning, that it is necessary to determine the distributions of individual values. That is true. Two series may have the same average and still be quite distinct; but two series cannot have different averages and be nevertheless identical. The average is of great value as a discriminating criterion, particularly because it can be determined with greater accuracy than any other value that depends upon the distribution of individual values of the series. For this purpose it is indispensable. Although we ascribe to the average no more than this discriminating value, it should not be neglected.

The average of the series may be the same but the distribution of individual values may be quite different. The attempt is made to overcome this difficulty by the establishment of groups and the determination of their percentual frequencies. In this manner we learn more about the series than by a statement of the average.

The solution offered by this method is not satisfactory, because it gives a very inadequate picture of the distribution of frequencies. It may be asked whether a better method may not be found. This problem has been solved by the introduction of the mean square variability as a measure of the scattering of individuals in the series. Experience has shown that in many series average and mean square variability permit us to determine with an adequate degree of accuracy the frequency of any selected group. As an example I give Livi’s observations on the cephalic index of 7,760 enlisted soldiers from Palermo. The average and its mean square variability are 79.1 ± 3.66. The distribution of cephalic indices according to observation and theory is as follows:

The theoretical values may be obtained from any table of the probability integral.^[120]

In a short series we must be satisfied with the mean square variability as the best attainable index of the character of the series because the distribution of the individual values is too much affected by chance.

In order to explain the reasons that compel us to adopt this method of presentation a more fundamental consideration of the character of variable quantities seems desirable.

We must define the difference between a constant and a variable. An example will illustrate this. It is obvious that the two statements: a cubic centimeter of pure water at greatest density at a given place weighs 1 gram; and the stature of Scotchmen is 175 cm., do not mean the same formally. If I should extend the term “water” to include water of any temperature and any kind of impurity the two statements would be formally of the same kind. The essential difference in the first case is that the term “water” is assumed to be completely defined, as opposed to the incomplete definition of what is a Scotchman or what is impure water. A constant is the measure of a completely defined object, a variable the series of measures of all the incompletely defined individuals composing a class. Only if we know all the influences that determine each member of the class completely could they also become constants. The class itself is completely defined, not the individual representatives of the class. Variability is not a specifically biological problem but an expression of the fact that the individuals of a class are subject to unknown influences.

This point of view is of the greatest importance for a logical treatment of variables. It shows that every member of a class has all the essential traits that characterize the class, but modified by unknown factors. Therefore, if I want to describe the class—in our case an anthropometric series—I must try to express both the essential class character and the influence of the unknown factors. When we segregate a particular group characterized by certain metric values out of the whole class, we do not only unnecessarily restrict the material that is being discussed, but—and this is more important—we segregate certain combinations of unknown factors and thus introduce a subjective element that has no relation whatever to the series itself. The series is a unit that cannot be broken and that must be described as a unit. The average and mean square variability fulfil these conditions because they consider each individual of the series as of equal value. They have the added advantage that in many cases they describe the distribution of individuals with sufficient accuracy. We have seen that two series having different averages cannot be equal. Two series with different mean square variabilities also cannot be equal. When two series have the same average and variabilities they may be equal, but this does not follow necessarily.

It follows from what has been said that when two averages are different and the variability remains the same, changes in the percentual frequencies of selected groups will follow. If the variabilities are also different the same frequencies for selected groups may result, although the series are distinct.

I will now turn to the fundamental question as to what may be inferred from the description of a series by means of average and mean square variability. A comparison between the description of constants and variables shows that the distribution of variants, however they may be expressed, are solely a description of the class. From the fact that a cubic centimeter of pure water of greatest density weighs 1 gram I cannot infer why this is the case; so also in a variable the observed values have solely a descriptive value. The fact that water and mercury have different specific weights does not tell me why they differ in specific weight. In the same way, if I have one variable expressed by the measure 183 ± 3 and another expressed by 184 ± 4, I know only that they are different, and, if the distribution of individual values is of the usual type, the numerical values would not tell me why they are different. It may be that each corresponding individual grew on the average by one unit and that the growth itself was variable. This would give the observed result. It might also be that each value was somehow changed in its frequency of occurrence, which would also account for the observed changes. It might also be that new elements were introduced so that the two series would not be comparable. Even the most intense study of the observed numerical values will throw no light upon the causal factors that bring about the change in both average and variability. The constantly repeated attempts to interpret descriptive features without further data do not prove that this method is acceptable.

As an example I chose a discussion by Hans Fehlinger^[121] of the gradual decrease of the average cephalic index with increasing age, from birth until the adult stage is reached. Fehlinger concludes that the only possible explanation of this phenomenon is selective mortality, because in the series of children of various ages the frequency of round-headed individuals gradually decreases. If it were not the cephalic index, but stature that is under consideration, nobody would imagine that the gradual disappearance of those of short stature is due to selection, for we know that it is due to individual growth. The changes of head index are also due to growth. The development of the frontal sinuses and of the muscular attachments at the occiput bring it about that the anteroposterior diameter of the head increases more rapidly than the transversal one. Therefore the cephalic index decreases with increasing age, not on account of an elimination of the round heads. It seems hardly plausible that very few children who have a certain cephalic index should die, let us say, between 8 and 11 years of age, while of those who have another index, one-third would die. Still, this would be required as a general phenomenon of the development of population if the universal decrease of the number of round-headed individuals in all populations were to be explained by selection.

I have discussed the whole subject somewhat fully, in order to show that the statistical data are purely descriptive, that the interpretation must be based on biological considerations. It follows that all attempts to derive conclusions solely from the statistical data are futile.^[122]

We have to return to our previous remarks which showed that every individual belonging to a series or class has the essential characteristics of the class modified by unknown causes. From this point of view a fundamental error made in the comparison of subgroups determined by selected measurements becomes apparent. It consists in the grouping together of individuals that happen to have the same measurements but belong to different classes. Thus Fehlinger equates the long-headed boys of from 4 to 6 years with adults with long heads, although they are from a biological point of view not equivalent and belong to different classes.

It is easy to show that the critique of these concepts is not unnecessary dialectic refinement, for real differences in such cases are the rule, not exceptions. Thus I found that, when in two populations individuals whose head index is 80 are selected the head forms of the children of this part of the population are not determined by the selected index of the parents alone, but also by the average index of the population to which the parents belong. If the average index of the population is 76 the children of the group with index 80 will have an index of about 78.4; if the average index of the population is 84, the index of the children of the group with index 80 would be 81.6.

Therefore it is wrong to speak of the “blond,” “round-headed” or “tall” groups in various parts of Europe as though they were identical from a biological point of view. Blond Italians are Italians, tall Sicilians, Sicilians, and round-headed Swedes, Swedes. Maps showing the distribution of long-headedness, tallness, etc., do not give trustworthy information regarding the distribution of types.

It follows, that, if we wish to understand the character of a variable which is defined by certain known characteristics of the class and by many unknown factors influencing the individuals, we must not segregate a small part of the class and assume that we have segregated a factor or factors causing the variability. All we have done is to segregate individuals who have the same measure which, however, may be due to the most diverse unknown influences. No conclusion can be drawn from such a procedure. The class has to be treated as a whole and every attempted analysis must be based on the study of single factors within the whole series.

THE MEASUREMENT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VARIABLE QUANTITIES^[123]

In biological statistics it is often necessary to study the differences between two variable types. The problem may be exemplified by a consideration of the differences between the types represented by populations of various countries, as, for instance, between the populations of Sweden, Switzerland, and Central Africa. It is obvious that the type of Sweden differs less from that of Switzerland than the latter differs from the type of Central Africa. Nevertheless, it is difficult to say just what is meant by greater or lesser difference in type. The attempt to establish and describe varieties of races according to characteristic features that are considered as significant from a morphological point of view suffers, therefore, from a lack of clarity of concept.

The differences between the averages of types have been utilized for the purpose of segregating subtypes of human races, as, for instance, in the classification of the local types into which the European race may be divided. Pigmentation, stature, form of hair, head, face, and nose have been so utilized. For example, local types have been described by Deniker^[124] by assigning to each group peoples among whom certain average values of measurements are found. All those that have average statures, head indices, facial forms, nose forms, and pigmentation falling within certain limits that may be expressed numerically were assigned by him to a certain subrace. Although it is possible to give in this manner a definite description of local types, the biological significance of the observed differences remains undetermined. Obviously the classification obtained by the method here indicated will vary according to the limits set for each division. If we call tall those populations whose average stature is more than 170 cm., their assignment to a subdivision will not be the same as the one obtained when we call those tall whose average stature is more than 172 cm. If no valid reason can be given for the choice of one or the other limit, then the subtype so established can have only a conventional descriptive meaning. If we wish to establish a biologically significant classification we should have to prove that the descriptive features selected are morphologically significant. Furthermore, it would be necessary to distinguish between environmental and hereditary influences that determine the particular features which are made the basis of the classification. As a matter of fact, this study has never been made; and since the lines of demarcation between classes are arbitrary, these classes will be only a convenient schematic review of the distribution of certain selected combinations of descriptive features.^[125]

In the following pages I wish to discuss the question whether a valid method of comparing closely allied forms can be found, so that arbitrary classifications may be avoided and measurable differences between two types established.

It may seem that maps showing the distribution of a single feature or of combined features would give this information. Retzius’ maps of Sweden, Livi’s maps of Italy, Virchow’s map of hair color in Germany, anthropological maps of France, England, and Spain, all illustrate the distribution of forms of the body, either by showing the areas in which the same average value of a measurement occurs or by showing areas in which certain selected values occur with equal frequency. The maps are intended to convey the impression that sameness of average values or of frequencies indicates the occurrence of the same racial forms. They also indicate that the differences between types are equivalent whenever the differences between averages or between frequencies of occurrence of selected values are the same. This has often led to the interpretation that the values whose frequency is shown represent separate racial types. Thus, the frequency of long-headedness in an area is often said to mean that a long-headed race forms a certain proportion of the population, although no biological basis can be given for the claim that the arbitrarily selected values represent a separate racial type.

The essential difficulty of our problem may be made clearer by the following considerations. Each racial type is variable. When we study the distribution of any particular feature, let us say of the cephalic index among European types, we find that the forms which occur in each area are variable, and the individuals composing the populations of different areas show in part the same numerical values of the measurement. The distribution of forms in each population is such that the types overlap. The average cephalic index in Sweden may be 77; in Bavaria 85. Nevertheless, there will be many individuals that have the index 81, both in Bavaria and in Sweden; and according to this particular feature individuals may belong to either group. We know that if two regions are not too far apart, in most cases it is quite impossible to assign with certainty a single individual to either of them.

If we should assume for the moment the variability found both in Sweden and in Bavaria to be very low, so that the highest cephalic index occurring among Swedes would be not more than 80 and the lowest occurring in Bavaria not less than 82, then the two series would appear to us entirely distinct. It would be quite inadmissible to claim that the differences between the pair of groups were the same in the cases of greater variability (which has actually been observed) and the lesser variability (which has here been assumed), although in both cases the averages show the same differences. In the latter case we judge that the difference is greater, or perhaps better, more fundamental.

Obviously our judgment is influenced by the degree of variability; still more, by the degree of overlapping of the two series. Only if we assume quite arbitrarily that the individuals that show the average values of the measurement in question—or some other selected value—were the true representatives of the whole population, and that all others were present only as foreign, intrusive elements, or if their occurrence represented modifications of the typical form due to extraneous causes—only under these conditions could we say that the difference between the selected values represents the difference between the types. A concept of variability like the one involved in these assumptions is, however, quite inadmissible. The group must be considered as a class and its variability determined by the definition of the class in question. Our detailed study of the class will always be directed toward the discovery of new principles of classification by means of which subclasses are formed whose variability will be less than that of the original class. In this way we try to define the newly formed subclasses more sharply than the original class, and the advance in our knowledge consists in the discovery of the factors that make the subclass more determinate. It would be quite arbitrary to select one particular individual as the type, and to claim either that all others are not really members of the class or that they are modified forms of the type. This method of procedure would contravene the fundamental concept of variability, for a variable comprises all the representatives of a class, the individual components of which are only defined in so far as they are members of the class—this in contradistinction to constants which are assumed to be completely defined and must therefore be the same in every case.

As soon as these principles are held clearly in mind, it appears that the ordinary definition of arithmetical difference is not applicable in our case. The term “difference” as applied to variables does not mean the same as the term “difference” applied to constants. Variables cannot be brought into a measurable series by the same means that we use for constants which may be compared by means of an arbitrary standard that is also constant.

The problem before us is how to overcome these difficulties—how to give a definite meaning to the differences between variables and make these differences measurable.

The question has been treated by G. H. Mollison^[126] and by J. Czekanowski.^[127] Mollison has discussed particularly the problem of differences between two types, and he gives an arbitrary formula which later on was modified by St. Poniatowski.^[128]

In the following pages I shall discuss some possible approaches to the problem.

What we call difference in this case is not by any means an arithmetical difference; it is a judgment of the degree of dissimilarity of two series. If two series are so far apart that notwithstanding their variability they do not overlap, they are entirely dissimilar. If they do overlap they will be the more dissimilar, the less the amount of overlapping. In this sense we may say that two pairs of series in which the amount and character of overlapping are equal will be equally dissimilar. While we may thus determine equality of dissimilarity we are not in a position to determine quantitatively the degree of dissimilarity.

In treating this problem we may first of all explain the meaning of similarity and dissimilarity by means of a few examples. Let us assume that a pure Negro and a pure White population are to be compared. The types are so distinct in all their features that in comparing them we should emphasize simply their dissimilarities. Now let us assume that a third community is added, consisting perhaps of baboons. It appears at once that our point of view would be shifted from a consideration of dissimilarities between Negroes and Whites to the similarities which they have in common as compared with the baboon, and their similarities will appear to us now under a new angle and as of different value.

When we compare a group of blond, blue-eyed North Europeans with dark complexioned, brown-eyed South Europeans, their dissimilarities are the most striking feature. If we add a Negro community to these two groups the similarities between the North and South Europeans would be much more prominently in our minds. We may observe the same changing attitude when we speak of family resemblances, or similarities. When we consider the children of a family, entirely by themselves, without any reference to any other family, they will appear to us as dissimilar. If the family has a particular characteristic feature, let us say, for instance, a long narrow nose, which all the children have to a greater or less extent, this will become the feature which makes them similar as compared to the rest of the population.

It is, therefore, clear that the concept of the degree of similarity depends upon the characteristics of all the groups that are under consideration and will change with the groups that are being compared.

In investigations on heredity it has been customary to determine the degree of similarity by means of the coefficient of correlation. When, for instance, parents and offspring are compared, the coefficient of correlation between the two will indicate the degree of their similarity. There is a biological relation between parent and offspring. The average form of the offspring is determined by the degree to which the parent differs from the average of the population to which he belongs. In marriage we may have selective mating through which the forms of two parents may be correlated. When the husband differs from the average of the population by a certain amount his wife may differ by a correlated amount. In both of these cases there is a functional relation between the two values. The distinguishing feature of fraternal correlation is that we are dealing with a natural group in which there is no true functional relation between the members. In a very large fraternity, disregarding the fraternity as part of a population, the bodily form of one member does not influence in any way either the average body form of the rest of the fraternity or the distribution of the individual forms. This is due to the fact that the members of the fraternity are all members of the same variable class, while in all the other cases previously noted we are dealing with relations between different classes. Fraternal correlation originates only in a population in which the fraternities represent different types. If all the families had the same average value there would be no correlation and no similarity between brothers. The greater the heterogeneity of the family lines, the greater will be the correlation and similarity between members of a fraternity.

Exactly the same considerations may be made for racial types. A local variety may be considered as a fraternal group. The coefficient of correlations between the local groups will then be a measure of their heterogeneity or of their dissimilarity.

The problem of the definition of similarities has been treated fully in experimental psychology. Weber’s law is actually based on the observation that the differences between two pairs of sensations are judged to be equal. In this case the basis of empirical determination of similarity is the probability of mistaking one difference for another. It is not, as was originally assumed, a measure of quantitative value of the sensation itself. This concept of similarity holds good not only in the case of simple sensations but also in the field of more complex experience. We may speak of similarity, or of the probability of failing to differentiate, for the most diverse kinds and the most complex forms of mental experience. The problem that we are discussing here has suggested itself in every comparative study of mental processes.

In an analogous manner we may define the degree of similarity as the probability of mistaking an individual who belongs to one group for a member of any of the other groups concerned. The degree of dissimilarity may then be determined by the probability of recognizing an individual as belonging to his own group.

The same measurement will occur with varying frequency in the groups forming the aggregate of groups that is being investigated. Each individual may belong to any one of these groups and the probability of his belonging to a particular group will be determined by the ratio between the frequency of the measurement identifying the individual as a member of his group and of its frequency in the aggregate. Thus the probability of the correct assignment of a single individual or of all individuals of the group having the trait in question can be determined. When each series is compared with the aggregate of all the series and the degrees of diversity are established these may be subtracted from one another, and in this manner differences in the degree of similarity may be determined.

When three series are compared in this manner in pairs, the resultant values are not additive. If only series (1) and series (2), then series (1) and (3), then series (2) and (3) are considered, the sum of the difference between (1) and (2) plus that between (2) and (3) will not be equal to the difference between (1) and (3). This is another expression of the observation made before that the meaning of similarity changes with the aggregate of the series that is being considered.

It might also seem possible to arrange the single series in the order of their averages and to determine their dissimilarities step by step. Here the difficulty may arise that two succeeding averages may be nearly the same, while their variabilities may be quite different. Whenever this occurs quite an erroneous impression of the differences will be given. The reason for this difficulty lies in the fact that the difference as here defined depends upon the averages and variabilities of the single series, and that certain combinations of these two values result in the same degree of dissimilarity.

In the case treated here the various series enter into the aggregate according to the number of individuals representing each series. It might be, for instance, that a large mass of material has been accumulated for one group and that another group is known through the study of a very few individuals only. Our expression contains, therefore, a weighting according to number which obscures the more general theoretical question. If the groups were known perfectly, then all would have equal weight, i.e., we should have to assume them to be represented by equal numbers.

Whether this point of view or the other should be taken depends upon the clarity of our concept of the characteristics of each group. If we assume each group as thoroughly studied and therefore known in all its characteristics, then equal numbers will represent the conditions adequately. On the other hand, if we are impressed by the unclassified series as a whole, without detailed study of each group, and if we try to determine the similarities and dissimilarities on this basis, the actual numerical frequency of each group will correspond to the conditions of the investigation. If subjective elements are to be eliminated as far as possible, we must try to adjust conditions so that equal numbers can be applied. As a matter of fact, our judgment of similarity in all cases of this type is fluctuating; sometimes one group, sometimes another, is most prominently in our minds, and the actual assignments are therefore different from the two extreme forms discussed here and may lie somewhere in between, or they may change with changing mental conditions. The more thorough our knowledge of each series, the closer will be the approach to the treatment of all classes as equal in number.

The method here discussed presents the inconvenience that the values obtained for similarity are the smaller, the larger the number of series forming the aggregate, so that when the number of similar series is very great the values of their similarities will be exceedingly small.

In the final results it may appear that some of these series have the same degree of dissimilarity. If the averages and variabilities of these series are also indicative of identity, the series should be combined.

It must be remembered that it is possible for a number of different distributions to result in the same amount of dissimilarity. Since every distribution depends at least upon two constants, average and standard deviation, there are whole sets of functions which will give us the same value for the total probability of mistaking a member of one series for a member of the rest of the aggregate. However, owing to the general likeness of forms of distribution, the occurrence of this event is improbable. On the other hand, dissimilarity can occur only when distributions are unlike. The minimum amount of dissimilarity is found when all the series are identical. If there are n series, the value of dissimilarity, in other words the probability of assigning any one individual to its proper series, will be 1/n.

In applying the fundamental thought underlying our considerations to the classification of mankind, we might ask ourselves which are the series for which the similarity or the probability of a misjudgment becomes zero, and these might be considered as the present fundamental human types. A satisfactory solution of this problem must not be based on the consideration of a few standardized measurements, but the features to be studied must be selected after a careful investigation of what is most characteristic of each group.

It is also feasible to find in this manner outstanding types of a definite area and to arrange them according to the degrees of their similarity. The interpretation of the similarity, whether due to mixture, environment, or other causes, is of course a purely biological problem for which the statistical inquiry furnishes the material but which cannot be solved by statistical methods.

We have seen that, in an attempt to analyze a mixed series according to types, the individuals of a definite bodily form are not all assigned by us to the group to which they belong. The impression which we receive of characteristic forms of a particular series depends upon the distribution and the forms of individuals whom we assign to it, and for this reason our impression of the general characteristic form of the series is expressed by the average of individuals whom we assign to it. This value is obtained by averaging all those individuals who, according to our judgment, are assigned to the local type, leaving out the others that are placed erroneously. This consideration shows that we receive an exaggerated impression of the characteristics of a series, because individuals that are similar to other series are assigned to them according to their appearance and are merged in the general background represented by the aggregate. Our impression, however, does not correspond to an actual type. This proves that the attempts to analyze a series into a number of subtypes according to similarities of individuals is methodologically not admissible, and that all subdivisions must be based on the study of the series as a whole, not upon selected types.

The chief difficulty in the practical application of the method outlined in the preceding pages is due to the facts that the degree of similarity depends upon the aggregate treated, and that there is no relation between the numerical values obtained for different aggregates. Not even the equality of differences between several given series need persist if new members are added to the aggregate or are taken away from it.

In cases of continuous changes of a type from one extreme form to another, an artificial classification of the aggregate is unavoidable. By means of repeated adjustment equal degrees of similarity might be found according to the method outlined here, but the actual carrying out of such a plan offers serious difficulties. In such cases each series might be considered as a specialized form of the general aggregate and compared with it. The aggregate itself may, however, be established in two different ways. We may disregard the number of existing individuals, considering each morphological type contained in the aggregate as a unit. The units would then be given equal weight (i.e., equal numbers of cases). Or we may take the whole series as it exists at the present time, counting the total number of individuals that it contains, regardless of local types that may represent the same morphological form. By either of these methods we ascertain how dissimilar each morphological type is from the aggregate, but these values cannot be used to determine the mutual dissimilarities of the single series contained in the aggregate. When the types are combined according to the present actual number of individuals representing them, the most numerous type will appear least distinct from the average, merely on account of the large number of its members. This difficulty can hardly be avoided by comparing each series with the aggregate of the remaining series, because by this method the standard of comparison is changing. On the other hand, the formation of the aggregate by giving equal weight to each morphological type entails the difficulty that we tried to avoid, namely, an arbitrary classification of the groups as a number of morphological types.

The problem may be approached in another manner. We may determine the frequency distribution of the differences between individuals belonging to one series and those belonging to all the series of the aggregate including the one selected for study. In this inquiry we have to determine the average difference between the representatives of one series and those of all the series, and the variability of this difference. When the series are arranged in pairs, the differences between the averages are additive, but the variabilities are not comparable. The interrelations between the series can be determined only when we consider any one series in relation to the whole series.

The problems take a slightly different form when populations are compared with regard to features that occur in a certain percentage of individuals and are absent in the rest. If, for instance, one population consists of 15 per cent Negroes and 85 per cent Whites, another one of 30 per cent Negroes and 70 per cent Whites, it might seem that the difference could be stated simply as a difference of 15 per cent, but obviously the dissimilarity of these two types of population would not be the same as in another pair in which we have 40 per cent Negroes and 60 per cent Whites in one and 55 per cent Negroes and 45 per cent Whites in the other. In the latter case the populations would seem more alike to us than in the former case. The difficulty is still more pronounced if there are present not merely two types but a larger number in varying proportions. In all these cases we may apply the same methods which we used for the determination of similarity of measurable quantities.

RACE AND CHARACTER^[129]

At the present time so much is being written on the relations between race and character that it is worth while to examine with some care the line of thought that leads investigators to the conclusion that racial descent is the determining cause for the character of a people.

It is a matter of observation that peoples located in different areas are different both in bodily form and mental traits; and also that different social strata differ in bodily build and in behavior. Using the favorite terminology of modern literature we may also say that there is a correlation between the bodily build and mental characteristics of geographically or socially arranged groups of people. However, not every correlation signifies a causal relation.

I may be allowed to illustrate this by means of a few examples. We know that in a homogeneous population all anteroposterior measures are more closely related among themselves than to transverse ones. For this reason with increasing stature of adults the length of head increases more rapidly than the width of head and in consequence the cephalic index decreases with increasing stature. Every homogeneous population shows a negative correlation between stature and head index which is causally explained by the intimate interrelation between longitudinal measures as over their loose relation to transverse measures. In this sense the correlation expresses a causal relation.

If we examine the population of Italy from the same point of view it is found to be locally strongly differentiated. There is a geographical arrangement of fairly homogeneous groups of various types. In northern Italy we find tall, round-headed types, in southern Italy short, long-headed ones. If we compare the groups as such we find that the taller the average stature of the group, the larger is its cephalic index; but we may not conclude that this relation is determined organically. It is due to the heterogeneous character of the material and the distribution of various types. If the whole Italian population were investigated without reference to their location we should probably find a very weak positive correlation, or perhaps no correlation whatever between these two measures.

This observation may perhaps be made still clearer by an artificial example. I imagine a series of sticks of equal length, placed parallel, side by side, so that their ends from left to right form a straight line at right angles to the length of the sticks. Then I cut the other ends off obliquely so that the length of the sticks decreases from left to right. Next another person paints these sticks so that the larger ones, to the left, are darkest and the intensity of color decreases towards the right. Now there is an intimate relation between length and intensity of color, but length and intensity are not causally connected. The correlation is a result of the position of the sticks and of two unrelated actions. I may not say: the intensity of color is determined by the length of the sticks, but it is due to the fact that the sticks were in a certain order when they were painted. If I had changed the position of the sticks before painting them in the same way a different kind of correlation would have resulted; if I should have shaken them, so that they lay in chance order there would have been no correlation between length and intensity of color.

Matters would have been different, if knife and brush had been firmly tied together. The position of the sticks would still have been decisive, but every stick would have had a color and length which belonged together even without consideration of position. A study of the length and color would not clear up this point. It would require an examination of knife and brush.

Now let us consider instead of the sticks lying in order, a number of populations according to their geographical position; instead of length of stick, bodily form; instead of color, mental character. We will also imagine a continuous change in regard to both in a straight line. Then a correlation will become apparent. Every people in a certain geographical position has a characteristic bodily form combined with a characteristic mental behavior. This, however, does not prove that both are causally related, unless it can be proved by biological and psychological methods that bodily form determines mental character.

The same consideration is valid when the distribution of populations is discontinuous and irregular. In this case the relation cannot be expressed numerically, but the phenomenon remains the same. The population of each locality or every social group has certain traits of bodily form and mental behavior peculiar to itself, but this does not prove that the two are causally related.

Bodily form and mental characteristics change each according to its own laws and each in its own tempo, so that it is justifiable to ask whether the population placed in another geographical location may not retain its bodily form and change its mental character, analogous to the change of the location of sticks of decreasing length before the paint had been applied.

I repeat, the essential question, whether bodily form and mental character are causally connected cannot be answered by means of the observation that populations in different geographical location or in differing social strata are different in both respects. The proof has to be given by biological and psychological methods. We have here one of the numerous cases in which the uncritical use of the concept of correlation leads to unjustifiable conclusions.

It might be objected that the study of heredity and constitution has proved the existence of partial, biologically determined relation between bodily form and mental character which is not due to location in a given order. This may be admitted. If behaviorists deny such relations in the individual their claim is contradicted by the most elementary facts of pathology. In how far there may be, nevertheless, room for individual differences in mental character among individuals of the same bodily form does not need to be discussed here.

On the other hand it is essential for our problem to differentiate between individual character and the character of a population. I may illustrate this problem also by the example of our sticks. We assume that a large number of series, let us say each of one hundred sticks, are cut obliquely, as indicated before, but in such a manner that there are a few only of the longest and shortest ones, while in the center of the series the length changes slowly so that in this region there are many of almost equal length. The absolute lengths of the sticks of the first group extend from 1 to 80, that of the second from 2 to 81, and so on; those of the last from 21 to 100. Next each series is painted separately, as before. Knife and brush are supposed to be firmly connected so that there is a causal relation between color and length. Now the dark colors appear solely in the first few series, the light ones solely in the last series, but all of them contain numerous sticks of middle length and color. As groups the series will differ only slightly, although we have assumed a causal relation between length and color. The degree of differences in color will depend upon the number of occurrence of sticks of the same length in each series.

Let us transfer this to the question of relation between form of body and mental traits. Length corresponds to bodily form, color to mental traits, each series to a population. Now the populations differ slightly, in regard to form of body and mental characteristics, although we assume that individually mental characteristics are conditioned by form of body. Since the relation between form of body and mental characteristics is not absolute, their relation is still further weakened, even if the overlapping of the series in regard to bodily form were less. The questions to be answered are the following: How strong is the correlation between bodily form and mental characteristics? And secondly, how are the bodily characteristics which are important for the determination of mental characteristics distributed between various groups of people, and to what extent are the same bodily characteristics found among various people? All these questions have to be treated without reference to geographical or social position.

Let us return once more to the series of sticks which I have used as an example. After they have been cut and painted we arrange bundles, the first one is to contain sticks of the length 1 to 80, the second, those of the length 2 to 81 and so on, the last one to contain sticks of the length 21 to 100. Now we place the bundles in a series and paint as before the whole bundles from left to right, let us say, in twenty degrees of intensity, dark to the left, light to the right. Then every bundle will have a different color. After this the sticks of equal length taken from all the bundles are placed together and it will be found that the distribution of colors for each length shows very slight differences. Only the first length has the color 1, only the two first ones contain the colors 1 and 2. For the length 20 to 80 distribution of the colors is alike. In the lengths from 81 to 100 the dark colors disappear gradually until finally the last one remains with the lightest color. Since the very short and very long sticks are few in number they do not influence the general picture very much and the result is that the relation between length and color is very weak.

Transferring this as before to form of body and mental characteristics we find that populations arranged geographically or socially are different like the bundles. It is impossible to determine from observation of the distribution whether the differences are due to causal relations or to the arrangement of the bundles. Individuals are so distributed that the relation between form of body and mental characteristics in the whole mass is very slight. In the most numerous groups, all kinds of bodily form and mental characteristics occur, providing the types are as similar as those of Europe. This does not preclude the possibility of the hereditary determination of the relation between bodily build and mental characteristics in family lines, since the whole population consists of numerous different lines.

In many cases in populations of similar bodily build and also among different generations of the same people, mental characteristics of considerable difference occur. For this reason it seems more likely that differences between populations are rather due to position than to immediate causal relations.

This may also be expressed in a simpler way. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that position, bodily form and mental characteristics each are distributed according to chance so that the ordinary method of determining correlations can be used, then observations will show high correlations between position and bodily build and between position and mental characteristics. From this fact we may not infer how high may be the correlation between bodily build and mental characteristics unless this is determined by an investigation which does not take into consideration position. According to the simple factual observation they may be non-existent or may be very high. Or, stated in a still more general form, a series of phenomena may be placed in a definite order, then exposed to two causes, each of which has a certain influence upon it. According to their character these two causes are entirely independent of the principle of arrangement. Then every member of the series will have two definite characteristics. Whether they are related or not can only be determined by an investigation of the relation between the two causes without any regard to the arrangement.

INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AMERICAN LINGUISTICS^[130]

The International Journal of American Linguistics will be devoted to the study of American aboriginal languages. It seems fitting to state briefly a few of the problems that confront us in this field of research.

It is not necessary to set forth the fragmentary character of our knowledge of the languages spoken by the American aborigines. This has been well done for North America by Dr. Pliny Earle Goddard,^[131] and it is not saying too much if we claim that for most of the native languages of Central and South America the field is practically terra incognita. We have vocabularies; but, excepting the old missionary grammars, there is very little systematic work. Even where we have grammars, we have no bodies of aboriginal texts.

The methods of collection have been considerably improved of late years, but nevertheless much remains to be done. While until about 1880 investigators confined themselves to the collection of vocabularies and brief grammatical notes, it has become more and more evident that large masses of texts are needed in order to elucidate the structure of the languages.

The labors of Stephen R. Riggs, James Owen Dorsey, and Albert S. Gatschet marked a new era in the development of linguistic work. Besides these should be mentioned the “Library of Aboriginal Literature,” edited and published by Daniel G. Brinton, which contains largely older material of a similar character. During the following decades, texts were published on a quite extended scale, but largely brought together by the same methods. They were obtained by dictation from a few informants, and taken down verbatim by the recorder. In later years the example of James Owen Dorsey, who published texts written by natives, has been adapted to the recording of aboriginal literature; and quite a number of collections of folk lore have been published in Indian languages, the originals of which have been written by the natives themselves.

Marked differences in stylistic character exist between tales thus recorded and those written by investigators who are not in perfect command of the language, who often have to acquire it by means of the collected text material. The slowness of dictation that is necessary for recording texts makes it difficult for the narrator to employ that freedom of diction that belongs to the well-told tale, and consequently an unnatural simplicity of syntax prevails in most of the dictated texts. When, on the other hand, a native has once acquired ease in the use of the written language, the stylistic form becomes more natural, and refinements of expression are found that are often lost in slow dictation.

Nevertheless the writing of single individuals cannot replace the dictated record, because the individual characteristics of the writer become too prominent, and may give a false impression in regard to syntactic and stylistic traits; even the variability of grammatical form may be obscured by the one-sidedness of such records. Whenever it is possible to train several writers, many of these difficulties may be overcome. Where a native alphabet exists, as among the Cherokee, Fox, and Cree, and where for this reason many persons write with ease, a serviceable variety of stylistic and syntactic expression may be secured. Excellent examples of native texts recorded naïvely by natives are contained in the Eskimo publications printed in Greenland, which are devoted both to topics of daily interest and to ancient folk lore. Similar conditions prevail in the Cherokee material collected by James Mooney, and in some of the daily papers printed in aboriginal languages. Even when good written records are available, control by means of the spoken language is necessary, because the expression of the written language may differ considerably from the spoken form.

Up to this time too little attention has been paid to the variety of expression and to the careful preservation of diction. We have rather been interested in the preservation of fundamental forms. Fortunately, many of the recorded texts contain, at least to some extent, stereotyped conversation and other formulas, as well as poetical parts, which give a certain insight into stylistic peculiarities, although they can seldom be taken as examples of the spoken language.

An added difficulty in the use of texts written by natives is that most are written by Indians who have had a modern school education. It may be observed in all parts of America that the native languages are being modified by the influence of European languages, not only in vocabulary, but also in phonetics and grammar. The far-reaching influence of these causes may be observed in a most striking manner in modern Mexican and other Central American languages that have been under Spanish influence for centuries, and which not only have lost large parts of their vocabularies that have disappeared with the ancient ideas, but which have also developed a new syntax, and, in part at least, new morphological forms. Modifications of this type are common in those regions where the intercourse between Indian and White is intimate, and particularly where the children are segregated from the parents. On the Pacific Coast, for instance, the articulation of the glottalized consonant loses much of its strength, old words disappear, and new syntactical forms develop. Even the old facility of composition of stems tends to disappear. It is therefore necessary to obtain text material also from the older generation, because it is required for the study of the recent development of the languages.

On account of the difficulties and expense involved in the collection of texts, collectors have not only hesitated to obtain similar material from different individuals, but they have also confined themselves largely to the collections of native traditions. In some cases, native poetry has been included in the collections. Albert Gatschet recognized the need of varied material and collected texts on diverse topics in his studies of the Klamath, and J. Owen Dorsey published a collection of letters. The contents of the Eskimo publications and the native newspapers previously referred to also form a notable exception to this rule. Among later collectors, Drs. Goddard and Sapir have given particular attention to the collection of texts of varied contents. On the whole, however, the available material gives a one-sided presentation of linguistic data, because we have hardly any records of daily occurrences, everyday conversation, descriptions of industries, customs, and the like. For these reasons the vocabularies yielded by texts are one-sided and incomplete.

Notwithstanding the progress that during the last few decades has been made in the character of the material recorded, both as regards the accuracy of phonetic transcription and the character of the matter recorded, there is ample room for improvements of method.

With the extent of our knowledge of native languages, the problems of our inquiry have also assumed wider and greater interest. It is quite natural that the first task of the investigator was the registering and the rough classification of languages. It appeared very soon that languages are more or less closely related, and that comparison of brief vocabularies was sufficient to bring out the most striking relationships. The classification of North American languages, that we owe to Major J. W. Powell, which will form the basis of all future work, was made by this method. Further progress on these lines is beset with great difficulties that are common to America and to those continents in which we cannot trace the development of languages by means of historical documents. The results of the historical and comparative studies of Indo-European languages show very clearly that languages that have sprung from the same source may become so distinct that, without documents illustrating their historical development, relationships are difficult to discover; so much so, that in some cases this task might even be impossible. We are therefore permitted to assume that similar divergences have developed in American languages, and that quite a number of languages that appear distinct may in a remote period have had a common origin.

Here lies one of the most difficult problems of research, and one in which the greatest critical caution is necessary, if we wish to avoid the pitfalls that are besetting the path of scientific inquiry. The method of investigation has to take into account possibilities of linguistic growth, in regard to which generalized data are not available. Modern languages have developed by differentiation. In so far as this is true, the establishment of a genealogical series must be the aim of inquiry. On the other hand, languages may influence one another to such an extent that, beyond a certain point, the genealogical question has no meaning, because it would lead back to several sources and to an arbitrary selection of one or another as the single ancestral type. Our knowledge of linguistic processes is sufficiently wide to show that lexicographic borrowing may proceed to such an extent that the substance of a language may be materially changed. As long, however, as the inner form remains unchanged, our judgment is determined, not by the provenience of the vocabulary, but by that of the form. In most Indian languages etymological processes are so transparent that borrowing of whole words will be easily detected; and, on the whole, the diffusion of words over diverse groups does not present serious difficulties, provided the borrowed material does not undergo radical phonetic changes.

The matter is different when we ask ourselves in how far phonetics and morphological features may have been borrowed. In these cases our experience does not permit us to give a definite answer. The system of sounds of a language is certainly unstable; but in how far inner forces and in how far foreign influence mould its forms is a question not always easy to answer. In America we can discern various areas that have common phonetic characteristics; like the areas of prevalence of nasalization of vowels, of glottalization, of superabundant development of laterals, of absence of bi-labials or of labio-dental spirants, or of trills. These areas do not coincide with any morphological groupings, and are apparently geographically well defined. If we are dealing here with phenomena of late assimilation, a disturbing element is introduced that will make it more difficult to assign a language to a definite genealogical line, much more so than is the case in the borrowing of words. The conditions favoring such phonetic influence must have been much more frequent in primitive America than they were in the later development of European languages. The number of individuals speaking any given American dialect is small. Many women of foreign parentage lived in each tribe, and their speech influenced the pronunciation of the young; so that phonetic changes may have come about easily.

Still more difficult is the problem presented by the distribution of morphological traits. Even with our imperfect knowledge of American languages, it may be recognized that certain morphological types have a wide continuous distribution. This is true of morphological processes as well as of particular psychological aspects of American languages. Thus the incorporation of the nominal object, which in former times was considered one of the most characteristic features of American languages, is confined to certain areas, while it is foreign to others. The tendency to qualify generalized verbal terms by means of elements which express instrumentality is characteristic of some areas. The occurrence of various specific elements that define locality of an action, as affecting objects like “hand,” “house,” “water,” “fire,” or other special nominal concepts, is characteristic of other regions. Classification of actions or of nouns according to the form of the actor or of the object also belong to several groups of languages. Nominal cases are present in some languages, absent in others. In a similar way we find present in some regions, absent in others, processes like that of reduplication or of vocalic or consonantic modification of stems.

Attempts to classify languages from these distinct points of view do not lead to very satisfactory results. Not only would the purely morphological classifications be contradictory, but in many cases where a close morphological agreement exists, it remains highly unsatisfactory to co-ordinate vocabularies and the phonetic equivalents of similar morphological ideas. On the basis of Indo-European experience, we should be inclined to seek for a common origin for all those languages that have a far-reaching morphological similarity; but it must be acknowledged that, when the results of classifications based on different linguistic phenomena conflict, we must recognize the possibility of the occurrence of morphological assimilation. The problem is analogous to that of the relation between Finnish and Indo-European languages, which Sweet assumed as established, while the observed relations may also be due to other causes.

Owing to the fundamental importance of these questions for the solution of the problem of the historical relationship between American languages, it seems particularly important to attempt to carry through these classifications without prejudging the question as to the genealogical position of the various groups. It is quite inconceivable that similarities such as exist between Quileute, Kwakiutl, and Salish, should be due to a mere accident, or that the morphological similarities of Californian languages, which Kroeber and Dixon have pointed out, should not be due to a definite cause. The experience of Aryan studies might induce us to agree that these must be members of single linguistic stocks; but this assumption leaves fundamental differences unaccounted for, and neglects the possibility of morphological assimilation, so that at the present time the conclusion does not seem convincing. We ought to inquire, first of all, into the possibility of mutual influences, which will be revealed, in part at least, by lack of correspondence between lexicographic, phonetic, and detailed morphological classifications.

We do not mean to say that the investigation may not satisfactorily prove certain genealogical relationships; but what should be emphasized is that, in the present state of our knowledge of primitive languages, it is not safe to disregard the possibility of a complex origin of linguistic groups, which would limit the applicability of the term “linguistic family” in the sense in which we are accustomed to use it. It is certainly desirable, and necessary, to investigate minutely and carefully all suggestive analogies. The proof of genetic relationship, however, can be considered as given, only when the number of unexplained distinct elements is not over-large, and when the contradictory classifications, to which reference has been made before, have been satisfactorily accounted for.

It is quite evident that, owing to the lack of knowledge of the historical development of American languages, convincing proof of genealogical relationship may be impossible to obtain, even where such relation exists; so that, from both a practical and a theoretical point of view, the solution of the problems of genetic relationship presents a large number of attractive problems.

Considering the complexity of this question, and the doubts that we entertain in regard to some of the principles to be followed in our inquiry, it seems probable that a safer basis will be reached by following out dialectic studies. Very little work of this kind has been done on our continent. James Owen Dorsey was able to point out a few phenomena pertaining to the interrelation of Siouan dialects. Similar points have been made in regard to the Salish languages and in a few other cases, but no penetrating systematic attempt has been made to clear up the processes of differentiation by which modern American dialects have developed. It is fortunate for the prosecution of this study that quite a number of linguistic families in America are broken up into numerous strongly divergent dialects, the study of which will help us the more in the investigation of the relations between distinct languages, the more markedly they are differentiated. Siouan, Algonquian, Muskhogean, Salishan, Shoshonean, Wakashan, Caddoan, are languages of this type. They present examples of divergence of phonetic character, of differences in structure and vocabulary, that will bring us face to face with the problem of the origin of these divergent elements.

The more detailed study of American languages promises rich returns in the fields of the mechanical processes of linguistic development and of the psychological problems presented by languages of different types. In many American languages the etymological processes are so transparent that the mechanism of phonetic adaptation stands out with great clearness. Contact-phenomena, and types of sound-harmony that affect more remote parts of words, occur with great frequency. Phonetic shifts between related dialects are easily observed, so that we can accumulate a large mass of material which will help to solve the question in how far certain phonetic processes may be of more or less universal occurrence.

Remotely related to this problem is the question that was touched upon by Gatschet, in how far the frequent occurrence of similar sounds for expressing related ideas (like the personal pronouns) may be due to obscure psychological causes rather than to genetic relationship. Undoubtedly, many hitherto unexpected types of processes will reveal themselves in the pursuit of these studies.

The variety of American languages is so great that they will be of high value for the solution of many fundamental psychological problems.

The unconsciously formed categories found in human speech have not been sufficiently exploited for the investigation of the categories into which the whole range of human experience is forced. Here, again, the clearness of etymological processes in many American languages is a great help to our investigation.

The isolation of formal elements and of stems, or of co-ordinate stems—whichever the case may be—is easily performed, and the meaning of every part of an expression is determined much more readily than in the innumerable fossilized forms of Indo-European languages.

Lexicographic differentiation corresponds to the morphological differentiation of languages. Where ideas are expressed by means of separate stems or by subordinate elements, generalized stems will be found that express a certain action regardless of the instrument with which it has been performed; while, in languages that are not provided with these formal elements, a number of separate words will take the place of the modified general stem. In languages that possess a full equipment of adverbial and locative formative elements, generalized words of motion may be qualified by their use; while, wherever these elements are absent, new stems must take their place. The same is true of grammatical elements that designate form or substance. Where these occur, the languages may lack words expressing predicative ideas relating to objects of different form and consisting of different substances (like our words “to lie,” “to sit,” “to stand,” “to tear,” “to break”).

A lexicographic analysis based on these principles of classification promises important results, but requires a much more accurate knowledge of the meaning of stems than is available in most cases.

No less interesting are the categories of thought that find expression in grammatical form. The older grammars, although many of them contain excellent material, do not clearly present these points of difference, because they are modelled strictly on the Latin scheme, which obscures the characteristic psychological categories of Indian languages. Thus the idea of plurality is not often developed in the same sense as in Latin, but expresses rather the idea of distribution or of collectivity. The category of gender is rare, and nominal cases are not common. In the pronoun we find often a much more rigid adherence to the series of three persons than the one that we apply, in so far as the distinction is carried through in the pronominal plural and in the demonstrative. Furthermore, new ideas—such as visibility, or position in regard to the speaker in the six principal directions (up, down, right, left, front back), or tense—are added to the concept of the demonstrative pronouns. In the numeral the varied bases of numeral systems find expression. In the verb the category of tense may be almost suppressed or may be exuberantly developed. Modes may include many ideas that we express by means of adverbs, or they may be absent. The distinction between verb and noun may be different from ours. In short, an enormous variety of forms illustrates the multifarious ways in which language seizes upon one or another feature as an essential of expression of thought.

Besides the greater or lesser development of categories that are parallel to our own, many new ones appear. The groups of ideas selected for expression by formative elements are quite distinctive, and they belong to the most important features in the characterization of each language. In some cases they are poorly developed, but most American languages possess an astonishing number of formative elements of this type.

In some cases their number is so great that the very idea of subordination, of one element of a word under another one loses its significance; and we are in doubt whether we shall designate one group as subordinate elements, or whether we shall speak of the composition of co-ordinate elements. While in some languages, as in Algonquian or Kutenai, this may be a matter of arbitrary definition, it involves a problem of great theoretical interest; namely, the question whether formative elements have developed from independent words, as has been proved to be the case with many formal suffixes of European languages.

The objectivating tendency of our mind makes the thought congenial, that part of a word the significance of which we can determine by analysis must also have objectively an independent existence; but there is certainly no a priori reason that compels us to make this assumption. It must be proved to be true by empirical evidence. Although the history of American languages is not known, and therefore cannot furnish any direct evidence for or against this theory, the study of the etymological processes will throw light upon this problem, because in many cases the very phonetic weakness of the constituent elements, their internal changes, and the transparency of the method of composition, make it clear that we are performing here an analytical process that does not need to have as its counterpart the synthesis of independent elements. The same question may also be raised in regard to phonetic modifications of the stem, which may be secondary, and due to the influence of changing accents in composition or to vanished component elements, while they may also be primary phenomena.

This problem is in a way identical with the whole question of the relation between word and sentence. Here also American languages may furnish us with much important material that emphasizes the view that the unit of human speech as we know it is the sentence, not the word.

The problems treated in a linguistic journal must include also the literary forms of native production. Indian oratory has long been famous, but the number of recorded speeches from which we can judge their oratorical devices is exceedingly small. There is no doubt whatever that definite stylistic forms exist that are utilized to impress the hearer; but we do not know what they are. As yet, nobody has attempted a careful analysis of the style of narrative art as practiced by the various tribes. The crudeness of most records presents a serious obstacle for this study, which, however, should be taken up seriously. We can study the general structure of the narrative, the style of composition, of motives, their character and sequence; but the formal stylistic devices for obtaining effects are not so easily determined.

Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory character of the available material, we do find cases in which we may at least obtain a glimpse of the intent of the narrator. In many cases metaphorical expressions occur that indicate a vigorous imagination. Not much material of this character is available, but what little we have demonstrates that the type of metaphor used in different parts of the continent shows characteristic differences. It would be interesting to know in how far these expressions have become purely formal without actual meaning, and in how far they reflect an active imagination.

Evidence is not missing which shows that the sentence is built up with a view of stressing certain ideas or words by means of position, repetition, or other devices for securing emphasis. There are curious differences in the tendency to fill the discourse with brief allusions to current ideas difficult to understand for anyone who is not versed in the whole culture of the people, and the enjoyment of diffuse, detailed description. Collectors of texts are fully aware that in the art of narrative there are artists and bunglers in every primitive tribe, as well as among ourselves. At present there is hardly any material available that will allow us to characterize the tribal characteristics of the art of narrative.

The most promising material for the study of certain aspects, of artistic expression are the formal elements that appear with great frequency in the tales of all tribes. Most of these are stereotyped to such an extent that little individual variation is found. Even in poorly recorded tales written down in translation only, and obtained with the help of inadequate interpreters, the sameness of stereotyped formulas may sometimes be recognized. Conversation in animal tales and in other types of narrative, prayers and incantations, are probably the most important material of this character.

Attention should also be paid to the existing forms of literature. The narrative is of universal occurrence, but other forms show a much more irregular distribution. The psychological basis of the trivial American anecdote is not easily understood. The connotation of meaningless syllables that occur in songs, the frequent use of distorted words in poetry, and the fondness for a secret language, including obsolete, symbolic, or arbitrary terms, deserve the most careful attention. Here belong also the peculiar modes of speech of various personages, that are recorded in many tales, and which Dr. Sapir has found so fully developed among the Nootka, and Dr. Frachtenberg among the Quileute. The fixity of form of the recitative used by certain animals, to which Dr. Sapir has called attention in his studies of the Paiute, also suggests an interesting line of inquiry.

Equally important is the absence of certain literary forms with which we are familiar. The great dearth of proverbs, of popular snatches, and of riddles, among American aborigines, in contrast to their strong development in Africa and other parts of the Old World, requires attentive study. The general lack of epic poetry, the germs of which are found in a very few regions only, is another feature that promises to clear up certain problems of the early development of literary art. We are able to observe lyric poetry in its simplest forms among all tribes. Indeed, we may say that, even where the slightest vestiges of epic poetry are missing, lyric poetry of one form or another is always present. It may consist of the musical use of meaningless syllables that sustain the song; or it may consist largely of such syllables, with a few interspersed words suggesting certain ideas and certain feelings; or it may rise to the expression of emotions connected with warlike deeds, with religious feeling, love, or even to the praise of the beauties of nature. The records which have been accumulated during the last few years, particularly by students of primitive music, contain a mass of material that can be utilized from this point of view.

Undoubtedly the problems of native poetry have to be taken up in connection with the study of native music, because there is practically no poetry that is not at the same time song. The literary aspects of this subject, however, fall entirely within the scope of a linguistic journal.

Let us hope that the new journal may be able to contribute its share to the solution of all these problems!

THE CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICAN LANGUAGES^[132]

Ever since Major Powell completed his classification of American languages, which was published in the seventh volume of the Annual Reports of the Bureau of (American) Ethnology, and a revised edition of which is contained in the first volume of the Handbook of North American Indians, students of American languages have paid more attention to a better understanding and a more thorough knowledge of the single languages than to classification. Much of the material on which Major Powell’s work is based is exceedingly scanty, and it is obvious that more accurate studies will show relationships between linguistic stocks which at the time could not be safely inferred. The classification is largely based on vocabularies. Many of these were contained in old literature and are very inadequate. Others were hastily collected in accordance with the exigencies of the situation and neither Major Powell nor any of his collaborators, like Albert S. Gatschet and James Owen Dorsey, would have claimed that their classification and the map of distribution of languages could be considered as final.

Of late years, largely through the influence of Dr. Edward Sapir, the attempts have been revived to compare, on the basis of vocabularies, languages which apparently are very distinct, and Drs. Sapir, Kroeber, Dixon, and particularly Radin, have attempted to prove far-reaching relationships.

Since for many years I have taken the position that comparison between American languages should proceed from the study of fairly closely related dialects towards the study of more diverse forms, it seems desirable to state briefly the theoretical points of view upon which my own attitude has been and is still based. As early as 1893 I pointed out that the study of the grammar of American languages has demonstrated the occurrence of a number of striking morphological similarities between neighboring stocks which, however, are not accompanied by appreciable similarities in vocabulary. At that time I was inclined to consider these similarities as a proof of relationship of the same order as that of languages belonging, for instance, to the Indo-European family. While further studies, particularly in California, have shown that we may generalize the observations which I made based on the languages of the North Pacific Coast, I doubt whether the interpretation given at that time is tenable.

When we consider the history of human languages as it is revealed by their present distribution and by what little we know about their history during the last few thousand years, it appears fairly clearly that the present wide distribution of a few linguistic stocks is a late phenomenon, and that in earlier times the area occupied by each linguistic family was small. It seems reasonable to suppose that the number of languages that have disappeared is very large. Taking our American conditions as an example, we may observe at the present time that many languages are spoken by small communities, and while there is no proof of the recent development of any new very divergent language, there are numerous proofs showing the extinction of some languages and the gradual extension of others. As the area occupied by the Indo-European family has gradually extended and as foreign languages have become extinct owing to its expansion, so we find that Chinese has gradually expanded its area. In Siberia, Turkish and other native languages have superseded the ancient local languages. In Africa the large expansion of Bantu is rather recent. Arabic is superseding the native speech in North Africa. In America the expansion of Algonquian speech has been continuing during the historic period, and several of the isolated languages of the Southeast have been superseded by Creek and related languages. I have discussed this question in another place and have explained my view that probably at a very early time the diversity of languages among people of the same physical type was much greater than it is now. I do not mean to imply by this that all the languages must have developed entirely independently, but rather that, if there was an ancient common source of several modern languages, they have become so much differentiated that without historical knowledge of their growth, the attempts to prove their interrelation cannot succeed.

It should be borne in mind that the problem of the study of languages is not one of classification but that our task is to trace the history of the development of human speech. Therefore, classification is only a means to an end. Our aim is to unravel the history of the growth of human language, and, if possible, to discover its underlying psychological and physiological causes. From this point of view the linguistic phenomena cannot be treated as a unit, but the manifestations of linguistic activity must be studied first each by itself, then in their relations to other linguistic phenomena.

The three fundamental aspects of human speech are phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary. When we turn to their consideration separately, we find, at least in America, a curious condition. The study of phonetics indicates that certain features have a limited and well-defined distribution which, on the whole, is continuous. To give an example: the extraordinary development of the series of k sounds and of laterals (l sounds) is common to the most diverse languages of the North Pacific Coast, while in California and east of the Rocky Mountains this characteristic feature disappears. In a similar way nasalization of vowels is absent in the northwest part of America, but it is very strongly developed on the central and eastern plains. The labialization of k sounds following an o or u is widely spread in the extreme Northwest, and infrequent outside of that territory. The study of the phonetics of America is not sufficiently developed to describe in detail areas of distribution of characteristic sounds or sound groups, but it may safely be stated from what we know that similar phonetic traits often belong to languages which are morphologically entirely distinct; and that on the other hand, very great phonetic differences develop in the same linguistic stock.

The study of the morphology of American languages illustrates also definite areas of characterization. It is, for instance, most striking that reduplication as a morphological process occurs extensively on the Great Plains and in the Eastern Woodlands, as well as in that part of the Pacific Coast south of the boundary between British Columbia and Alaska. Among the great families of the north it is entirely unknown. Incorporation, which in earlier times was considered as one of the most characteristic traits of American languages, is also confined to certain definite groups. It is characteristically developed in the Shoshonean group, Pawnee, Kutenai, and Iroquois, while north of this region it is either absent in its characteristic form, or only weakly developed. The use of instrumentals, which indicate the manner of action as performed with parts of the body, or by other instruments, shows also on the whole a continuous distribution. It is a fundamental trait of Kutenai, Shoshonean, and Sioux, and in all of them it is expressed in a similar manner. The use of true cases and of locative and similar noun forms occur among the Shoshonean and some of their neighbors, while in other regions it is rather rare. Of even greater importance is the differentiation between nominal and verbal concepts, and between neutral and active verbs, the distribution of which is somewhat irregular.

Although our knowledge of these phenomena is not by any means adequate, it appears fairly clearly that, when the various features are studied in detail, the areas of their distribution do not coincide.

The study of the vocabulary presents similar conditions. It would seem that the number of loan words in American languages is not as great as in European languages. At least, it is difficult to recognize loan words in large numbers. It is, however, striking that the word categories which appear in neighboring languages are sometimes quite similar. This appears, for instance, in the case of terms of relationship. The remarkable extent to which the use of reciprocal terms of relationship is found on the western plateaus is a characteristic example. It is intelligible that nomenclature and cultural states are closely related, and, therefore, it seems plausible that similarities in underlying categories of vocabularies will occur where cultural conditions are the same or nearly the same.

This remark has no direct bearing upon the stems that underlie word formation. To a certain extent they are dependent upon morphological characteristics, at least in so far that nonexistent grammatical categories must be supplied in other ways. When, for instance, some languages, like the Eskimo, lack those adverbial elements which correspond to our prepositions (in, out of, up, down, etc.), these must be supplied by special verbs which do not need to exist in languages that abound in locative verbal elements. On the whole, a certain correlation may be observed between the lexicographical and morphological aspects of a language. The more frequently “material” concepts (in Steinthal’s sense) are expressed by morphological devices, the more generalized are, on the whole, the word stems, and words are generally formed by limitation of these stems. When we find similar structure, we find, therefore, also a tendency towards the development of similar categories of stems. There are, however, others that are not so determined. It is, for instance, characteristic of many American languages that verbal ideas are expressed by different stems according to the form of the object in regard to which the verb predicates. This feature occurs particularly in verbs of existence and of motion, so that existence or motion of round, long, flat, etc., objects, are differentiated. This feature is prominent, among others, in Athapascan, Tlingit, Kwakiutl, and Sioux.

While I am not inclined to state categorically that the areas of distribution of phonetic phenomena, of morphological characteristics, and of groups based on similarities in vocabularies are absolutely distinct, I believe this question must be answered empirically before we can undertake to solve the general problem of the history of modern American languages. If it should prove true, as I believe it will, that all these different areas do not coincide, then the conclusion seems inevitable that the different languages must have exerted a far-reaching influence upon one another. If this point of view is correct, then we have to ask ourselves in how far the phenomena of acculturation extend also over the domain of languages.

Considering the conditions of life in primitive society, it is intelligible how the phonetics of one language may influence those of another one. Many of the American tribes are very small, and intertribal marriages are, comparatively speaking, frequent, either owing to peaceful intercourse, or to the abduction and enslavement of women after warlike raids. There must always have been a considerable number of alien women in each tribe who acquired the foreign language late in life and who, therefore, transmitted the foreign pronunciation to their children. It is true that we cannot give definite observations which prove the occurrence of this phenomenon, but it can hardly be doubted that these processes were operative in all those cases where the number of alien women was considerable in proportion to the number of native women. The objective study of languages also shows that phonetic influences do spread from one people to another. The most characteristic example probably is that of the southern Bantu who have adopted the clicks of the Bushmen and Hottentots, notwithstanding the hostility that prevails between these groups.

It is not so easy to understand the development of similar categories of words in neighboring languages. It is undoubtedly true that forms of social and political organization, as well as religious life, have become alike among neighboring tribes owing to a process of acculturation. The similarity in forms of life creates the necessity of developing terms expressing these forms, and will thus bring about indirectly similarity in those ideas that are expressed by words. When we apply this assumption to such concepts as terms of relationship, in which we remain in doubt as to whether the term creates the feeling accompanying the subsummation of an individual under a category, or whether the feeling creates the term, it seems difficult to understand the psychological process that led to the similarity of classification, although the facts of distribution make it perfectly clear that the similarities are due to diffusion. This difficulty is still greater when we deal with the fundamental concepts contained in the ancient stems that underlie the modern words. How, for instance, should the habit of mind to classify all motion according to form spread from one language to another?

Equally difficult to understand is the spread of morphological traits from one language to another. Nevertheless, I am very much inclined to believe that such transfers do occur, and I even consider it possible that they may modify fundamental structural characteristics. An example of this kind is the intrusion of nominal cases into the upper Chinook dialects, presumably due to Sahaptin influence. I believe that the peculiar development of the second third person in Kutenai, which is so characteristic of Algonquian, is also due to a contact phenomenon, because we find hardly anywhere else a similar development of this tendency. Still another case of peculiar parallelism is found among the Eskimo and Chukchee. Notwithstanding the fundamental differences between the two languages, the modern development of the verb with its numerous semi-participial forms, shows a peculiar parallelism. The traits in question are entirely absent in neighboring languages, and for this reason it is difficult to abstain from the conclusion that these similarities must be due to historical reasons.

The distribution of these phenomena the world over is so irregular that it would be entirely unwarranted to claim that all similarities of phonetics, classification of concepts, or of morphology, must be due to borrowing. On the contrary, their distribution shows that they must be considered as due to psychological causes such as the unavoidable necessity of classification of experience in speech, which can lead to a limited number of categories only, or the physiological possibilities of articulation that also limit the range of possible sounds which are sufficiently distinct to the ear for clear understanding.

To give a few examples: it would hardly be possible to claim that the numerous instrumental prefixes of the Haida and those of Shoshonean, Kutenai, and Sioux, are historically related. It is true that Shoshonean, Kutenai, and Sioux form a continuous group to which might be added many of the Californian languages. Considering the continuity of this area and the absence of analogous forms outside, I am strongly inclined to believe that some historical reason must have led to their peculiar development, but it would be difficult to connect historically the Haida with this district. In the same way, it would be rash to associate the strong development of glottalized sounds in Chile with the analogous sounds on the Northwest Coast of America; the distinction between neutral and active verbs among the Maya, Sioux, and Tlingit; or the occurrence of three genders in Indo-European and in Chinook.

Our experience in Indo-European and Semitic languages shows clearly that extended borrowing of words may occur and that borrowed words may undergo such changes that their origin can be understood only by historical study. That similar phenomena have occurred in American languages is indicated by the distribution of such words as names of animals and of plants which are in some cases borrowed. Other classes of nominal concepts are not so subject to borrowing on account of the extensive use in many American languages of descriptive terms. Nevertheless, in mixed settlements considerable numbers of borrowed words may be found. An example of this kind is presented by the Comox of Vancouver Island who speak a Salish language with a strong admixture of Kwakiutl words, or by the Bella Coola, another Salish people, who have borrowed many Kwakiutl and Athapascan terms. There is no particular difficulty in understanding the process which leads to the borrowing of words. Intertribal contact must act in this respect in a similar way as international contact does in modern times.

If these observations regarding the influence of acculturation upon language should be correct, then the whole history of American languages must not be treated on the assumption that all languages which show similarities must be considered as branches of the same linguistic family. We should rather find a phenomenon which is parallel to the features characteristic of other ethnological phenomena—namely, a development from diverse sources which are gradually worked into a single cultural unit. We should have to reckon with the tendency of languages to absorb so many foreign traits that we can no longer speak of a single origin, and that it would be arbitrary whether we associate a language with one or the other of the contributing stocks. In other words, the whole theory of an “Ursprache” for every group of modern languages must be held in abeyance until we can prove that these languages go back to a single stock and that they have not originated, to a large extent, by the process of acculturation.

It is true enough that in a comparison of modern Indo-European languages, without any knowledge of their previous history, it might be very difficult to prove relationship—let us say, between Armenian and English—and we might be compelled to adopt a conclusion similar to the one suggested here. Partially this inference would be correct, because our modern Indo-European languages contain much material that is not Indo-European by origin. The fundamental question is whether this material may become so extensive and influence the morphology so deeply that the inclusion of a language in one group or another might become arbitrary.

To sum up, it seems to my mind that a critical attitude towards our problem makes it necessary to approach our task from three points of view. Firstly, we must study the differentiation of dialects like those of the Siouan, Muskhogean, Algonquian, Shoshonean, Salishan, and Athapascan. Secondly, we must make a detailed study of the distribution of phonetic, grammatical, and lexicographical phenomena, the latter including also particularly the principles on which the grouping of concepts is based. Finally, our study ought to be directed not only to an investigation of the similarities of languages, but equally intensively towards their dissimilarities. Only on this basis can we hope to solve the general historical problem.

CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGES^[133]

In a paper published in 1920^[134] I discussed the problem of the interrelation of American Indian languages. I pointed out that morphological types are distributed over large areas and that in these morphological groups differences representing the character of the vocabulary occur which make it difficult to assume that the languages, as now spoken, are derived from the same “Ursprache.” I pointed out that in the small linguistic units of early times, the conditions of mixture were quite different from those found in languages spoken over large areas and by many individuals. A further consideration of the problem led to the conclusion that an answer to the fundamental question must be sought through an investigation of mutual influences and the extent to which they may modify languages; particularly, in how far one linguistic type may influence the morphology of another.

I believe everybody will agree that words may be borrowed and may modify the vocabulary of a language; perhaps also that the phonetic character of one language may influence that of its neighbors. I have given a few general instances in the paper mentioned before, and today I will add one example that seems to be particularly instructive. The Nez Percé, an eastern Sahaptin language, has rigid rules of vocalic harmony according to which vowels may be divided into two classes: a and o as one group; all the others as a second group. In the system of consonants occurs an s with raised margin of the tongue and the dental t series. Another characteristic sound is a voiced affricative, something like dl. During the eighteenth century a large group of the Sahaptin penetrated into the State of Washington and some of them crossed the Cascade Mountains where they intermarried with the Salishan tribes resident there. The phonetic elements of the present dialect of this region are practically identical with those of the neighboring Salishan tribes. The vocalic system is the same. There is no trace of vocalic harmony.

We recognize that a comparison of vocabularies of languages the history of which is unknown offers serious difficulties, and that the changes brought about by the shifting of sounds, by semantic modification, and by new formations, may be so numerous that identification becomes possible in exceptional cases only. Languages behave differently in these respects. Some, like the Eskimo, are so conservative that even now the differentiation between Alaskan and Greenland dialects is slight, although the two groups have been separated for more than a thousand years. The more striking is the divergence of the vocabulary of the probably related Aleutian. Aztekan has changed in so far as the higher literary style has disappeared and as old ideas have vanished and new ones have been introduced with concomitant change of vocabulary. The syntactic subordination and co-ordination of phrases have yielded to Spanish types. In all other respects the modern language has not changed. It seems even possible to recognize the dialectic differences of various areas which may be reconstructed from the grammars of the early sixteenth century. On the other hand, the Salishan languages of British Columbia and Washington illustrate a great instability in morphology and lexicography. We can only guess what the causes of the difference in behavior of different languages may be. The often expressed opinion that “primitive languages” undergo very rapid changes is true to a very limited extent only.

There is no doubt that in many cases languages sprung from the same source and changing by internal forces only may have become so different that without historical data their relation cannot be established.

Nevertheless the question remains whether hybridization of languages, not only in phonetics and vocabulary, but also in morphology, may have occurred.

So far as I know the actual process of a transfer of grammatical categories from one language to another has never been observed, although minor changes, like the adoption of a form here and there, and syntactic influences are known to occur. The syntactic modification of American languages under Spanish influence offers a good example of the latter type of change. The proof of the diffusion of morphological forms can be only indirect, based on facts of distribution and partial conformity by the side of fundamental differences.

In some cases of far-reaching similarity of morphology, like that of Athapascan and Tlingit, we may feel that an assimilation of the structure of an older language by Athapascan is quite unlikely; and that, if no safer correspondence of vocabulary can be found than has been presented up to this time, we may suspect that an older vocabulary has been taken over by the invading Athapascan. Until definite phonetic shifts can be proven by a sufficient number of parallel forms, and until an exhaustive comparison of vocabularies has been made, we have to admit that a vast array of stems in the two languages cannot be identified, including pronouns, numerals, and most other stems; and we must leave open the question whether all, or most of the lexicographic material can be derived from a common source.

More difficult are those cases in which a partial agreement in morphological traits exists between neighboring and apparently distinct languages, and disagreement in the dialects of obviously related languages. I may give an example of this kind. I mentioned before the vocalic harmony of the Nez Percé. So far as I am aware only the Coos of Oregon exhibit a similar, consistent phenomenon. It is not known whether the neighboring Molala and Kalapuya have it. Other Sahaptin dialects do not show it.

Chinook possesses pronominal gender. There are not only pronouns of three genders—or more strictly speaking five nominal categories, for dual and plural belong to the same system—but every noun has prefixed one of the five pronouns. None of the languages of the adjoining groups have sex gender except a number of dialects located in close proximity to the Chinook, particularly all the dialects of Salish tribes that live along the coast northward and southward, and the Quileute. In the Salish dialects of the interior, gender does not occur. If the Quileute should prove to be related to Wakashan, to which it shows morphological resemblances, it will be the only language of this group which has gender. In all these dialects gender is confined to the pronoun.

Chinook expresses diminutives by consonantic changes. Voiced and unvoiced consonants become glottalized and š changes to s. Velar fricatives become midpalatal fricatives. The neighboring Sahaptin groups, which differ fundamentally from Chinook, use consonantic changes for the same purpose. Some of the changes are the same as in Chinook; š changes to s, velars to midpalatals, and besides these a change from n to l occurs.

We find sporadic, fossilized use of the same process in the Salish dialect spoken just north of the Chinook area, in Coos on the coast of Oregon,^[135] and as a living feature in Wiyot in Northern California. Geographical contiguity for the last example cannot be established.

It will be noticed that while gender exists in a coastwise direction north and south, the formation of the diminutive by consonantic changes occurs in a territory extending eastward.

Another curious resemblance may be traced between Quileute, Kwakiutl, and Tsimshian, which are spoken in an area extending from the State of Washington to the Alaskan boundary. In these three languages the pronominal representation of the noun (or article) is treated differently for proper names and for common nouns. These form throughout two distinct classes. In Quileute and Kwakiutl a further correspondence is found in so far as the article used with proper names is also used for indefinite, that is unknown objects. For instance, “I look for a whale”, indefinite; “I found a whale”, definite.

Many American languages draw a clear distinction between possession by the subject and possession by another person, like the Latin suus and ejus. A small group, including the Eskimo, Algonquian, and Kutenai, express these relations by special verbal forms, the so-called obviative of the missionaries who wrote on Algonquian, the fourth person of Thalbitzer. The phenomenon is most pronounced in Kutenai, for even in the case of the simple transitive verb with third person subject and nominal object the presence of the two third persons is indicated by the obviative suffix following the nominal object. It is interesting to note that the western Sahaptin languages, which as a whole group adjoin the Kutenai, make the same distinction for the subject of the sentence for sentences containing only one third person and those in which the sentence contains two third persons. In both Kutenai and western Sahaptin there is a differentiation between the forms in a sentence like, “the man saw me,” and “the man saw the woman.” In Kutenai the difference is found in the object, in Sahaptin in the subject. In some of the Sahaptin dialects this trait is found only in the pronoun, not in the noun. The general usage, in the group of languages just discussed, is alike notwithstanding the difference of devices used.

Another interesting feature may be observed in the languages of the North Pacific Coast. Demonstrative pronouns are often very elaborate. They not only distinguish between the person near the speaker, near the person addressed, and near the person spoken of, but more exact locations are often added. The Tlingit of Alaska differentiate between what is near him but nearer than you, and what is near him but farther than you; or positions in front, behind, above, or below the speaker may be designated. Among the tribes extending from Columbia River northward to Alaska—the same group which differentiates between proper names and common nouns—a different demonstrative concept is introduced, namely that of visibility and invisibility. The Chinook has demonstratives designating, for instance, “near the speaker, visible.” The same occurs in Quileute and Coast Salish, but not in the Salish dialects of the interior. It is a characteristic feature of Kwakiutl. I do not know of its occurrence in any other group of neighboring languages.

Still another feature characteristic of part of the same group is the separation of pronominal subject and object in transitive verbs. The verb unaccompanied by what we should call an adverb, takes a suffix consisting of pronominal subject and object combined. When a qualifying adverb accompanies the verb, the subject is attached to this qualifier which takes the form of an intransitive verb, while the object remains attached to the primary verb. “I did not see him” would be expressed by “not-I see-him.” This tendency occurs in exactly the same form in Quileute, Coast Salish, and Wakashan. In Tsimshian it is less fully developed, in so far as in subjunctive forms the pronominal subject precedes the verb and is phonetically united with the preceding adverb. The analogy, however, is not strict.

Another interesting comparison may be made between Chukchee and Eskimo. In regard to the general form, these two languages are quite distinct. Chukchee employs terminal reduplication, prefixes, suffixes, and vocalic harmony. Besides this there are rigid rules regarding initial consonantic clusters which bring about important modifications of stem form. Eskimo has nothing of the kind. There is no reduplication, no prefixes whatever, no trace of vocalic harmony. Whatever changes occur in the stem are due to the influence of suffixes. On the other hand, a number of categories occur which are common to these two neighboring languages. The plural forms are alike; both Eskimo and Chukchee form the plural by a suffix t. The nominal subject in Eskimo is treated differently in the case of transitive and intransitive verbs. The subject of the transitive verb has what might be called a relational form, common to both the genitive and the transitive subject. The subject of the intransitive verb has the same form as the object of the transitive verb. This feature occurs also in other languages, as in Sahaptin, and it is found in the pronominal forms of many other languages. But in the circumpolar area only the Chukchee and Eskimo have this differentiation of the nominal forms. The processes by means of which this differentiation is made in Eskimo and Chukchee are quite distinct, for the object in Chukchee is formed by terminal reduplication; in Eskimo the subject is differentiated by a suffix. Furthermore we find in both languages a considerable number of postpositions which express local relationships, such as “at,” “towards,” “from,” and so on. The analogy in the modal development of the verb is also quite striking. A remarkable variety of participial forms occur which may take personal pronouns and the group of concepts expressed by the modalities shows marked similarity.

Considering these data as a whole, we may say that in a considerable number of native languages of the North Pacific Coast we find, notwithstanding fundamental differences in structure and vocabulary, similarities in particular grammatical features distributed in such a way that neighboring languages show striking similarities. The areas in which similar features are found do not coincide in regard to the various traits compared.

It seems to me almost impossible to explain this phenomenon without assuming the diffusion of grammatical processes over contiguous areas.

Stress must be laid here upon the contiguity of distribution, because comparative grammar shows clearly that similar features may develop independently in different parts of the world. Sex categories, phonetic similarity between the Northwest Coast and Chile, the application of reduplication, and many other traits appear in such distribution that historical connection is excluded. On the other hand the distribution of the same particular grouping of concepts, or of the same methods of expression over contiguous areas can hardly be explained on the basis of independent origin.

So far as I can see an attempt to bring together the different languages of contiguous areas which have similar processes is not feasible on account of the fundamental differences in conceptualization, in grammatical processes, and in vocabulary.

The phenomena here discussed lead to a result analogous to that reached by Lepsius in his study of African languages. He concluded that a large number of mixed languages occur in Africa. His conclusions are largely corroborated by more recent investigations, particularly of the Sudanese languages. It is also parallel to the results obtained by von der Gabelentz in his study of the languages of New Guinea and Melanesia, and his inferences are substantiated by the recent investigations of Dempwolff. The problem has been well formulated by Professor Prokosch, who demands a detailed comparison of the European languages with all their neighbors, no matter to what linguistic stock they may belong. It also agrees with the view of Schuchardt, who points out that there is a gradation beginning with a slight amount of borrowing and extending through more intensive intermingling, to a complete change of language. The question in which we are interested is not that of the theoretical definition of relation of languages as defined by Meillet, but merely a question of historical development.

If the view expressed here is correct, then it is not possible to group American languages rigidly in a genealogical scheme in which each linguistic family is shown to have developed to modern forms, but we have to recognize that many of the languages have multiple roots.

SOME TRAITS OF THE DAKOTA LANGUAGE^[136]

In the following I will discuss a few features of the language of the Dakota Indians which seem to have a wider linguistic interest.

First of all I shall discuss the classification of verbs. There are two types of verbs, active and static. Active verbs take active pronouns, static verbs take static pronouns. “I am sick” is static, and the form for “I” is the static pronoun which is identical with the object of the transitive verb. This is a frequent feature of American languages. It is peculiar to Dakota that only stems expressing activities performed by living beings can be active, all others are static. Static verbs may be made active by instrumental, sometimes by locative prefixes, but the stem itself is static. Thus the term “to break” is formed from the static verb “to be in a broken condition,” and might be translated “to cause by means of pressure to be in a broken condition.” The static terms are differentiated according to the form and character of the substance to which they refer, such as long, or flat, and liquid, soft, brittle, etc. Many of the static stems are obsolete and occur only with activating prefixes.

The second refers to the phonetic rendering of a close association of ideas. The initial vowel of Dakota words is preceded by a glottal closure. When, therefore, a word with terminal consonant precedes a word with initial vowel there is a decided break following the consonant. The consonant does not become globalized but the glottal closure follows it. When two such words become intimately associated and form a unit concept the break disappears: napo´g.na^[137] ‘a handful’, for nap-’o´g.na; wali´top‘e ‘an oar’, from wa´l-’i-top‘a´ (boat-rowing-instrument); hą´pap‘a´-’ec‘ų´pi ‘moccasin game’, for hąp-’ap‘a´ ‘moccasin striking’, ’ec‘ų´pi ‘they do’.

A distinction is made between verbs that take the prefix wa- which expresses an indefinite object and nouns which contain the same prefix. The latter are unit concepts, the former express an indefinite object for which a definite object may be substituted: waa´wąyaka ‘he stands guard’, wa·´wąyaka ‘a guard’. When verbs of this type assume a special meaning they may also be contracted: waa´gli ‘he brings something back home’, wa·´gli ‘he comes back successful from a hunt’; wayu´ġa ‘he separates something from its covering’; wo·´ġa ‘he husks corn’. The same phenomenon occurs in the possessive pronoun, intimate possession being expressed by contraction: t‘ao´wį ‘his earrings’, i.e., those he made, or those he happens to wear; t‘o·´wį ‘earrings he always wears and that nobody else has a right to wear’; t‘awo´wašte ‘his occasional good acts’, t‘o·´wašte ‘his goodness’ as a permanent quality.

These examples show a close parallelism between the concept of psychological and phonetic unity. According to a communication of Dr. Gladys Reichard similar phenomena occur in Navaho: hoγan caγan^[138] ‘my home’; ca’aγan ‘house in which I am living, not my property’; cit’a’ ‘my wing’ (a bird speaking), ca’at’a’ ‘my feather’ i.e., the feather I use.

A third point is a curious contradiction between the ease of forming new words by means of affixes and composition and the frequent failure to treat such words according to their etymological structure. It must not, of course, be assumed that new words are consciously built up with an understanding of the meaning of the constituent elements, nor that these are present in the mind of the speaker; but, so far as my knowledge goes, their grammatical treatment follows the general rules of the language. A question regarding the meaning of the compound may elicit a folk etymology. Nevertheless in use the words are generally easily understood. Contractions or abbreviations of words frequently used do not seem unusual. Thus we have wič‘a´ ‘raccoon’, understood as an abbreviation for wič‘i´te g.le´ġa ‘striped face’; p‘ežu´ta ‘medicine’, from p‘eži´-hu´te ‘herbs-butt-end’; p‘etą´l ‘on the fire’, from p‘e´ta aką´l ‘fire-on-top-of’. More remarkable are cases of metathesis like hąkp‘a´ ‘moccasin strings’, for hąpk‘a´; wąsma´hi ‘iron arrow head’ from mas- ‘iron’, wą ‘arrow’, hi ‘tooth’.

Sometimes the grammatical forms show a complete misunderstanding, the phonetic form being more suggestive than etymology. Thus ana´ġoptą ‘to obey’, stands evidently for ano´ġoptą (a ‘on’; no´ġe ‘ear’; o´ptą ‘to turn toward’); na is taken for a prefix and the first person wa is inserted after na: ana´waġoptą ‘I obey’. In the same way ina´piskąyą is treated as though na were a prefix, the pronoun wa preceding the p. Still the derivation is i-nap-i-ską-ya ‘against-hand-by-means-of-move-cause’.

A fourth trait of Dakota is its old consonantic sound symbolism. The sets, s, š, ḣ and z, ž, ġ represent gradations, the s and z being the lowest, š and ž the middle, and ḣ and ġ the highest grades. I have given many examples in a previous paper.^[139] A few of these will suffice to make the essential point clear. sle´ča, šle´ča, ḣle´ča ‘to split things’; m.nų´za, m.nų´ža, m.nų´ġa ‘to crunch’. With s or z it is done easily, with š or ž with greater difficulty, with ḣ or ġ with great difficulty. The grades of intensity are not always quite so clear. Sometimes the š series expresses wetness: ska´pa ‘to slap’, ška´pa ‘to slap wet surfaces’; ski´ca ‘to compress dry things’, škica ‘to compress wet things’. A few examples in addition to the list mentioned are: ze´zeya ‘dangling’, apʻa´żeżeya ‘right on the edge, almost falling over’; ġe´ġeya ‘hanging down’; wašte´ ‘peculiar, good’, waḣte´ṡni ‘bad (not good)’; šloka ‘to take out of a hole’, ḣlo´ka ‘to break a hole’; b.laska´ ‘flat and hard’, b.laška´ ‘flat and flabby’, zi ‘yellow’, ži ‘tawny’, ġi ‘brown’. It may well be that the three stages have reference rather to the consistency of material than to intensity. A good many examples can be interpreted more easily in that way.

E. Kennard^[140] has found a number of pairs of similar character in Mandan: dusa´p ‘to pull a little’, duha´p ‘to tear’; sε´ro ‘to jingle’, hε´ro ‘to rattle’, etc.

Lipkind has discovered a considerable number in Winnebago.^[141] Examples are: sąwą ‘to be melted’, šąwą ‘to be softened,’ ḣąwą ‘to be moistened’ (Dakota spa, ṡpą, ḣpą); siri ‘to be squeezed out’, ḣiri ‘to be mashed’ (Dakota ṡli, ḣli); kʼes ‘to be scraped bare’, kʼeḣ ‘to be scraped’.

This consonantic symbolism is similar to the diminutive and consonantic shifts of some of the Pacific Coast languages. In Chinook we have changes from sonants to glottalized sounds to express diminutives^[142] and also changes in the place of articulation of palatal affricatives. In Kwakiutl we find a limited number of words in which glottalization indicates smallness, e.g. kyəpa´ to embrace, ky’əpa´ to take up with tongs; qə´mkwa to snap together, q’ə´mkwa to bite off. Quite similar changes occur in diminutive forms in Sahaptin.^[143] The velar consonants become mid-palatal and n changes to l. In Wiyot, a Californian language, the following changes are found in the diminutive: d becomes ts, t > ts or tc, s > c, l > r.^[144] In Coos^[145] traces of a similar process are found. It also seems to be a live process in Tillamook, a Salishan dialect.^[146]

The fifth point refers to the demonstrative pronoun. It is a feature that is not particularly characteristic of Dakota, but appears in many North American languages. We are accustomed to a development of the demonstrative pronoun parallel to position “near me” and “away from me,” or to position “near one of the three personal pronouns.” Many American languages have a strong feeling for localization, and add to the fundamental ideas of position “near one of the three personal pronouns” reference to the concept of visibility and invisibility.

This makes the exact definition of demonstratives particularly difficult, because it is always necessary to reconstruct the position in which the speaker images himself to be. In Dakota we have the fundamental forms le, he, ka, to which express ‘near me’, ‘away from me’, ‘away from me visible’, ‘somewhere’. The concepts ‘near thee’ and ‘near him’ are not distinguished. The particular place in reference to two persons is expressed by the suffix -k‘i (after e > c‘i). Thus le´c‘i means ‘here and away from you or him’, he´c‘i ‘there and away from me’, ka´k‘i ‘yonder visible, away from me’. With the ending ya these forms express a region rather than a spot.

The distinction of visibility and invisibility is made in a number of languages. In Kwakiutl the glottal stop added to demonstrative forms expresses invisibility t’e´səmgya ‘this stone visible’ (-gya indicates ‘near me’), t’e´səmgya’ ‘this stone invisible’. In Quileute^[147] the independent demonstrative pronouns for visibility and invisibility are distinct. Kutenai^[148] has three positions: indefinite, here or previously referred to, and absent. Each of these has one form for visible, one for invisible, the latter distinguished by the insertion of an a, e.g. the prefix sn- means ‘here visible standing’, san- ‘here invisible standing’. In Chinook also the independent demonstratives are divided into the classes visible and invisible.^[149]

Reference to a third person is highly developed in Tlingit. We find yá ‘this near me’, wέ‘ ‘that near thee’, hέ ‘that near him and nearer than you’, yú ‘that near him and farther away than you.’^[150]

In Coeur d’Alêne^[151] all expressions regarding movements are expressed by means of prefixes. If only a speaker and the person addressed are involved the terms hither and thither are sufficient. When a third place is involved a definite position of reference must be included. If this point is termed ‘there’, the expressions would mean: (1) from beyond there hither and to beyond there, (2) from beyond there hither, to there or this side of there, (3) from there or this side of there hither, (4) from this side of there thither to beyond there, (5) from this side of there thither to there or to this side of there, (6) from beyond there thither to farther beyond there.

In movement Dakota distinguishes between thither and hither, completion of movement thither and hither, movement thither and hither to a place formerly occupied (i.e., return); completion of movement thither and hither to a place previously occupied (i.e., arrival returning). The combinations of the verbs of arrival and motion express the concept of starting, e.g., he went to arrive there, i.e., he started going thither, etc.^[152]

Dakota is also remarkable for the tendency to express by means of particles, conjunctions, and adverbs the general emotional state accompanying the statement. Thus, kį, k’ų, and wą (definite present, definite past, and indefinite) at the end of the sentence express respectively annoyance, the feeling that a statement is unnecessary because known to the person addressed, and pleasant agreement. Thus in a sentence meaning ‘I’ll finish this first’ the addition of kį implies the speaker’s annoyance at being interrupted; with k’ų the implication is that the person addresses knows that the speaker wishes to finish first; with wą that there is pleasant agreement. Similarly in ‘I gave it to him, but he did not take it’: if for ‘but’ yesą is used, the implication is that he ought to have taken it; if tk‘aṡ, that the offer ought not to have been made; if k’eyaṡ, an indifferent attitude is implied. Similar implications can be made by varying the translation of ‘instead’ (eha´, k‘eṡ, iye´ṡ, e´e´) in sentences such as ‘he gave me a stone instead of bread’, ‘bread instead of meat’, ‘meat instead of bread’.

METAPHORICAL EXPRESSION IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE KWAKIUTL INDIANS^[153]

In the language of the Kwakiutl^[154] Indians of Vancouver Island metaphorical expressions referring to unhappy events are of euphemistic character. Instead of “to die” (łEla´) words are used signifying “to grow weak” (wäL!emas^εid R 710.6^[155]); “to be nothing” (wä´la R 707.55); “to perish without reaching the end” (wibā´lisEm). These terms are derived from the negation wī-. From the same stem are derived “to become nothing in mind” wīk·!ex^εid R 710.13 and wuyE´ms^εid. Wā´nEm may be derived from a stem wān- “deserving of pity”. Often the term is used “it tears off” (viz. the breath) (ăł^εE´ls R 708.69 ‘to tear off on the ground, outside of the house’; ăł^εā´lił ‘to tear off in the house’). In speeches we find “to have gone to rest” (x·oyoxwā´lis C III 74.7); “to lie down” (qElyax·^εā´lis C III 78.26); “to disappear from this world” (k·!ēax^εwidlā´xwa^εnā´lax C III 96.25). For the death of many it is said “all are (ended)” (German “alle werden” ^εwī´^εwEla R 1147.67), and for the slaughter of man “to cause all (to end)” (German “alle machen”, ^εwī^εwE^εlā´mas R 1224.38). To kill is also expressed by “to cause to reach the end” (hēba^εyā´mas). To take revenge on an enemy is “to eat meat” (q!Esa´ J III 136.33).

Instead of “to be sick” they say “to lie abed” (qE´lgwił).

Misfortune is called “it goes wrong” (ō´dzEg·ila C II 16.13); a widow “the one who spoils good luck” (aă´msila R 604.27).

Many metaphorical expressions and actions are used on ceremonial occasions. To invite to a feast is called simply “to walk” (qā´sa C III 120.16) and the messenger is “the one who serves as walker” (qā´sElg·Es C III 120.19). It is not customary to follow an invitation at once, and the messengers go a second and third time to call. This is termed “to (go) around again” (ē´tse^εsta C III 126.26) and the messengers “those who serve (going) around again” (ē´tse^εstElg·Es C III 128.8). Then the guests come in, except the principal one for whose sake the ceremonial act is performed. The messengers go a last time “to look for a face” (dā´doqwEm R 752.37). This last term is used only in the sacred winter ceremonial (R 752.41). A single invitation is also called “to walk around” (qā´tse^εsta C III 136.23).

Speeches are called “breath” (hase^ε C III 182.1) of the speaker. A good speech has “a sweet taste” (ē´x^.p!a C III 182.9). A speech is called “equal in weight” (gwa´^εyok^u J III 449.26) to another one.

The speech after a meal “pushes it down into the stomach” (Lā´gwEns R 791.76). And the words of the speech “strike” (sEpa´ C III 182.15) the guests, as a spear strikes the game or as the rays of the sun strike the earth. A messenger who invites the tribe standing in the doorway of the house reports that “our words have gone out of the house” (la^εmē´ lā´g·a^εElsEnts wā´łdEma C III 220.24). The words of the host’s speaker addressed to his guests “go to the floor of the house” (lā´g·a^εlił R 789.24). The speaker “vomits” (hō´qwa J III 449.1) all he has in his mind.

Instead of “to sing” the metaphoric expression “the breath rises” (hasō´stâ C III 183.3) or “it goes rising” (lā´g·ustâ C III 176.23) is used. Singers and messengers “tell the world” (nē´łaxa^εnā´la R 789.22) what is being done. In the sacred winter ceremonial a special messenger is sent out of the house to tell the world that the ceremonial is beginning. The words of the song are its “place of walking” (qā´yas C III 136.21).

Guests who arrive by canoe are invited to come in to “warm themselves” (tE´łts!a C III 142.21) or “to warm their faces in the house” (ts!E´lqwEmg·a^εlił C III 160.17). In a formal feast two courses are given and the second one is called “doing the right thing afterwards” (hē´leg·End C III 108.21).

The guests of a person as well as wealth that he acquires are called his “salmon” (k·!ō´tEla C III 172.13, mEyâ´ C III 174.1); a great many guests “a school of salmon” (wayō´qwax·iwe^ε C III 172.14), and the house or village of the host his “salmon weir” (Ḷā´wayu C III 152.14) into which he hauls (wa´t!ed C III 152.17) his guests.

The valuable copper plates (L!ā´qwa), the symbols of wealth, particularly, are called “salmon,” and the host expecting a copper plate called “War”, says in regard to it, “heavy is this salmon caught in my weir here” (g̣wE´nt!a^εEmg·ada k·!ō´tElak· mä´ts!âsg·En Ḷā´wayuk^u C III 152.21). The invitation to a potlatch in which host and guests rival in prodigality is likened to war. The messengers who carry the invitation are called warriors (wī´na C III 164.20) and the arriving guests sing war songs (wī´nak·!ala C III 172.1). The copper plate is also called the “citadelle” of the chief. The orator says: “Behold, now we stand on War (name of a copper plate), the citadelle of our chief” (la^εE´mxōḶEnts g·ēxtodEx wīnäxa x̣wEsEläsEn g·ī´g̣Ema^εyex C III 146.26). To give a present in return for services rendered is called “making a soft layer” (tE´lqwa C III 140.22), and the blankets that are given away “are danced on” (yū´dzE^εweso^ε C III 174.22) by the host’s daughter who performs a ceremonial dance on that occasion. The giving away of blankets on a small scale is called “spreading out” (LEpa´ CIII 124.1).

The large amount of property given away “stands a mountain of blankets, reaching through the world” (Ḷax^usâlis lā´xEnts ^εnālag·ada nEg·ä´k· p!E´lxElasg̣Em J III 455.2).

The chief is designated by laudatory terms. He is the “post of our world” (qE´ldEmsEnts ^εnā´lax J III 449.30), “the only long one standing in the world” (^εnE´mts!aqe lā´xwa ^εnā´lax J III 449.29), “great mountains standing on edge” (k·!ō´xk!egwidze naE´ng·adze R 1284.40) “an overhanging cliff” (k·!ē´k·!EsLEn J III 449.31, Lā´qwanux̣^udze M 669.8), “the one to whom no one can climb up” (hē wīyag·Elidze M 668.1, wits!eg·usto^ε J III 449.31), “loaded canoe” (mō´g̣wEme^ε M 668.5), “the (cedar) that cannot be spanned” (wawe^εstalax̣^udze C III 196.8), “the thick root of the tribe” (ḶEgwā´nEwe^ε R 1290.10), “the one farthest ahead” (k·!ē´s^εoyak·Elis R 1285.6), the Dzōnoq!wa (a fabulous being which is much feared J III 455.18). He is called “the head” (x·ōms C III 108.26), his speaker “the mouth (piece)” (sEms C III 160.30). Of the death of one chief it is said “the moon went down in the waters” (k·!ō´gwEnsâlag·iLa^εyaxa ^εmEkŭlak·as^εox^udä R 1292.2). Those who are the first to receive presents are the “eagles” (kwēk^u) who, in the potlatch, stand outside of the recognized divisions of the tribe and take precedence of them.

The chief’s eldest daughter says, “copper is my seat in the house” (L!ā´qwag·En k!wadzâlił R 1315.2).

Of the Kwakiutl it is said, that “like a great, high mountain they have a steep (high) face” (g·ada ^εnEmā´x·EsEk· Ḷō^ε ē´k·ag̣Em ^εwā´las nEg·ä´ J III 455.16).

In speaking of rival chiefs derogatory terms are used. They are called “little sparrows” (ts!E´sqwanaō´^ε C III 122.9), “little flies” (g̣ag·adē´namE^εnē´x^u C III 128.24), “little horseflies” (sā´dEk!wamEnē´x^u C III 128.27), “little mosquitoes” (L!ē´sḶEnamE^εnē´x^u C III 128.30), “old broken (coppers)” (lElaxs^εamot M 667.18, q!Elq!atisot M 667.18), “spider woman” (yā´yaqet!eneg̣a M 669.21), “old dog” (^εwayoł M 670.7), leavings of food (ha´^εyamota R 1284.25).

Rivals are ridiculed by saying that they “decorate” (ămō´sa M 670.1) their speeches by claiming privileges that do not belong to them. Their tongues loll (E´l^εElqwEla R 1288.8); they are losing their tails (like old salmon) (xwāk·!axsdala R 1291.11); (the chief) throws them across his back (like the wolf a deer) (x̣wē´leg·End R 1293.12). When they try to rival the chief, “they talk through their noses” (x·E´ndzasâla R 1280.33). They “walk zigzag” (wailē´qa M 670.1); of one rival it is said that “he holds a canoe in his throat” (x̣wā´gwiL!Exâla M 670.2), and that “he holds giving-away-canoes in his throat” (sag·iL!Exâla M 670.2), meaning that he promises to give away a canoe, but that he will never do it. The guests “cry like the bluejay” (kwā´^εyala R 1282.65). One who has never given a great feast (a “grease” feast in which fish oil is poured on the fire) is called “dry face” (lE´mlEmx̣wEmlis M 670.4), or “mouldy face” (qwēqwExLEmlis M 670.4). Of one who is called an old dog it is said that he “spreads his legs before (the host)” (yāqaLalg·iwe^ε M 670.7).

A young woman whose father has not repaid his son-in-law adequately is called “slim wristed” (hē´wäg̣Emx·ts!ane^ε), because her wrist is not compressed by the wearing of bracelets.

Chiefs praise their own strength. They “burn to ashes (the tribes)” (q!wā´lo^εso J III 483.1), they “make the world smoky (by the fire of their feasts)” (kwa´nesEla´mas R 669.18), the great one whose smoke of the fire is meeting (kwā´kwExâladze R 669.19); he makes people run away (q!wE´mx·^εidamas J III 483.2). When a guest outdoes the host in prodigality his “fire is extinguished” (k·!E´lx·^εideda lEg̣wīł R 774.28); he has chiefs as his servants (ā´łanok^u J III 482.16) or as his speakers (a^εyE´lgwad J III 482.16).

A warrior says, “I am the double-headed serpent in my world” (yEn sī´sEyuL laxg·En ^εnā´lak·). Warriors are called “hellebore” (ăx̣^usō´le R 1311.2), a term also applied to people of violent character. Warriors say, “for we are the great thunderbirds and we avenge (bite) our late ancestors” (yE´ntsaxg·Ents ^εwā´lasEk· kwE´nkwEnx̣wElig·a^εya qEnts q!Es^εē´de qaE´nts wiwompdäEnts J III 468); “we shall soar and grasp with our talons the Bella Coola”^[156] (q!ā´nex·^εidEL qEnts lē´LEns xap!ē´dEł lax BE´lx̣wElax·de J III 468.11). The warriors say that they are no longer men, “we are now killerwhales” (lEnts la maE´mx^εenox^u la J III 470.18). Men killed in war are “eaten” (hă´mk·!ăes J III 469.29) by the enemy, and when they are avenged they say, “our late tribe fellows have been vomited up (by the enemy)” (hō´x^εwitsEnts g·ō´kulotaEnts J III 469.30).

Many metaphorical expressions are used in connection with the purchase of copper plates and with marriage ceremonies. These are accompanied by symbolic acts. In the purchase of a copper the preliminary payment is called “the pillow” (qē´nulił); the “soft layer” (tE´lqwa); the harpoon line (dō´x^usEm) by which the copper is held like a seal; or “what results in the lifting (of the copper) from the floor” (dā´g·ElelEm). The purchase itself is called “pushing” (Lā´sa), viz., pushing the purchase money under the name of the purchaser whose rank is raised by the purchase. To offer a copper plate “which groans in the house” (g̣wāLElag·Elił J III 448.32) for sale is called to let it “lie dead by the side of the fire” (yā´g̣wEnwa^εlis J III 448.32). The purchaser must “take it up from the floor” (dā´g·Elił C III 282.4).

The knife used for cutting a copper plate that is to be broken is called “crazy edged” (nā´nułx·ä C III 216.25), and the copper is “killed” (hă´łx̣wa, a word belonging to the Bella Bella dialect C III 218.4).

For marrying they use the term “walking into the house” (qa´dzeL C III 238.26); the blankets paid to the bride’s father are “what results in a marriage” (qā'dzeḶEm C III 242.11), or “the means of marrying” (qă´dzeḶayu C III 248.8). The word qā´dzeL means that the property given to the bride’s father walks into his house.

Marriages between the eldest children of chiefs are very elaborate. They are called “taking-care-of-the great-bringing-out-of-the-crests marriage” (^εwā^εwalatsila k·!ēs^εołt!End qā´dzeLa C III 240.9), that means that the chiefs who act as messengers have to use their crests in proposing to the bride’s father. A number of chiefs make the first proposal. They receive for this message from the bride’s father each a blanket. This is rolled up and carried in arms like a child. They return carrying it to the groom’s father and say in regard to it “it is great, we come carrying in our arms your future wife” (g·āxdze^εmEnu^εx̣^u q!EłElqālaxg·as g̣EnE´młg·os C III 238.22). After the first proposal they go back “to shake (the bride) from the floor of the house” (tEmsx·Eg·Elił C III 246.13). One chief after another gives a mimic representation of his family myth, which means “he tries to lift (the bride) from the floor” (wā´wixEli^εla C III 250.4), or “to lift from the floor” (wī´xElił J III 464.1), or “to handle a heavy weight” (g̣wāg̣wEntselił J III 464.2). One of them, for instance, has the family myth according to which his ancestor was given the power to become a whaler. He appears carrying a whaling harpoon which he throws into the house, thus harpooning the bride whom he calls “a whale” (g̣wE^εyE´m C III 252.13). By these performances they induce the bride to move on the floor (qwEnēqwElił C III 252.20; k!wēmg·Elił C III 256.19; k·!ani^εlälag· Elił C III 256.24; k!wäg·Elił Ḷē´qwElił C III 264.30) and finally “to come right off the floor” (hē´łq!Eg·Elił C III 260.7) and “to come to the door” (g·āxstolił C III 268.13), and “to approach the door” (ē´x·astolił C III 268.4). Finally she is “off the floor” (Lā´g·Elił C III 272.19). Then blankets to be paid to the bride’s father are given as “a means of calling (the bride)” (Lē´^εlalayu C III 272.30) and the girl comes out “dressed” (q!wālEnk^u C III 274.17) in (that is, carrying) a copper plate. The bride’s father gives her blankets as “a tump line” (ăō´xLăas C III 276.16). These are distributed “to be used as belts” (wEsē´x·^εid C III 278.28) by the groom’s tribe.

A year or more after the marriage the bride’s father repays the property received. This is called qotē´x·a, a word that in the Bella Bella dialect signifies “to dress.” He arrives symbolically in a canoe which is represented by a square of ceremonial box-covers. In it stands a copper plate “the mast” of the canoe (Ḷāk·E^εyala C III 280.10); blankets represent “the mat” (łE´^εwe^ε C III 294.16) on which the bride sits.

The marriage is also called “to make war on the princesses” (wī´nax k·!ē´sk·!edeła J III 463.18). Other forms of marriage are called “to try to get a slave” (q!ā´q!ak!wa C III 280.4), “to take hold of the foot” (dā´x·sidzEnd C III 280.4) and “sham marriage” (x̣wē´sa). A union without formal marriage is called “sticking behind (like dogs)” (k!wEt!Exsda´ R 1105.26), a child born of such a union, “obtained by sticking behind” (k!wEt!Exsdā´nEm R 1099.27).

In all purchases as well as in marriages, the blankets which are the standard of value are designated by what they represent. After the price has been paid, blankets are given as “boxes” to store the blankets, as “canoes” to carry them away; or a canoe worth so and so many blankets is given as “a dress” for the recipient. The carrying strap for blankets; the belt for travelling; all these are represented by blankets. Split sticks represent canoes or the values of canoes measured in blankets that are given away (J III 457-458). Carpenters who are hired receive blankets to protect their hands (tE´lxts!ane C III 316.10).

In all speeches reference is made to the adherence to old customs. They “walk the road made by the creator of chiefs” (qā´sa lax t!Ex·E´läsa g·ī´g̣Emēg·ilä R 790.62); they walk in “that what results as the groove of the world” (xwE´lt!alidzEm R 789.25). The chief says, “I follow the road made by my late ancestors” (lEn nEg̣EłtEwē´x t!Ex·ī´la^εyasEn wiwō´mp^εwŭła C III 124.22); or “what is laid down by our ancestors” (k·!ā´ta^εyasEnts g·ā´lEmg·a´lisa C III 146.10). Progress in social rank is “walking along on flat (blankets)” (qä´dzo C III 130.22), or “walking along” (qä^εna´kwEla R 791.71). Customs are also called “the support of the tribe” (qa´dad C III 884.10).

In talking to children or to intimate friends, people use terms of self-effacement. The most frequently used term is “master” literally “the one who owns (me) as a slave” (q!ā´gwid); children are addressed as “the one who owns (me) as a dog” (^εwā´dzid). The grandfather calls himself “old dog” (^εwa´yoł R 1313.3). Parents also call themselves “slaves” (q!ā´k·o R 712.45); and they call the children “treasures” (Ḷō´gwe^ε R 712.44). The chief speaks of his wife as “receptacle of wisdom” (nâ´g̣ats!e C III 158.19), because she manages the property needed for potlatches.

A name given during a potlatch is fastened (E´lg·ăaLElod C III 130.5) to its owner. A person who is ashamed “wipes off (the shame) from his body” (dēg·it C III 132.19) by giving a potlatch.

Love is called “sickness, pain” (ts!Ex·Ela R 1309.2). The lover wishes to be the bed (ts!ā´g·ił R 1310.15) or pillow (qē´noł R 1310.16) of the beloved. To be downcast is called “to be withered” (x̣wE´lsa R 186.2); to ridicule “to nettle” (dzE´nk·a JX 67.6).

THE AIMS OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH^[157]

The science of anthropology has grown up from many distinct beginnings. At an early time men were interested in foreign countries and in the lives of their inhabitants. Herodotus reported to the Greeks what he had seen in many lands. Caesar and Tacitus wrote on the customs of the Gauls and Germans. In the middle ages Marco Polo, the Venetian, and Ibn Batuta, the Arab, told of the strange peoples of the Far East and of Africa. Later on, Cook’s journeys excited the interest of the world. From these reports arose gradually a desire to find a general significance in the multifarious ways of living of strange peoples. In the eighteenth century Rousseau, Schiller and Herder tried to form, out of the reports of travelers, a picture of the history of mankind. More solid attempts were made about the middle of the nineteenth century, when the comprehensive works of Klemm and Waitz were written.

Biologists directed their studies towards an understanding of the varieties of human forms. Linnaeus, Blumenbach, Camper are a few of the names that stand out as early investigators of these problems, which received an entirely new stimulus when Darwin’s views of the instability of species were accepted by the scientific world. The problem of man’s origin and his place in the animal kingdom became the prime subject of interest. Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel are outstanding names representing this period. Still more recently the intensive study of heredity and mutation has given a new aspect to inquiries into the origin and meaning of race.

The development of psychology led to new problems presented by the diversity of the racial and social groups of mankind. The question of mental characteristics of races, which at an earlier period had become a subject of discussion with entirely inadequate methods—largely stimulated by the desire to justify slavery—was taken up again with the more refined technique of experimental psychology, and particular attention is now being paid to the mental status of primitive man and of mental life under pathological conditions. The methods of comparative psychology are not confined to man alone, and much light may be thrown on human behavior by the study of animals. The attempt is being made to develop a genetic psychology.

Finally sociology, economics, political science, history and philosophy have found it worth while to study conditions found among alien peoples in order to throw light upon our modern social processes.

With this bewildering variety of approaches, all dealing with racial and cultural forms, it seems necessary to formulate clearly what the objects are that we try to attain by the study of mankind.

We may perhaps best define our objective as the attempt to understand the steps by which man has come to be what he is, biologically, psychologically and culturally. Thus it appears at once that our material must necessarily be historical material, historical in the widest sense of the term. It must include the history of the development of the bodily form of man, his physiological functions, mind and culture. We need a knowledge of the chronological succession of forms and an insight into the conditions under which changes occur. Without such data progress seems impossible and the fundamental question arises as to how such data can be obtained.

Ever since Lamarck’s and Darwin’s time the biologist has been struggling with this problem. The complete paleontological record of the development of plant and animal forms is not available. Even in favorable cases gaps remain that cannot be filled on account of the lack of intermediate forms. For this reason indirect proofs must be resorted to. These are based partly on similarities revealed by morphology and interpreted as proof of genetic relationship, partly on morphological traits observed in prenatal life, which suggest relationship between forms that as adults appear quite distinct.

Caution in the use of morphological similarities is required, because there are cases in which similar forms develop in genetically unrelated groups, as in the marsupials of Australia, which show remarkable parallelism with higher mammal forms, or in the white-haired forms of the Arctic and of high altitudes, which occur independently in many genera and species, or in the blondness and other abnormal hair forms of domesticated mammals which develop regardless of their genetic relations.

As long as the paleontological record is incomplete we have no way of reconstructing the history of animals and plants except through morphology and embryology.

This is equally true of man, and for this reason the eager search for early human and prehuman forms is justified. The finds of the remains of the Pithecanthropus in Java, the Sinanthropus in China, of the Heidelberg jaw and of the later types of the glacial period are so many steps advancing our knowledge. It requires the labors of the enthusiastic explorer to furnish us with the material that must be interpreted by careful morphological study. The material available at the present time is sadly fragmentary. It is encouraging to see that it is richest in all those countries in which the interest in the paleontology of man has been keenest, so that we may hope that with the increase of interest in new fields the material on which to build the evolutionary history of man will be considerably increased.

It is natural that with our more extended knowledge of the evolutionary history of the higher mammals certain points stand out that will direct the labors of the explorer. Thus on the basis of our knowledge of the distribution of ape forms, nobody would search for the ancestors of humanity in the New World, although the question when the earliest migration of man into America took place is still one of the problems that is prominent in researches on the paleontology of the glacial period of America.

The skeletal material of later periods is more abundant. Still it is difficult to establish definitely the relation of early skeletal remains and of modern races, because many of their most characteristic traits are found in the soft parts of the body that have not been preserved. Furthermore, the transitions from one race to another are so gradual that only extreme forms can be determined with any degree of definiteness.

On account of the absence of material elucidating the history of modern races, it is not surprising that for many years anthropologists have endeavored to classify races, basing their attempts on a variety of traits, and that only too often the results of these classifications have been assumed as expressions of genetic relationship, while actually they have no more than a descriptive value, unless their genetic significance can be established. If the same metric proportions of the head recur in all races they cannot be a significant criterion of fundamental racial types, although they may be valuable indications of the development of local strains within a racial group. If, on the other hand, a particular hair form is a trait well-nigh universal in extensive groups of mankind, and one that does not recur in other groups, it will in all probability represent an ancient hereditary racial trait, the more so, if it occurs in a geographically continuous area. It is the task of the anthropologist to search out these outstanding traits and to remember that the exact measurement of features which are not exclusive racial characteristics will not answer the problems of the evolution of fundamental types, but can be taken only as an indication of independent, special modifications of late origin within the large racial groups.

From this point of view the general question of the occurrence of parallel development in genetically unrelated lines assumes particular importance. We have sufficient evidence to show that morphological form is subject to environmental influences that in some cases will have similar effects upon unrelated forms. Even the most skeptical would admit this for size of the body.

Changes due to environment that occur under our eyes, such as minute changes in size and proportion of the body, are probably not hereditary, but merely expressions of the reaction of the body to external conditions and subject to new adjustments under new conditions.

However, one series of changes, brought about by external conditions, are undoubtedly hereditary. I mean those developing in domestication. No matter whether they are due to survival of aberrant forms or directly conditioned by domestication, they are found in similar ways in all domesticated animals, and because man possesses all these characteristics he proves to be a domesticated form. Eduard Hahn was probably the first to point out that man lives like a domesticated animal; the morphological points were emphasized by Eugen Fischer, B. Klatt and myself.

The solution of the problem of the origin of races must rest not only on classificatory studies and on those of the development of parallel forms, but also on the consideration of the distribution of races, of early migrations and consequent intermingling or isolation.

On account of the occurrence of independent development of parallel forms it seems important to know the range of variant local forms that originate in each race, and it might seem plausible that races producing local variants of similar types are closely related. Thus Mongoloids and Europeans occasionally produce similar forms in regions so wide apart that it would be difficult to interpret them as effects of intermingling.

The biological foundations of conclusions based on this type of evidence are, to a great extent, necessarily speculative. Scientific proof would require a knowledge of the earliest movements of mankind, an intimate acquaintance with the conditions under which racial types may throw off variants and the character and extent of variations that may develop as mutants.

The solution of these problems must extend beyond morphological description of the race as a whole. Since we are dealing to a great extent with forms determined by heredity, it seems indispensable to found the study of the race as a whole on that of the component genetic lines and of their variants, and on inquiries into the influence of environment and selection upon bodily form and function. The race must be studied not as a whole but in its genotypical lines as developing under varying conditions.

In the study of racial forms we are too much inclined to consider the importance of races according to the number of their representatives. This is obviously an error, for the important phenomenon is the occurrence of stable morphological types, not the number of individuals representing each. The numerical strength of races has changed enormously in historic times, and it would be quite erroneous to attribute an undue importance to the White race or to the East Asiatics, merely because they have outgrown in numbers all other racial types. Still, in descriptive classifications the local types of a large race are given undue prominence over the less striking subdivisions of lesser groups. As an example, I might mention Huxley’s divisions of the White race as against his divisions of other races.

We are interested not only in the bodily form of races but equally in the functioning of the body, physiologically as well as mentally. The problems presented by this class of phenomena present particular difficulties on account of the adjustability of function to external demands, so that it is an exceedingly precarious task to distinguish between what is determined by the biological make-up of the body and what depends upon external conditions. Observations made on masses of individuals in different localities may be explained equally well by the assumption of hereditary racial characteristics and by that of changes due to environmental influences. A mere description of these phenomena will never lead to a result. Different types, areas, social strata and cultures exhibit marked differences in physiological and mental function. A dogmatic assertion that racial type alone is responsible for these differences is a pseudo-science. An adequate treatment requires a weighing of the diverse factors.

Investigators are easily misled by the fact that the hereditary, biologically determined endowment of an individual is intimately associated with the functioning of his body. This appears most clearly in cases of bodily deficiency or of unusually favorable bodily development. It is quite a different matter to extend this observation over whole populations or racial groups in which are represented a great variety of hereditary lines and individuals, for the many forms of bodily make-up found in each group allow a great variety of functioning. Hereditary characteristics are pronounced in genetic lines, but a population—or to use the technical term, a phenotype—is not a genetic line and the great variety of genotypes within a race forbids the application of results obtained from a single hereditary line to a whole population in which the diversity of the constituent lines is bound to equalize the distribution of diverse genetic types in the populations considered. I have spoken so often on this subject that you will permit me to pass on to other questions.

While paleontological evidence may give us a clue to the evolution of human forms, only the most superficial evidence can be obtained for the development of function. A little may be inferred from size and form of the brain cavity and that of the jaw, in so far as it indicates the possibility of articulate speech. We may obtain some information on the development of erect posture, but the physiological processes that occurred in past generations are not accessible to observation. All the conclusions that we may arrive at are based on very indirect evidence.

The mental life of man also can be studied experimentally only among living races. It is, however, possible to infer some of its aspects by what past generations have done. Historical data permit us to study the culture of past times, in a few localities, as in the eastern Mediterranean area, India, China as far back as a few thousand years—and a limited amount of information on the mental life of man may be obtained from these data. We may even go farther back and extend our studies over the early remains of human activities. Objects of varied character, made by man and belonging to periods as early as the Quaternary, have been found in great quantities, and their study reveals at least certain aspects of what man has been able to do during these times.

The data of prehistoric archaeology reveal with progress of time a decided branching out of human activities. While from earliest periods nothing remains but a few simple stone implements, we see an increasing differentiation of form of implements used by man. During the Quaternary the use of fire had been discovered, artistic work of high esthetic value had been achieved, and painted records of human activities had been made. Soon after the beginning of the recent geological period the beginnings of agriculture appear and the products of human labor take on new forms at a rapidly accelerating rate. While in early Quaternary times we do not observe any change for thousands of years, so that the observer might imagine that the products of human hands were made according to an innate instinct, like the cells of a beehive, the rapidity of change becomes the greater the nearer we approach our time, and at an early period we recognize that the arts of man cannot be instinctively determined, but are the cumulative result of experience.

It has often been claimed that the very primitiveness of human handiwork of early times proves organic mental inferiority. This argument is certainly not tenable, for we find in modern times isolated tribes living in a way that may very well be parallelled with early conditions. A comparison of the psychic life of these groups does not justify the belief that their industrial backwardness is due to a difference in the types of organism, for we find numbers of closely related races on the most diverse levels of cultural status. This is perhaps clearest in the Mongoloid race, where by the side of the civilized Chinese are found the most primitive Siberian tribes, or in the American group, where the highly developed Maya of Yucatan and the Aztecs of Mexico may be compared with the primitive tribes of our western plateaus. Evidently historic and prehistoric data give us little or no information on the biological development of the human mind.

How little the biological, organic determinants of culture can be inferred from the state of culture appears clearly if we try to realize how different the judgment of racial ability would have been at various periods of history. When Egypt flourished, northern Europe was in primitive conditions, comparable to those of American Indians or African Negroes, and yet northern Europe of our day has far outdistanced those people, who at an earlier time were the leaders of mankind. An attempt to find biological reasons for these changes would necessitate innumerable unprovable hypotheses regarding changes of the biological make-up of these peoples, hypotheses that could be invented only for the purpose of sustaining an unproved assumption.

A safer mode of approaching the problems at issue would seem to lie in the application of experimental psychology which might enable us to determine the psychophysical and also some of the mental characteristics of various races. As in the case of biological inquiry it would be equally necessary in this study to examine genotypical lines rather than populations, because so many different lines are contained in the mass.

A serious difficulty is presented by the dependence of the results of all psychophysical or mental tests upon the experiences of the individual who is the subject of the tests. His experiences are largely determined by the culture in which he lives. I am of the opinion that no method can be devised by which this all-important element is eliminated, but that we always obtain a result which is a mixed impression of culturally determined influences and of bodily build. For this reason I quite agree with those critical psychologists who acknowledge that for most mental phenomena we know only European psychology and no other.

In the few cases in which the influence of culture upon mental reaction of populations has been investigated it can be shown that culture is a much more important determinant than bodily build. I repeat that in individuals a somewhat close relation between mental reaction and bodily build may be found, which is all but absent in populations. Under these circumstances it is necessary to base the investigation of the mental life of man upon a study of the history of cultural forms and of the interrelations between individual mental life and culture.

This is the subject-matter of cultural anthropology. It is safe to say that the results of the extensive materials amassed during the last fifty years do not justify the assumption of any close relation between biological types and form of culture.

As in the realm of biology our inferences must be based on historical data, so it is in the investigation of cultures. Unless we know how the culture of each group of man came to be what it is, we cannot expect to reach any conclusions in regard to the conditions controlling the general history of culture.

The material needed for the reconstruction of the biological history of mankind is insufficient on account of the paucity of remains and the disappearance of all soft, perishable parts. The material for the reconstruction of culture is ever so much more fragmentary because the largest and most important aspects of culture leave no trace in the soil; language, social organization, religion—in short, everything that is not material—vanishes with the life of each generation. Historical information is available only for the most recent phases of cultural life and is confined to those peoples who had the art of writing and whose records we can read. Even this information is insufficient because many aspects of culture find no expression in literature. Is it then necessary to resign ourselves and to consider the problem as insoluble?

In biology we supplement the fragmentary paleontological record with data obtained from comparative anatomy and embryology. Perhaps an analogous procedure may enable us to unravel some of the threads of cultural history.

There is one fundamental difference between biological and cultural data which makes it impossible to transfer the methods of the one science to the other. Animal forms develop in divergent directions, and an intermingling of species that have once become distinct is negligible in the whole developmental history. It is otherwise in the domain of culture. Human thoughts, institutions, activities may spread from one social unit to another. As soon as two groups come into close contact their cultural traits will be disseminated from the one to the other.

Undoubtedly there are dynamic conditions that mould in similar forms certain aspects of the morphology of social units. Still we may expect that these will be overlaid by extraneous elements that have no organic relation to the dynamics of inner change.

This makes the reconstruction of cultural history easier than that of biological history, but it puts the most serious obstacles in the way of discovering the inner dynamic conditions of change. Before morphological comparison can be attempted the extraneous elements due to cultural diffusion must be eliminated.

When certain traits are diffused over a limited area and absent outside of it, it seems safe to assume that their distribution is due to diffusion. In some rare cases even the direction of diffusion may be determined. If Indian corn is derived from a Mexican wild form and is cultivated over the larger part of the two Americas we must conclude that its cultivation spread from Mexico north and south; if the ancestors of African cattle are not found in Africa, they must have been introduced into that continent. In the majority of cases it is impossible to determine with certainty the direction of diffusion. It would be an error to assume that a cultural trait had its original home in the area in which it is now most strongly developed. Christianity did not originate in Europe or America. The manufacture of iron did not originate in America or northern Europe. It was the same in early times. We may be certain that the use of milk did not originate in Africa, nor the cultivation of wheat in Europe.

For these reasons it is well-nigh impossible to base a chronology of the development of specific cultures on the observed phenomena of diffusion. In a few cases it seems justifiable to infer from the worldwide diffusion of a particular cultural achievement its great antiquity. This is true when we can prove by archaeological evidence its early occurrence. Thus, fire was used by man in early Quaternary times. At that period man was already widely scattered over the world and we may infer that either the use of fire was carried along by him when he migrated to new regions or that it spread rapidly from tribe to tribe and soon became the property of mankind. This method cannot be generalized, for we know of other inventions of ideas that spread with incredible rapidity over vast areas. An example is the spread of tobacco over Africa, as soon as it was introduced on the coast.

In smaller areas attempts at chronological reconstruction are much more uncertain. From a cultural center in which complex forms have developed, elements may radiate and impress themselves upon neighboring tribes, or the more complex forms may develop on an old, less differentiated basis. It is seldom possible to decide which one of these alternatives offers the correct interpretation.

Notwithstanding all these difficulties, the study of geographical distribution of cultural phenomena offers a means of determining their diffusion. The outstanding result of these studies has been the proof of the intricate interrelation of people of all parts of the world. Africa, Europe and the greater part of Asia appear to us as a cultural unit in which one area cannot be entirely separated from the rest. America appears as another unit, but even the New World and the Old are not entirely independent of each other, for lines of contact have been discovered that connect northeastern Asia and America.

As in biological investigations the problem of parallel independent development of homologous forms obscures that of genetic relationship, so it is in cultural inquiry. If it is possible that analogous anatomical forms develop independently in genetically distinct lines, it is ever so much more probable that analogous cultural forms develop independently. It may be admitted that it is exceedingly difficult to give absolutely indisputable proof of the independent origin of analogous cultural data. Nevertheless, the distribution of isolated customs in regions far apart hardly admits of the argument that they were transmitted from tribe to tribe and lost in intervening territory. It is well known that in our civilization current scientific ideas give rise to independent and synchronous inventions. In an analogous way primitive social life contains elements that lead to somewhat similar forms in many parts of the world. Thus the dependence of the infant upon the mother necessitates at least a temporary difference in the mode of life of the sexes and makes woman less movable than man. The long dependence of children on their elders leaves also an inevitable impress upon social form. Just what these effects will be depends upon circumstances. Their fundamental cause will be the same in every case.

The number of individuals in a social unit, the necessity or undesirability of communal action for obtaining the necessary food supply constitute dynamic conditions that are active everywhere and that are germs from which analogous cultural behavior may spring.

Besides these, there are individual cases of inventions or ideas in lands far apart that cannot be proved to be historically connected. The fork was used in Fiji and invented comparatively recently in Europe; the spear, projected by a thong wound spirally about the shaft, was used on the Admiralty Islands and in ancient Rome. In some cases the difference in time makes the theory of a transfer all but unthinkable. This is the case, for instance, with the domestication of mammals in Peru, the invention of bronze in Peru and Yucatan and that of the zero in Yucatan.

Some anthropologists assume that, if a number of cultural phenomena agree in regions far apart, these must be due to the presence of an exceedingly ancient substratum that has been preserved notwithstanding all the cultural changes that have occurred. This view is not admissible without proof that the phenomena in question remain stable not only for thousands of years, but even so far back that they have been carried by wandering hordes from Asia to the extreme southern end of South America. Notwithstanding the great tenacity of cultural traits, there is no proof that such extreme conservatism ever existed. The apparent stability of primitive types of culture is due to our lack of historical perspective. They change much more slowly than our modern civilization, but wherever archeological evidence is available we do find changes in time and space. A careful investigation shows that those features that are assumed as almost absolutely stable are constantly undergoing changes. Some details may remain for a long time, but the general complex of culture cannot be assumed to retain its character for a very long span of time. We see people who were agricultural become hunters, others change their mode of life in the opposite direction. People who had totemic organization give it up, while others take it over from their neighbors.

It is not a safe method to assume that all analogous cultural phenomena must be historically related. It is necessary to demand in every case proof of historical relation, which should be the more rigid the less evidence there is of actual recent or early contact.

In the attempt to reconstruct the history of modern races we are trying to discover the earlier forms preceding modern forms. An analogous attempt has been demanded of cultural history. To a limited extent it has succeeded. The history of inventions and the history of science show to us in course of time constant additions to the range of inventions, and a gradual increase of empirical knowledge. On this basis we might be inclined to look for a single line of development of culture, a thought that was pre-eminent in anthropological work of the end of the past century.

The fuller knowledge of to-day makes such a view untenable. Cultures differ like so many species, perhaps genera, of animals, and their common basis is lost forever. It seems impossible, if we disregard invention and knowledge, the two elements just referred to, to bring cultures into any kind of continuous series. Sometimes we find simple, sometimes complex, social organizations associated with crude inventions and knowledge. Moral behavior, except in so far as it is checked by increased understanding of social needs, does not seem to fall into any order.

It is evident that certain social conditions are incompatible. A hunting people, in which every family requires an extended territory to insure the needed food supply, cannot form large communities, although it may have intricate rules governing marriage. Life that requires constant moving about on foot is incompatible with the development of a large amount of personal property. Seasonal food supply requires a mode of life different from a regular, uninterrupted food supply.

The interdependence of cultural phenomena must be one of the objects of anthropological inquiry, for which material may be obtained through the study of existing societies.

Here we are compelled to consider culture as a whole, in all its manifestations, while in the study of diffusion and of parallel development the character and distribution of single traits are more commonly the objects of inquiry. Inventions, economic life, social structure, art, religion, morals are all interrelated. We ask in how far are they determined by environment, by the biological character of the people, by psychological conditions, by historical events or by general laws of interrelation.

It is obvious that we are dealing here with a different problem. This is most clearly seen in our use of language. Even the fullest knowledge of the history of language does not help us to understand how we use language and what influence language has upon our thought. It is the same in other phases of life. The dynamic reactions to cultural environment are not determined by its history, although they are a result of historical development. Historical data do give us certain clues that may not be found in the experience of a single generation. Still, the psychological problem must be studied in living societies.

It would be an error to claim, as some anthropologists do, that for this reason historical study is irrelevant. The two sides of our problem require equal attention, for we desire to know not only the dynamics of existing societies, but also how they came to be what they are. For an intelligent understanding of historical processes a knowledge of living processes is as necessary as the knowledge of life processes for the understanding of the evolution of life forms.

The dynamics of existing societies are one of the most hotly contested fields of anthropological theory. They may be looked at from two points of view, the one, the interrelations between various aspects of cultural form and between culture and natural environment; the other the interrelation between individual and society.

Biologists are liable to insist on a relation between bodily build and culture. We have seen that evidence for such an interrelation has never been established by proofs that will stand serious criticism. It may not be amiss to dwell here again on the difference between races and individuals. The hereditary make-up of an individual has a certain influence upon his mental behavior. Pathological cases are the clearest proof of this. On the other hand, every race contains so many individuals of different hereditary make-up that the average differences between races freed of elements determined by history cannot readily be ascertained, but appear as insignificant. It is more than doubtful whether differences free of these historic elements can ever be established.

Geographers try to derive all forms of human culture from the geographical environment in which man lives. Important though this may be, we have no evidence of a creative force of environment. All we know is that every culture is strongly influenced by its environment, that some elements of culture cannot develop in an unfavorable geographical setting, while others may be advanced. It is sufficient to see the fundamental differences of culture that thrive one after another in the same environment, to make us understand the limitations of environmental influences. The aborigines of Australia live in the same environment in which the White invaders live. The nature and location of Australia have remained the same during human history, but they have influenced different cultures. Environment can affect only an existing culture, and it is worth while to study its influence in detail. This has been clearly recognized by critical geographers, such as Hettner.

Economists believe that economic conditions control cultural forms. Economic determinism is proposed as against geographic determinism. Undoubtedly the interrelation between economics and other aspects of culture is much more immediate than that between geographical environment and culture. Still it is not possible to explain every feature of cultural life as determined by economic status. We do not see how art styles, the form of ritual or the special form of religious belief could possibly be derived from economic forces. On the contrary, we see that economics and the rest of culture interact as cause and effect, as effect and cause.

Every attempt to deduce cultural forms from a single cause is doomed to failure, for the various expressions of culture are closely interrelated and one cannot be altered without having an effect upon all the others. Culture is integrated. It is true that the degree of integration is not always the same. There are cultures which we might describe by a single term, that of modern democracies as individualistic-mechanical; or that of a Melanesian island as individualization by mutual distrust; or that of our Plains Indians as overvaluation of intertribal warfare. Such terms may be misleading, because they overemphasize certain features, still they indicate certain dominating attitudes.

Integration is not often so complete that all contradictory elements are eliminated. We rather find in the same culture curious breaks in the attitudes of different individuals, and, in the case of varying situations, even in the behavior of the same individual.

The lack of necessary correlations between various aspects of culture may be illustrated by the cultural significance of a truly scientific study of the heavenly bodies by the Babylonians, Maya and by Europeans during the Middle Ages. For us the necessary correlation of astronomical observations is with physical and chemical phenomena; for them the essential point was their astrological significance, i.e., their relation to the fate of man, an attitude based on the general historically conditioned culture of their times.

These brief remarks may be sufficient to indicate the complexity of the phenomena we are studying, and it seems justifiable to question whether any generalized conclusions may be expected that will be applicable everywhere and that will reduce the data of anthropology to a formula which may be applied to every case, explaining its past and predicting its future.

I believe that it would be idle to entertain such hopes. The phenomena of our science are so individualized, so exposed to outer accident that no set of laws could explain them. It is as in any other science dealing with the actual world surrounding us. For each individual case we can arrive at an understanding of its determination by inner and outer forces, but we cannot explain its individuality in the form of laws. The astronomer reduces the movement of stars to laws, but unless given an unexplainable original arrangement in space, he cannot account for their present location. The biologist may know all the laws of ontogenesis, but he cannot explain by their means the accidental forms they have taken in an individual species, much less those found in an individual.

Physical and biological laws differ in character on account of the complexity of the objects of their study. Biological laws can refer only to biological forms, as geological laws can refer only to the forms of geological formations. The more complex the phenomena, the more special will be the laws expressed by them.

Cultural phenomena are of such complexity that it seems to me doubtful whether valid cultural laws can be found. The causal conditions of cultural happenings lie always in the interaction between individual and society, and no classificatory study of societies will solve this problem. The morphological classification of societies may call to our attention many problems. It will not solve them. In every case it is reducible to the same source, namely, the interaction between individual and society.

It is true that some valid interrelations between general aspects of cultural life may be found, such as between density and size of the population constituting a community and industrial occupations; or solidarity and isolation of a small population and their conservatism. These are interesting as static descriptions of cultural facts. Dynamic processes also may be recognized, such as the tendency of customs to change their significance according to changes in culture. Their meaning can be understood only by a penetrating analysis of the human elements that enter into each case.

In short, the material of anthropology is such that it needs must be a historical science, one of the sciences the interest of which centers in the attempt to understand the individual phenomena rather than in the establishment of general laws which, on account of the complexity of the material, will be necessarily vague and, we might almost say, so self-evident that they are of little help to a real understanding.

The attempt has been made too often to formulate a genetic problem as defined by a term taken from our own civilization, either based on analogy with forms known to us or contrasted to those with which we are familiar. Thus concepts, like war, the idea of immortality, marriage regulations, have been considered as units and general conclusions have been derived from their forms and distributions. It should be recognized that the subordination of all such forms, under a category with which we are familiar on account of our own cultural experience, does not prove the historical or sociological unity of the phenomenon. The ideas of immortality differ so fundamentally in content and significance that they can hardly be treated as a unit and valid conclusions based on their occurrence cannot be drawn without detailed analysis.

A critical investigation rather shows that forms of thought and action which we are inclined to consider as based on human nature are not generally valid, but characteristic of our specific culture. If this were not so, we could not understand why certain aspects of mental life that are characteristic of the Old World should be entirely or almost entirely absent in aboriginal America. An example is the contrast between the fundamental idea of judicial procedure in Africa and America; the emphasis on oath and ordeal as parts of judicial procedure in the Old World, their absence in the New World.

The problems of the relation of the individual to his culture, to the society in which he lives have received too little attention. The standardized anthropological data that inform us of customary behavior give no clue to the reaction of the individual to his culture, nor to an understanding of his influence upon it. Still, here lie the sources of a true interpretation of human behavior. It seems a vain effort to search for sociological laws disregarding what should be called social psychology, namely, the reaction of the individual to culture. They can be no more than empty formulas that can be imbued with life only by taking account of individual behavior in cultural settings.

Society embraces many individuals varying in mental character, partly on account of their biological make-up, partly due to the special social conditions under which they have grown up. Nevertheless, many of them react in similar ways, and there are numerous cases in which we can find a definite impress of culture upon the behavior of the great mass of individuals, expressed by the same mentality. Deviations from such a type result in abnormal social behavior and, although throwing light upon the iron hold of culture upon the average individual, are rather subject-matter for the study of individual psychology than of social psychology.

If we once grasp the meaning of foreign cultures in this manner, we shall also be able to see how many of our lines of behavior that we believe to be founded deep in human nature are actually expressions of our culture and subject to modification with changing culture. Not all our standards are categorically determined by our quality as human beings, but may change with changing circumstances. It is our task to discover among all the varieties of human behavior those that are common to all humanity. By a study of the universality and variety of cultures anthropology may help us to shape the future course of mankind.

SOME PROBLEMS OF METHODOLOGY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES^[158]

I intend to speak on some problems of methodology in the social sciences. You will permit me to confine myself to those aspects with which I have to deal as an anthropologist.

As Simmel justly remarks, the development of the social sciences is largely due to the general tendency of our times to stress the interrelations between the phenomena of nature, and also to the social stresses that have developed in our civilization. We have recognized that the individual can be understood only as part of the society to which he belongs, and that society can be understood only on the basis of the interrelations of the constituent individuals. In earlier times experimental psychology was based on the assumption that the individual exists in vacuo, that mental activities are based essentially on the organically determined functioning of the structure of the individual. This attitude presents the most striking contrast to the more modern view, which requires an understanding of the individual, even the youngest as reacting to its general, particularly its social, environment. The problems of the social sciences are thus easily defined. They relate to forms of reactions of individuals, singly and in groups, to outer stimuli, to their interactions among themselves, and to the social forms produced by these processes.

It is possible to isolate a number of apparently generally valid social tendencies and to study as well the forms in which they express themselves as their psychological basis. Thus co-ordination and subordination of human beings, solidarity of the social groups and antagonism against the outsider, imitation of foreign forms and resistance to outside influences may be studied. The results give rise to a representation which may take the form of a system of forms developed under these stresses, or of a social psychology in which the forms are analyzed on the basis of their psychological motivation.

These attempts are based on the assumption of generally valid social tendencies. There is a question, however, that must be answered before this synthesis is attempted, namely, Which are the social tendencies that are general human characteristics? It is easy to be misled in this respect. Much of our social behavior is automatic. Some may be instinctive, that is, organically determined. Much more is based on conditioned responses, that is, determined by situations so persistently and early impressed upon us that we are no longer aware of the character of the behavior and also ordinarily unaware of the existence or possibility of a different behavior. Thus a critical examination of what is generally valid for all humanity and what is specifically valid for different cultural types comes to be a matter of great concern to students of society. This is one of the problems that induces us to lay particular stress upon the study of cultures that are historically as little as possible related to our own. Their study enables us to determine those tendencies that are common to all mankind and those belonging to specific human societies only.

Another vista opens if we ask ourselves whether the characteristics of human society are even more widely distributed and found also in the animal world. Relations of individuals or of groups of individuals may be looked at from three points of view; relations to the organic and inorganic outer world, relations among members of the same social group, and what, for lack of a better term, may be designated as subjectively conditioned relations. I mean by this term those attitudes that arise gradually by giving values and meanings to activities, as good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly, purposive or causally determined. Relations with the organic and inorganic outer world are established primarily by the obtaining of sustenance, protection against rigor of the climate, and geographical limitations of varied kinds. The relations of members among the same social group include the relation of sexes, habits of forming social groups and their forms. Obviously, these phases of human life are shared by animals. Their food requirements are biologically determined and adjusted to the geographical environment in which they live. Acquisition and storage of food are found among animals as well as in man. The need of protection against climate and enemies is also operative in animal society, and adjustment to these needs in the form of nests or dens is common. No less are the relations between members of social groups present in animal life, for animal societies of varied structure occur. It appears, therefore, that a considerable field of social phenomena does not by any means belong to man alone but is shared by the animal world, and the question must be asked, What traits are common to human and animal societies?

The wide gulf between the social behavior of animal and of man appears only in what we call subjectively conditioned relations. Even here the gulf is not absolute. Parental love, subordination of the individual to social needs, protection of individual or social property may be observed in the behavior of animals, and it does not seem possible to distinguish clearly between the psychological basis of animal and human behavior in regard to these traits. Even what we designate in human society as inventions, and enjoyment of beauty may not be entirely absent in animals.

If we say that animal behavior is largely instinctive, we mean that much of it is organically determined, not learned. Nevertheless, we do know that animals learn and certain patterns of their behavior are expressions of acquired adjustments.

The difference between human culture and animal behavior is based largely on the enormously increased number of learned adjustments, and these depend on what we have called subjectively conditioned relations. It is well to make it clear to ourselves that the objective appearance of the industries of man during the Paleolithic period gives the impression of stability through untold generations. We may infer from this that the subjectively determined attitudes were weak, that the relations to the outer world and the fixed form of social contact swayed life almost completely. The ever-increasing rapidity in the rate of change that prehistoric research and knowledge of human history teach us is an expression of the increasing importance of subjectively conditioned reactions. On account of the great variety of forms that have developed in the course of time under these stresses, the problem of what is generally human and what is characteristic of specific societies stands out as one of the greatest importance and one that requires close study.

We may observe that certain attitudes are universally human, but that in each society they take specific forms, or that even in some societies social pressure may be so strong that the general attitude may seem to be suppressed. A serious danger lies in the methodological error of conceiving the form as indissolubly tied to the attitude. An example is presented by modesty. Certain forms of modesty occur everywhere, but they differ enormously in character. The most frequent forms of modesty relate to behavior toward bodily functions, eating, excreting, and sexual acts. It is hardly possible at the present time to determine what is the generally human basis of modesty and in how far it is a learned characteristic. There is no doubt that specific forms are culturally acquired, but there remains a generally human residue that has not yet been adequately defined. While attempts have been made in this field to separate the specific cultural from the generally human, there are many other fields in which the specific cultural character of the phenomenon is not recognized with sufficient clarity. The method of research must be based on comparisons and analogies of the phenomena in question as they appear in separate cultures.

In these investigations we must guard against a particular danger. We may find objective similarities that give a deceptive impression of identity, while actually we may have been dealing with quite distinctive phenomena. An example of this kind is presented by the widely spread adolescence ceremonies, particularly of boys, which we are apt to associate with the disturbed mental state that we know as accompanying approaching maturity. There is little doubt in my mind that the rites have nothing to do with those mental attitudes that are familiar to us in our civilization. They are rather determined by the increasing participation of the maturing individual in tribal affairs, and that in the most varying ways. It seems quite probable that the origin of these rites must be accounted for by a great variety of social conditions. This also accounts for the great variations of age at which the rites take place, and which are not by any means always coincident with the period of approaching sexual maturity.

Attention has often been called to the danger inherent in the identification of social phenomena that we happen to classify under a single term. Goldenweiser’s investigation of totemism is an example in point. The varieties of forms of maternal descent also show the possibility of the origin of analogous customs from diverse sources.

Thus the problem is often shifted from that of discovering the fundamental psychological causes of the most generalized form of behavior to another one, namely, to that of understanding why diverse psychological drives tend to develop forms that are objectively similar, or why similar forms are liable to be explained by a variety of psychic motivations.

The problems which I have treated here may seem to be rather those of social psychology and of sociology than of anthropology, but they can be solved only by the use of anthropological material.

I will turn to another question that concerns anthropology particularly, although it is not foreign to other social sciences. Sociology, if I understand its history aright, has developed through the growing recognition of the integration of culture. We have had economics, politics, pedagogy, and linguistics as individual branches of knowledge, but we had no scientific viewpoint that treats what is common to all of them, no way of determining the interaction of these varied aspects of culture. Anthropology is still confronted by a similar difficulty. Most anthropological literature gives us information on the economic life, inventions, social structure, religious beliefs, and art of certain tribal groups as though these were so many independent units that do not influence one another. Where fuller information is available we may learn of the historic growth of all these phases of social life, of their inner development, and of outer influences that have contributed to their growth in a particular culture.

Understanding of a foreign culture can be reached only by analysis, and we are compelled to take up its various aspects successively. Furthermore, each element contains clear traces of changes that it has undergone in time. These may be due to inner forces or to the influence of foreign cultures. The full analysis must necessarily include the phases that led to its present form. I do not intend to discuss here the methods by which a partial reconstruction can be made of the history of primitive cultures that belong to people without written records and without reliable oral tradition. I will merely mention that our principal approach has been through prehistoric archaeology, through the study of geographical distribution, and through methods analogous to those so successfully applied in the study of prehistory and history of European languages. As the last-named example shows, the analytic study of historic sequences in culture gives us first of all a history of each aspect separately: of language, of invention, economic life, social system, and religion.

This leaves us with little information regarding the interplay of all these aspects of primitive culture, although it is obvious that relations between them must exist. The unremitting demands made upon the Eskimo hunter occupy his time so fully that no possibility exists for prolonged periods given over to festive occasions; and the necessity of moving about without other than human means of transportation restricts the amount and bulk of household property of the Bushman and Australian. A synthesis of the elements of culture must be undertaken that will give us a deeper insight into its nature.

Certain lines of inquiry have been instituted intended to explain the intricacies of cultural life as dependent upon one single set of conditions. Just as present great stress is being laid upon race as a determinant of culture. Since the ambitious attempt of Gobineau to explain national characteristics as due to racial descent, and since the recognition of the importance of heredity as determining the characteristics of each individual, the belief in hereditary, racial characteristics has gained many adherents. I do not believe that any convincing proof has ever been given of a direct relation between race and culture. It is true enough that human cultures and racial types are so distributed that every area has its own type and its own culture, but this does not prove that the one determines the form of the other. It is equally true that every geographical area has its own geological formation and its own flora and fauna, but the geological strata do not determine directly the species of plants and animals that live there. The error of the modern theories is due largely to a faulty extension of the concept of individual heredity to that of racial heredity. Heredity acts only in lines of direct descent. There is no unity of descent in any of the existing races, and we have no right to assume that the mental characteristics of a few selected family lines are shared by all the members of a race. On the contrary, all large races are so variable and the functional characteristics of the component hereditary lines are so diverse that similar family lines may be found in all races, particularly in all closely related local types, divisions of the same race. Hereditary characteristics when socially significant have a cultural value as in all cases of race discrimination or in those cultural conditions in which a specially gifted line is given the opportunity to impress itself upon the general culture. Any attempt to explain cultural forms on a purely biological basis is doomed to failure.

Another line of inquiry by which the attempt has been made to explain cultural forms is that of studying their relation to geographical conditions. Karl Ritter, Guyot, Ratzel, De la Blache, Jean Brunhes have devoted themselves to this problem. To the anthropologist the attempts that have been made must remain unsatisfactory. There is no doubt that the cultural life of man is in many and important ways limited by geographical conditions. The lack of vegetable products in the Arctic, the absence of stone in extended parts of South America, the dearth of water in the desert, to mention only a few outstanding facts, limit the activities of man in definite ways. On the other hand, it can also be shown that in a given culture the presence of favorable geographical conditions may serve to develop existing cultural traits. This is most clearly evident in modern civilization, in which the utilization of natural resources has been raised to a much higher degree of perfection than in primitive life; but even in our civilization we may see that geographical conditions become operative only when cultural conditions make their utilization important. The discovery of the use of coal, the possibility of reducing low grade ores, the discovery of applications for rare metals, the invention of paper made of wood pulp, all of these have modified our relations to our environment. No wonder that with the more limited uses to which primitive man puts the resources of nature and the greater diversity of his limited inventions, the determining influence of environment upon culture is less than it is in modern life. Environmental conditions may stimulate existing cultural activities, but they have no creative force. The most fertile soil will not create agriculture; navigable water will not create navigation; a plentiful supply of wood will not create wooden buildings; but where agriculture, the art of navigation and architecture exist they will be stimulated and in part moulded by geographical conditions. According to the cultural possessions of peoples, the same environment will influence culture in diverse ways. The western plains of our country influenced the Indian in one way before he had the horse, in another way after he had acquired the horse; and again different is their influence upon the life of the modern agricultural, pastoral, or industrial settler.

Thus it is fruitless to try to explain culture in geographical terms, for we do not know of any culture that has sprung from the immediate response to geographical conditions; we know only of cultures influenced by geographical conditions. Undoubtedly the location of a people, whether placed in easy and many-sided contact with neighbors of varying culture, or whether placed in inaccessible areas, has an important bearing upon the development of its culture; for the response to foreign stimuli, the knowledge of new ways of acting and thinking are important elements in bringing about cultural change. However, the spatial relations give only the opportunity for contact; the processes are cultural and cannot be reduced to geographical terms.

Not very different are the attempts to interpret the development of human culture in terms of economics. The early attempts of Morgan to associate social organization and economic conditions have proved to be fallacious, but more recent attempts to interpret forms of culture as due to purely economic conditions have been equally unsuccessful. The interrelations between economic conditions and culture are undoubtedly closer than those between geographical conditions and culture. One reason is that economic conditions form part of cultural life. But they are not the only determinants, they are rather both determined and determinants. Nothing in economic life will make man an agriculturist or a herder. These arts develop from experience gained in the contact between man and plants and animals that in themselves are only indirectly related to economic conditions. Still less is it possible to explain intricate social forms, religious ideas, or art styles as brought forth by economic needs. Mental attitudes of a different order are determinants in these phases of social life. It is true, economic conditions determine the medium in which these attitudes come into play; their action may be furthered or hindered by favorable or unfavorable economic conditions; but their forms will not be so determined. When economic conditions give no leisure for industrial pursuits, artistic industry cannot flourish; a roving life enforced by economic needs and without means of transportation forbids the accumulation of bulky property. Conversely, leisure and stability of location favor the increase of industrial production and the development of artistic industry, but they do not create the particular kind of industry nor an artistic style.

It is our general experience that attempts to develop general laws of integration of culture do not lead to significant results. We might think that religion and art are closely associated, but comparative study merely shows that art forms may be used to express religious ideas; a result that is of no particular value. In some cases the religious significance of the art product will act as a stimulant toward the development of a higher style; in other cases it will induce slovenly execution, perhaps due to the short-lived usefulness of the object. In still other cases artistic representation of religious ideas may be forbidden. Nevertheless in every specific case the particular kind of integration of art and of religion may be recognized as an important social feature. Similar observations may be made in regard to social organization and industrial activities. There is no significant law that would cover all the phases of their relations. We have simple industries and complex organization, or diverse industries and simple organization; we have occupational divisions in tribes with diverse industries. All that can be claimed is that, with a certain amount of diversification and the necessity of production in large quantities, division of occupations becomes necessary. In short, the danger is ever present that the widest generalizations that may be obtained by the study of cultural integration are commonplaces.

This is due to the character of the social sciences, particularly of anthropology, as historical sciences. It is often claimed as a characteristic of the Geisteswissenschaften that the center of investigation must be the individual case, and that the analysis of the many threads that enter into the individual case are the primary aims of research. The existence of generally valid laws can be ascertained only when all the independent series of happenings show common characteristics, and the validity of the law is always confined to the group that shows these common characteristics. As a matter of fact, this is true not only of the Geisteswissenschaften but of any science that deals with specific forms. The astronomer’s interest lies in the actual distribution, movements, and constitution of stars, not in generalized physical and chemical laws. The geologist is concerned with the strata and movements of the earth’s crust, and may recognize certain laws that are tied up with the recurrence of similar forms. No matter how much he may generalize, his generalizations will cling to certain specific forms. It is the same with the social sciences. The analysis of the phenomena is our prime object. Generalizations will be the more significant the closer we adhere to definite forms. The attempts to reduce all social phenomena to a closed system of laws applicable to every society and explaining its structure and history do not seem a promising undertaking.

These considerations lead us to another methodological problem. The attempts to correlate various aspects of culture imply the necessity of a study of the dynamics of their interrelation. The material at our disposal is the analytic description of cultural forms. This and the practical difficulties of ethnological inquiry bring it about that most of the available material is over-standardized. It is given to us as a list of inventions, institutions, and ideas, but we learn little or nothing about the way in which the individual lives under these institutions and with these inventions and ideas, nor do we know how his activities affect the cultural groups of which he is a member. Information on these points is sorely needed, for the dynamics of social life can be understood only on the basis of the reaction of the individual to the culture in which he lives and of his influence upon society. Many aspects of the problem of change of culture can be interpreted only on this basis.

It should be clearly understood that historical analysis does not help us in the solution of these questions. We may know the history of a language in greatest detail—this knowledge does not explain how the speaker who uses the language in its present form, the only one known to him, will react to its use. Knowledge of the history of Mohammedanism in Africa and its influence in the Sudan does not add a particle to an understanding of the behavior of the Negro who lives in the present culture. The existing conditions may be objectively known to us in their whole historic setting. They affect the individual who lives under them, and he affects them only as they exist today. We may gain objectively a better understanding through a knowledge of their history, but this does not concern the individual who has absorbed all the elements of his culture. If we knew the whole biological, geographical, and cultural setting of a society completely, and if we understood in detail the ways of reacting of the members of the society and of society as a whole to these conditions, we should not need historical knowledge of the origin of the society to understand its behavior. The error of the earlier anthropology consisted in utilizing material of this kind, garnered without critical examination, for historical reconstructions. For these it has no value. An error of modern anthropology, as I see it, lies in the overemphasis on historical reconstruction, the importance of which should not be minimized, as against a penetrating study of the individual under the stress of the culture in which he lives.

THE LIMITATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE METHOD OF ANTHROPOLOGY^[159]

Modern anthropology has discovered the fact that human society has grown and developed everywhere in such a manner that its forms, its opinions and its actions have many fundamental traits in common. This momentous discovery implies that laws exist which govern the development of society, that they are applicable to our society as well as to those of past times and of distant lands; that their knowledge will be a means of understanding the causes furthering and retarding civilization; and that, guided by this knowledge, we may hope to govern our actions so that the greatest benefit to mankind will accrue from them. Since this discovery has been clearly formulated, anthropology has begun to receive that liberal share of public interest which was withheld from it as long as it was believed that it could do no more than record the curious customs and beliefs of strange peoples; or, at best, trace their relationships, and thus elucidate the early migrations of the races of man and the affinities of peoples.

While early investigators concentrated their attention upon this purely historical problem, the tide has now completely turned, so that there are even anthropologists who declare that such investigations belong to the historian, and that anthropological studies must be confined to researches on the laws that govern the growth of society.

A radical change of method has accompanied this change of views. While formerly identities or similarities of culture were considered incontrovertible proof of historical connection, or even of common origin, the new school declines to consider them as such, but interprets them as results of the uniform working of the human mind. The most pronounced adherent of this view in our country is Dr. D. G. Brinton, in Germany the majority of the followers of Bastian, who in this respect go much farther than Bastian himself. Others, while not denying the occurrence of historical connections, regard them as insignificant in results and in theoretical importance as compared to the working of the uniform laws governing the human mind. This is the view of by far the greater number of living anthropologists.

This modern view is founded on the observation that the same ethnical phenomena occur among the most diverse peoples, or, as Bastian says, on the appalling monotony of the fundamental ideas of mankind all over the globe. The metaphysical notions of man may be reduced to a few types which are of universal distribution; the same is the case in regard to the forms of society, laws and inventions. Furthermore, the most intricate and apparently illogical ideas and the most curious and complex customs appear among a few tribes here and there in such a manner that the assumption of a common historical origin is excluded. When studying the culture of any one tribe, more or less close analoga of single traits of such a culture may be found among a great diversity of peoples. Instances of such analoga have been collected to a vast extent by Tylor, Spencer, Bastian, Andree, Post and many others, so that it is not necessary to give here any detailed proof of this fact. The idea of a future life; the one underlying shamanism; inventions such as fire and the bow; certain elementary features of grammatical structure—these will suggest the classes of phenomena to which I refer. It follows from these observations that when we find analogous single traits of culture among distant peoples, the presumption is not that there has been a common historical source, but that they have arisen independently.

But the discovery of these universal ideas is only the beginning of the work of the anthropologist. Scientific inquiry must answer two questions in regard to them: First, what is their origin? and second, how do they assert themselves in various cultures?

The second question is the easier one to answer. The ideas do not exist everywhere in identical form, but they vary. Sufficient material has been accumulated to show that the causes of these variations are either external, that is founded on environment—taking the term environment in its widest sense—or internal, that is founded on psychological conditions. The influence of external and internal factors upon elementary ideas embodies one group of laws governing the growth of culture. Therefore, our endeavors must be directed to showing how such factors modify elementary ideas.

The first method that suggests itself and which has been generally adopted by modern anthropologists is to isolate and classify causes by grouping the variants of certain ethnological phenomena according to external conditions under which the people live, among whom they are found, or to internal causes which influence their minds; or conversely, by grouping these variants according to their similarities. Then the correlated conditions of life may be found.

By this method we begin to recognize even now with imperfect knowledge of the facts what causes may have been at work in shaping the culture of mankind. Friedrich Ratzel and W J McGee have investigated the influence of geographical environment on a broader basis of facts than Ritter and Guyot were able to do at their time. Sociologists have made important studies on the effects of the density of population and of other simple social causes. Thus the influence of external factors upon the growth of society is becoming clearer.

The effects of psychical factors are also being studied in the same manner. Stoll has tried to isolate the phenomena of suggestion and of hypnotism and to study the effects of their presence in the cultures of various peoples. Inquiries into the mutual relations of tribes and peoples begin to show that certain cultural elements are easily assimilated while others are rejected, and the time-worn phrases of the imposition of culture by a more highly civilized people upon one of lower culture that has been conquered are giving way to more thorough views on the subject of exchange of cultural achievements. In all these investigations we are using sound, inductive methods in order to isolate the causes of observed phenomena.

The other question in regard to the universal ideas, namely that of their origin, is much more difficult to treat. Many attempts have been made to discover the causes which have led to the formation of ideas ‘that develop with iron necessity wherever man lives.’ This is the most difficult problem of anthropology and we may expect that it will baffle our attempts for a long time to come. Bastian denies that it is possible to discover the ultimate sources of inventions, ideas, customs and beliefs which are of universal occurrence. They may be indigenous, they may be imported, they may have arisen from a variety of sources, but they are there. The human mind is so formed that it invents them spontaneously or accepts them whenever they are offered to it. This is the much misunderstood elementary idea of Bastian.

To a certain extent the clear enunciation of the elementary idea gives us the psychological reason for its existence. To exemplify: the fact that the land of the shadows is so often placed in the west suggests the endeavor to localize it at the place where the sun and the stars vanish. The mere statement that primitive man considers animals as gifted with all the qualities of man shows that the analogy between many of the qualities of animals and of human beings has led to the generalization that all the qualities of animals are human. In other cases the causes are not so self-evident. Thus the question why all languages distinguish between the self, the person addressed and the person spoken of, and why most languages do not carry out this sharp, logical distinction in the plural is difficult to answer. The principle when carried out consistently requires that in the plural there should be a distinction between the ‘we’ expressing the self and the person addressed and the ‘we’ expressing the self and the person spoken of, which distinction is found in comparatively few languages only. The lesser liability to misunderstandings in the plural explains this phenomenon partly but hardly adequately. Still more obscure is the psychological basis in other cases, for instance, in that of widely spread marriage customs. Proof of the difficulty of this problem is the multitude of hypotheses that have been invented to explain it in all its varied phases.

In treating this, the most difficult problem of anthropology, the point of view is taken that if an ethnological phenomenon has developed independently in a number of places its development has been the same everywhere; or, expressed in a different form, that the same ethnological phenomena are always due to the same causes. This leads to the still wider generalization that the sameness of ethnological phenomena found in diverse regions is proof that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. It is obvious that if different historical developments could lead to the same results, that then this generalization would not be tenable. Their existence would present to us an entirely different problem, namely, how it is that the developments of culture so often lead to the same results. It must, therefore, be clearly understood that anthropological research which compares similar cultural phenomena from various parts of the world, in order to discover the uniform history of their development, makes the assumption that the same ethnological phenomenon has everywhere developed in the same manner. Here lies the flaw in the argument of the new method, for no such proof can be given. Even the most cursory review shows that the same phenomena may develop in a multitude of ways.

I will give a few examples: Primitive tribes are almost universally divided into clans which have totems. There can be no doubt that this form of social organization has arisen independently over and over again. The conclusion is certainly justified that the psychical conditions of man favor the existence of a totemic organization of society, but it does not follow that totemic society has developed everywhere in the same manner. Dr. Washington Matthews believes that the totems of the Navaho have arisen by association of independent clans. Capt. Bourke assumes that similar occurrences gave origin to the Apache clans, and Dr. Fewkes has reached the same conclusion in regard to some of the Pueblo tribes. On the other hand, we have proof that clans may originate by division. I have shown that such events took place among the Indians of the North Pacific coast. Association of small tribes, on the one hand, and disintegration of increasing tribes, on the other, has led to results which appear identical to all intents and purposes.

To give another example: Recent investigations have shown that geometrical designs in primitive art have originated sometimes from naturalistic forms which were gradually conventionalized, sometimes from technical motives, that in still other cases they were geometrical by origin or that they were derived from symbols. From all these sources the same forms have developed. Out of designs representing diverse objects grew in course of time frets, meanders, crosses and the like. Therefore the frequent occurrence of these forms proves neither common origin nor that they have always developed according to the same psychical laws. On the contrary, the identical result may have been reached on four different lines of development and from an infinite number of starting points.

Another example may not be amiss: The use of masks is found among a great number of peoples. The origin of the custom of wearing masks is by no means clear in all cases, but a few typical forms of their use may easily be distinguished. They are used for deceiving spirits as to the identity of the wearer. The spirit of a disease who intends to attack the person does not recognize him when he wears a mask, and the mask serves in this manner as a protection. In other cases the mask represents a spirit which is personified by the wearer, who in this shape frightens away other hostile spirits. Still other masks are commemorative. The wearer personifies a deceased person whose memory is to be recalled. Masks are also used in theatrical performances illustrating mythological incidents.^[160]

These few data suffice to show that the same ethnical phenomenon may develop from different sources. The simpler the observed fact, the more likely it is that it may have developed from one source here, from another there.

Thus we recognize that the fundamental assumption which is so often made by modern anthropologists cannot be accepted as true in all cases. We cannot say that the occurrence of the same phenomenon is always due to the same causes, and that thus it is proved that the human mind obeys the same laws everywhere. We must demand that the causes from which it developed be investigated and that comparisons be restricted to those phenomena which have been proved to be effects of the same causes. We must insist that this investigation be made a preliminary to all extended comparative studies. In researches on tribal societies those which have developed through association must be treated separately from those that have developed through disintegration. Geometrical designs which have arisen from conventionalized representations of natural objects must be treated separately from those that have arisen from technical motives. In short, before extended comparisons are made, the comparability of the material must be proved.

The comparative studies of which I am speaking here attempt to explain customs and ideas of remarkable similarity which are found here and there. But they pursue also the more ambitious scheme of discovering the laws and the history of the evolution of human society. The fact that many fundamental features of culture are universal, or at least occur in many isolated places, interpreted by the assumption that the same features must always have developed from the same causes, leads to the conclusion that there is one grand system according to which mankind has developed everywhere; that all the occurring variations are no more than minor details in this grand uniform evolution. It is clear that this theory has for its logical basis the assumption that the same phenomena are always due to the same causes. To give an instance: We find many types of structure of family. It can be proved that paternal families have often developed from maternal ones. Therefore, it is said, all paternal families have developed from maternal ones. If we do not make the assumption that the same phenomena have everywhere developed from the same causes, then we may just as well conclude that paternal families have in some cases arisen from maternal institutions; in other cases in other ways. To give another example: Many conceptions of the future life have evidently developed from dreams and hallucinations. Consequently, it is said, all notions of this character have had the same origin. This is also true only if no other causes could possibly lead to the same ideas.

We have seen that the facts do not favor at all the assumption of which we are speaking; that they much rather point in the opposite direction. Therefore we must also consider all the ingenious attempts at constructions of a grand system of the evolution of society as of very doubtful value, unless at the same time proof is given that the same phenomena must always have had the same origin. Until this is done, the presumption is always in favor of a variety of courses which historical growth may have taken.

It will be well to restate at this place one of the principal aims of anthropological research. We agreed that certain laws exist which govern the growth of human culture, and it is our endeavor to discover these laws. The object of our investigation is to find the processes by which certain stages of culture have developed. The customs and beliefs themselves are not the ultimate objects of research. We desire to learn the reasons why such customs and beliefs exist—in other words, we wish to discover the history of their development. The method which is at present most frequently applied in investigations of this character compares the variations under which the customs or beliefs occur and endeavors to find the common psychological cause that underlies all of them. I have stated that this method is open to a very fundamental objection.

We have another method, which in many respects is much safer. A detailed study of customs in their relation to the total culture of the tribe practicing them, in connection with an investigation of their geographical distribution among neighboring tribes, affords us almost always a means of determining with considerable accuracy the historical causes that led to the formation of the customs in question and to the psychological processes that were at work in their development. The results of inquiries conducted by this method may be three-fold. They may reveal the environmental conditions which have created or modified cultural elements; they may clear up psychological factors which are at work in shaping the culture; or they may bring before our eyes the effects that historical connections have had upon the growth of the culture.

We have in this method a means of reconstructing the history of the growth of ideas with much greater accuracy than the generalizations of the comparative method will permit. The latter must always proceed from a hypothetical mode of development, the probability of which may be weighed more or less accurately by means of observed data. But so far I have not yet seen any extended attempt to prove the correctness of a theory by testing it at the hand of developments with whose histories we are familiar. Forcing phenomena into the strait-jacket of a theory is opposed to the inductive process by which the actual relations of definite phenomena may be derived. The latter is no other than the much ridiculed historical method. Its way of proceeding is, of course, no longer that of former times when slight similarities of culture were considered proofs of relationships, but it duly recognizes the results obtained by comparative studies. Its application is based, first of all, on a well-defined, small geographical territory, and its comparisons are not extended beyond the limits of the cultural area that forms the basis of the study. Only when definite results have been obtained in regard to this area is it permissible to extend the horizon beyond its limits, but the greatest care must be taken not to proceed too hastily in this, as otherwise the fundamental proposition which I formulated before might be overlooked, viz: that when we find an analogy of single traits of culture among distant peoples the presumption is not that there has been a common historical source, but that they have arisen independently. Therefore the investigation must always demand continuity of distribution as one of the essential conditions for proving historical connection, and the assumption of lost connecting links must be applied most sparingly. This clear distinction between the new and the old historical methods is still often overlooked by the passionate defenders of the comparative method. They do not appreciate the difference between the indiscriminate use of similarities of culture for proving historical connection and the careful and slow detailed study of local phenomena. We no longer believe that the slight similarities between the cultures of Central America and of eastern Asia are sufficient and satisfactory proof of a historical connection. On the other hand, no unbiased observer will deny that there are very strong reasons for believing that a limited number of cultural elements found in Alaska and in Siberia have a common origin. The similarities of inventions, customs and beliefs, together with the continuity of their distribution through a limited area, are satisfactory proof of the correctness of this opinion. But it is not possible to extend this area safely beyond the limits of Columbia River in America and northern Japan in Asia. This method of anthropological research is represented in our country by F. W. Putnam and Otis T. Mason; in England by E. B. Tylor; in Germany by Friedrich Ratzel and his followers.

It seems necessary to say a word here in regard to an objection to my arguments that will be raised by investigators who claim that similarity of geographical environment is a sufficient cause for similarity of culture, that is to say, that, for instance, the geographical conditions of the plains of the Mississippi basin necessitate the development of a certain culture. Horatio Hale would even go so far as to believe that similarity of form of language may be due to environmental causes. Environment has a certain limited effect upon the culture of man, but I do not see how the view that it is the primary moulder of culture can be supported by any facts. A hasty review of the tribes and peoples of our globe shows that people most diverse in culture and language live under the same geographical conditions, as proof of which may be mentioned the ethnography of East Africa or of New Guinea. In both these regions we find a great diversity of customs in small areas. But much more important is this: Not one observed fact can be brought forward in support of this hypothesis which cannot be much better explained by the well known facts of diffusion of culture; for archæology as well as ethnography teach us that intercourse between neighboring tribes has always existed and has extended over enormous areas. In the Old World the products of the Baltic found their way to the Mediterranean and the works of art of the eastern Mediterranean reached Sweden. In America the shells of the ocean found their way into the innermost parts of the continent and the obsidians of the West were carried to Ohio. Intermarriages, war, slavery, trade, have been so many sources of constant introduction of foreign cultural elements, so that an assimilation of culture must have taken place over continuous areas. Therefore, it seems to my mind that where among neighboring tribes an immediate influence of environment cannot be shown to exist, the presumption must always be in favor of historical connection. There has been a time of isolation during which the principal traits of diverse cultures developed according to the previous culture and the environment of the tribes. But the stages of culture representing this period have been covered with so much that is new and that is due to contact with foreign tribes that they cannot be discovered without the most painstaking isolation of foreign elements.

The immediate results of the historical method are, therefore, histories of the cultures of diverse tribes which have been the subject of study. I fully agree with those anthropologists who claim that this is not the ultimate aim of our science, because the general laws, although implied in such a description, cannot be clearly formulated nor their relative value appreciated without a thorough comparison of the manner in which they become manifest in different cultures. But I insist that the application of this method is the indispensable condition of sound progress. The psychological problem is contained in the results of the historical inquiry. When we have cleared up the history of a single culture and understand the effects of environment and the psychological conditions that are reflected in it we have made a step forward, as we can then investigate in how far the same causes or other causes were at work in the development of other cultures. Thus by comparing histories of growth general laws may be found. This method is much safer than the comparative method, as it is usually practiced, because instead of a hypothesis on the mode of development actual history forms the basis of our deductions.

The historical inquiry must be considered the critical test that science must require before admitting facts as evidence. By its means the comparability of the collected material must be tested, and uniformity of processes must be demanded as proof of comparability. Furthermore, when historical connection between two phenomena can be proved, they must not be admitted as independent evidence.

In a few cases the immediate results of this method are of so wide a scope that they rank with the best results that can be attained by comparative studies. Some phenomena have so immense a distribution that the discovery of their occurrence over very large continuous areas proves at once that certain phases of the culture in these areas have sprung from one source. Thus are illuminated vast portions of the early history of mankind. When Edward S. Morse showed that certain methods of arrow release are peculiar to whole continents it became clear at once that the common practice found over a vast area must have had a common origin. When the Polynesians employ a method of fire making consisting in rubbing a stick along a groove, while almost all other peoples use the fire drill, it shows their art of fire making has a single origin. When we notice that the ordeal is found all over Africa in certain peculiar forms, while in those parts of the inhabited world that are remote from Africa it is found not at all or in rudimentary forms only, it shows that the idea as practiced in Africa had one single origin.

The great and important function of the historical method of anthropology is thus seen to lie in its ability to discover the processes which in definite cases led to the development of certain customs. If anthropology desires to establish the laws governing the growth of culture it must not confine itself to comparing the results of the growth alone, but whenever such is feasible it must compare the processes of growth, and these can be discovered by means of studies of the cultures of small geographical areas.

Thus we have seen that the comparative method can hope to reach the results for which it is striving only when it bases its investigations on the historical results of researches which are devoted to laying clear the complex relations of each individual culture. The comparative method and the historical method, if I may use these terms, have been struggling for supremacy for a long time, but we may hope that each will soon find its appropriate place and function. The historical method has reached a sounder basis by abandoning the misleading principle of assuming connections wherever similarities of culture were found. The comparative method, notwithstanding all that has been said and written in its praise, has been remarkably barren of definite results, and I believe it will not become fruitful until we renounce the vain endeavor to construct a uniform systematic history of the evolution of culture, and until we begin to make our comparisons on the broader and sounder basis which I ventured to outline. Up to this time we have too much revelled in more or less ingenious vagaries. The solid work is still all before us.

THE METHODS OF ETHNOLOGY^[161]

During the last ten years the methods of inquiry into the historical development of civilization have undergone remarkable changes. During the second half of the last century evolutionary thought held almost complete sway and investigators like Spencer, Morgan, Tylor, Lubbock, to mention only a few, were under the spell of the idea of a general, uniform evolution of culture in which all parts of mankind participated. The newer development goes back in part to the influence of Ratzel whose geographical training impressed him with the importance of diffusion and migration. The problem of diffusion was taken up in detail particularly in America, but was applied in a much wider sense by Foy and Graebner, and finally seized upon in a still wider application by Elliot Smith and Rivers, so that at the present time, at least among certain groups of investigators in England and also in Germany, ethnological research is based on the concept of migration and dissemination rather than upon that of evolution.

A critical study of these two directions of inquiry shows that each is founded on the application of one fundamental hypothesis. The evolutionary point of view presupposes that the course of historical changes in the cultural life of mankind follows definite laws which are applicable everywhere, and which bring it about that cultural development is, in its main lines, the same among all races and all peoples. This idea is clearly expressed by Tylor in the introductory pages of his classic work “Primitive Culture.” As soon as we admit that the hypothesis of a uniform evolution has to be proved before it can be accepted, the whole structure loses its foundation. It is true that there are indications of parallelism of development in different parts of the world, and that similar customs are found in the most diverse and widely separated parts of the globe. The occurrence of these similarities which are distributed so irregularly that they cannot readily be explained on the basis of diffusion, is one of the foundations of the evolutionary hypothesis, as it was the foundation of Bastian’s psychologizing treatment of cultural phenomena. On the other hand, it may be recognized that the hypothesis implies the thought that our modern Western European civilization represents the highest cultural development towards which all other more primitive cultural types tend, and that, therefore, retrospectively, we construct an orthogenetic development towards our own modern civilization. It is clear that if we admit that there may be different ultimate and co-existing types of civilization, the hypothesis of one single general line of development cannot be maintained.

Opposed to these assumptions is the modern tendency to deny the existence of a general evolutionary scheme which would represent the history of the cultural development the world over. The hypothesis that there are inner causes which bring about similarities of development in remote parts of the globe is rejected and in its place it is assumed that identity of development in two different parts of the globe must always be due to migration and diffusion. On this basis historical contact is demanded for enormously large areas. The theory demands a high degree of stability of cultural traits such as is apparently observed in many primitive tribes, and it is furthermore based on the supposed coexistence of a number of diverse and mutually independent cultural traits which reappear in the same combinations in distant parts of the world. In this sense, modern investigation takes up anew Gerland’s theory of the persistence of a number of cultural traits which were developed in one center and carried by man in his migrations from continent to continent.

It seems to me that if the hypothetical foundations of these two extreme forms of ethnological research are broadly stated as I have tried to do here, it is at once clear that the correctness of the assumptions has not been demonstrated, but that arbitrarily the one or the other has been selected for the purpose of obtaining a consistent picture of cultural development. These methods are essentially forms of classification of the static phenomena of culture according to two distinct principles, and interpretations of these classifications as of historical significance, without, however, any attempt to prove that this interpretation is justifiable. To give an example: It is observed that in most parts of the world there are resemblances between decorative forms that are representative and others that are more or less geometrical. According to the evolutionary point of view, their development is explained by arranging the decorative forms in such order that the most representative forms are placed at the beginning, the others being so placed that they show a gradual transition from representative to purely conventional geometric forms. This order is then interpreted as meaning that geometric designs originated from representative designs which gradually degenerated. This method has been pursued, for instance, by Putnam, Stolpe, Balfour, and Haddon, and by Verworn and, in his earlier writings, by von den Steinen. While I do not mean to deny that this development may have occurred, it would be rash to generalize and to claim that in every case the classification which has been made according to a definite principle represents an historical development. The order might as well be reversed and we might begin with a simple geometric element which, by the addition of new traits, might be developed into a representative design, and we might claim that this order represents an historical sequence. Both of these possibilities were considered by Holmes as early as 1885. Neither the one nor the other theory can be established without actual historical proof.

The opposite attitude, namely, origin through diffusion, is exhibited in Heinrich Schurtz’s attempt to connect the decorative art of North-west America with that of Melanesia. The simple fact that in these areas elements occur that may be interpreted as eyes, induced him to assume that both have a common origin, without allowing for the possibility that the pattern in the two areas—each of which shows highly distinctive characteristics—may have developed from independent sources. In this attempt Schurtz followed Ratzel who had already tried to establish connections between Melanesia and Northwest America on the basis of other cultural features.

While ethnographical research based on these two fundamental hypotheses seems to characterize the general tendency of European thought, a different method is at present pursued by the majority of American anthropologists. The difference between the two directions of study may perhaps best be summarized by the statement that American scholars are primarily interested in the dynamic phenomena of cultural change, and try to elucidate cultural history by the application of the results of their studies; and that they relegate the solution of the ultimate question of the relative importance of parallelism of cultural development in distant areas, as against worldwide diffusion, and stability of cultural traits over long periods to a future time when the actual conditions of cultural change are better known. The American ethnological methods are analogous to those of European, particularly of Scandinavian, archaeology, and of the researches into the prehistoric period of the eastern Mediterranean area.

It may seem to the distant observer that American students are engaged in a mass of detailed investigations without much bearing upon the solution of the ultimate problems of a philosophic history of human civilization. I think this interpretation of the American attitude would be unjust because the ultimate questions are as near to our hearts as they are to those of other scholars, only we do not hope to be able to solve an intricate historical problem by a formula.

First of all, the whole problem of cultural history appears to us as an historical problem. In order to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things are, but how they have come to be. In the domain of ethnology, where, for most parts of the world, no historical facts are available except those that may be revealed by archaeological study, all evidence of change can be inferred only by indirect methods. Their character is represented in the researches of students of comparative philology. The method is based on the comparison of static phenomena combined with the study of their distribution. What can be done by this method is well illustrated by Lowie’s investigations of the military societies of the Plains Indians, or by the modern investigation of American mythology. It is, of course, true that we can never hope to obtain incontrovertible data relating to the chronological sequence of events, but certain general broad outlines can be ascertained with a high degree of probability, even of certainty.

As soon as these methods are applied, primitive society loses the appearance of absolute stability which is conveyed to the student who sees a certain people only at a certain given time. All cultural forms rather appear in a constant state of flux and subject to fundamental modifications.

It is intelligible why in our studies the problem of dissemination should take a prominent position. It is much easier to prove dissemination than to follow up developments due to inner forces, and the data for such a study are obtained with much greater difficulty. They may, however, be observed in every phenomenon of acculturation in which foreign elements are remodeled according to the patterns prevalent in their new environment, and they may be found in the peculiar local developments of widely spread ideas and activities. The reason why the study of inner development has not been taken up energetically, is not due to the fact that from a theoretical point of view it is unimportant, it is rather due to the inherent methodological difficulties. It may perhaps be recognized that in recent years attention has been drawn to this problem, as is manifested by the investigations on the processes of acculturation and of the interdependence of cultural activities which are attracting the attention of many investigators.

The further pursuit of these inquiries emphasizes the importance of a feature which is common to all historic phenomena. While in natural sciences we are accustomed to consider a given number of causes and to study their effects, in historical happenings we are compelled to consider every phenomenon not only as effect but also as cause. This is true even in the particular application of the laws of physical nature, as, for instance, in the study of astronomy in which the position of certain heavenly bodies at a given moment may be considered as the effect of gravitation, while, at the same time, their particular arrangement in space determines future changes. This relation appears much more clearly in the history of human civilization. To give an example: a surplus of food supply is liable to bring about an increase of population and an increase of leisure, which gives opportunity for occupations that are not absolutely necessary for the needs of every day life. In turn the increase of population and of leisure, which may be applied to new inventions, give rise to a greater food supply and to a further increase in the amount of leisure, so that a cumulative effect results.

Similar considerations may be made in regard to the important problem of the relation of the individual to society, a problem that has to be considered whenever we study the dynamic conditions of change. The activities of the individual are determined to a great extent by his social environment, but in turn his own activities influence the society in which he lives, and may bring about modifications in its form. Obviously, this problem is one of the most important ones to be taken up in a study of cultural changes. It is also beginning to attract the attention of students who are no longer satisfied with the systematic enumeration of standardized beliefs and customs of a tribe, but who begin to be interested in the question of the way in which the individual reacts to his whole social environment, and to the differences of opinion and of mode of action that occur in primitive society and which are the causes of far-reaching changes.

In short then, the method which we try to develop is based on a study of the dynamic changes in society that may be observed at the present time. We refrain from the attempt to solve the fundamental problem of the general development of civilization until we have been able to unravel the processes that are going on under our eyes.

Certain general conclusions may be drawn from this study even now. First of all, the history of human civilization does not appear to us as determined entirely by psychological necessity that leads to a uniform evolution the world over. We rather see that each cultural group has its own unique history, dependent partly upon the peculiar inner development of the social group, and partly upon the foreign influences to which it has been subjected. There have been processes of gradual differentiation as well as processes of leveling down differences between neighboring cultural centers, but it would be quite impossible to understand, on the basis of a single evolutionary scheme, what happened to any particular people. An example of the contrast between the two points of view is clearly indicated by a comparison of the treatment of Zuñi civilization by Frank Hamilton Cushing on the one hand, on the other by modern students, particularly by Elsie Clews Parsons, Leslie Spier, Ruth Benedict and Ruth Bunzel. Cushing believed that it was possible to explain Zuñi culture entirely on the basis of the reaction of the Zuñi mind to its geographical environment, and that the whole of Zuñi culture could be explained as the development which followed necessarily from the position in which the people were placed. Cushing’s keen insight into the Indian mind and his thorough knowledge of the most intimate life of the people gave great plausibility to his interpretations. On the other hand, Dr. Parsons’ studies prove conclusively the deep influence which Spanish ideas have had upon Zuñi culture, and, together with Professor Kroeber’s investigations, give us one of the best examples of acculturation that have come to our notice. The psychological explanation is entirely misleading, notwithstanding its plausibility, and the historical study shows us an entirely different picture, in which the unique combination of ancient traits (which in themselves are undoubtedly complex) and of European influences, have brought about the present condition.

Studies of the dynamics of primitive life also show that an assumption of long-continued stability such as is demanded by Elliot Smith is without any foundation in fact. Wherever primitive conditions have been studied in detail, they can be proved to be in a state of flux, and it would seem that there is a close parallelism between the history of language and the history of general cultural development. Periods of stability are followed by periods of rapid change. It is exceedingly improbable that any customs of primitive people should be preserved unchanged for thousands of years. Furthermore, the phenomena of acculturation prove that a transfer of customs from one region into another without concomitant changes due to acculturation, are very rare. It is, therefore, very unlikely that ancient Mediterranean customs could be found at the present time practically unchanged in different parts of the globe, as Elliot Smith’s theory demands.

While on the whole the unique historical character of cultural growth in each area stands out as a salient element in the history of cultural development, we may recognize at the same time that certain typical parallelisms do occur. We are, however, not so much inclined to look for these similarities in detailed customs as rather in certain dynamic conditions which are due to social or psychological causes that are liable to lead to similar results. The example of the relation between food supply and population to which I referred before may serve as an example. Another type of example is presented in those cases in which a certain problem confronting man may be solved by a limited number of methods only. When we find, for instance, marriage as a universal institution, it may be recognized that marriage is possible only between a number of men and a number of women; a number of men and one woman; a number of women and one man; or one man and one woman. As a matter of fact, all these forms are found the world over and it is, therefore, not surprising that analogous forms should have been adopted quite independently in different parts of the world, and, considering both the general economic conditions of mankind and the character of sexual instinct in the higher animals, it also does not seem surprising that group marriage and polyandrous marriages should be comparatively speaking rare. Similar considerations may also be made in regard to the philosophical views held by mankind. In short, if we look for laws, the laws relate to the effects of physiological, psychological, and social conditions, not to sequences of cultural achievement.

In some cases a regular sequence of these may accompany the development of the psychological or social status. This is illustrated by the sequence of industrial inventions in the Old World and in America, which I consider as independent. A period of food gathering and of the use of stone was followed by the invention of agriculture, of pottery and finally of the use of metals. Obviously, this order is based on the increased amount of time given by mankind to the use of natural products, of tools and utensils, and to the variations that developed with it. Although in this case parallelism seems to exist on the two continents, it would be futile to try to follow out the order in detail. As a matter of fact, it does not apply to other inventions. The domestication of animals, which, in the Old World must have been an early achievement, was very late in the New World, where domesticated animals, except the dog, hardly existed at all at the time of discovery. A slight beginning had been made in Peru with the taming of the llama, and birds were kept in various parts of the continent.

A similar consideration may be made in regard to the development of rationalism. It seems to be one of the fundamental characteristics of the development of mankind that activities which have developed unconsciously are gradually made the subject of reasoning. We may observe this process everywhere. It appears, perhaps, most clearly in the history of science which has gradually extended the scope of its inquiry over an ever-widening field and which has raised into consciousness human activities that are automatically performed in the life of the individual and of society.

I have not heretofore referred to another aspect of modern ethnology which is connected with the growth of psycho-analysis. Sigmund Freud has attempted to show that primitive thought is in many respects analogous to those forms of individual psychic activity which he has explored by his psycho-analytical methods. In many respects his attempts are similar to the interpretation of mythology by symbolists like Stucken. Rivers has taken hold of Freud’s suggestion as well as of the interpretations of Graebner and Elliot Smith, and we find, therefore, in his new writings a peculiar disconnected application of psychologizing attitude and the application of the theory of ancient transmission.

While I believe some of the ideas underlying Freud’s psycho-analytic studies may be fruitfully applied to ethnological problems, it does not seem to me that the one-sided exploitation of this method will advance our understanding of the development of human society. It is certainly true that the influence of impressions received during the first few years of life have been entirely underestimated and that the social behavior of man depends to a great extent upon the earliest habits which are established before the time when connected memory begins, and that many so-called racial or hereditary traits are to be considered rather as a result of early exposure to certain forms of social conditions. Most of these habits do not rise into consciousness and are, therefore, broken with difficulty only. Much of the difference in the behavior of adult male and female may go back to this cause. If, however, we try to apply the whole theory of the influence of suppressed desires to the activities of man living under different social forms, I think we extend beyond their legitimate limits the inferences that may be drawn from the observation of normal and abnormal individual psychology. Many other factors are of greater importance. To give an example: The phenomena of language show clearly that conditions quite different from those to which psycho-analysts direct their attention determine the mental behavior of man. The general concepts underlying language are entirely unknown to most people. They do not rise into consciousness until the scientific study of grammar begins. Nevertheless, the categories of language compel us to see the world arranged in certain definite conceptual groups which, on account of our lack of knowledge of linguistic processes, are taken as objective categories and which, therefore, impose themselves upon the form of our thoughts. It is not known what the origin of these categories may be, but it seems quite certain that they have nothing to do with the phenomena which are the subject of psycho-analytic study.

The applicability of the psycho-analytic theory of symbolism is also open to the greatest doubt. We should remember that symbolic interpretation has occupied a prominent position in the philosophy of all times. It is present not only in primitive life, but the history of philosophy and of theology abounds in examples of a high development of symbolism, the type of which depends upon the general mental attitude of the philosopher who develops it. The theologians who interpreted the Bible on the basis of religious symbolism were no less certain of the correctness of their views, than the psycho-analysts are of their interpretations of thought and conduct based on sexual symbolism. The results of a symbolic interpretation depend primarily upon the subjective attitude of the investigator who arranges phenomena according to his leading concept. In order to prove the applicability of the symbolism of psycho-analysis, it would be necessary to show that a symbolic interpretation from other entirely different points of view would not be equally plausible, and that explanations that leave out symbolic significance or reduce it to a minimum, would not be adequate.

While, therefore, we may welcome the application of every advance in the method of psychological investigation, we cannot accept as an advance in ethnological method the crude transfer of a novel, one-sided method of psychological investigation of the individual to social phenomena the origin of which can be shown to be historically determined and to be subject to influences that are not at all comparable to those that control the psychology of the individual.

EVOLUTION OR DIFFUSION?^[162]

In a paper on Tewa kin, clan, and moiety by Elsie Clews Parsons^[163] and another on the social organizations of the tribes of the North Pacific Coast by myself^[164] the distribution of clans and related social phenomena in two regions has been discussed. The inference must be drawn that in geographically extreme areas in these districts distinctive types of social organization occur, the intermediate regions showing transitional types.

This phenomenon is by no means confined to these regions or to social organization, but may be observed to a greater or less extent in all other cultural phenomena and in other parts of the world. The component elements of folktales common to two areas decrease in number the greater the distance, and while in intermediate regions we may find much that reminds us of the extreme types, that are being compared, the extremes themselves may be fundamentally distinct. This condition may be observed in the folklore of the North Pacific Coast when comparing Alaskan tribes with those of Oregon, or the Coast tribes with those of the interior, or when comparing the folklore of the Plateau tribes with that of the Pueblos. The same condition may be observed also in material culture and is found when we compare the tribes of the Plateaus with those of the Plains, or the Eskimo and the Northwest Coast tribes. It may be seen in the distribution of art styles. All this does not preclude the possibility of a unified stylistic pattern originating in the intermediate areas, and it does not imply necessarily a greater purity of the extreme, and a more mixed character of the intermediate forms.

It does, however, prove, in our opinion, that all special cultural forms are the products of historical growth, and that unless considerations entirely foreign to the observed distribution are introduced, no proof can be given that one of the extreme forms is more ancient than the other.

If we adopt the theory that matrilineal clans must be older than patrilineal or bilateral organization, we might be tempted to say that in the southern part of British Columbia and the eastern Pueblo district the clan organization has broken down, the more so the farther we move away from the centers in which this type of organization is still flourishing. The distribution itself does not lead to such an assumption. On the contrary, we see merely the intermingling of two distinctive types, the combination of which leads to new forms and new ideas.

The importance of diffusion has been so firmly established by the investigation of American material culture, ceremonies, art and mythology, as well as by the study of African cultural forms and by that of the prehistory of Europe, that we cannot deny its existence in the development of any local cultural type. It has not only been proved objectively by comparative studies, but the field student has also ample evidence showing the ways in which diffusion works. We know of cases in which a single individual has introduced a whole set of important myths. As an instance we might mention the tale of the origin of the Raven which is found in one single tribe on the northern part of Vancouver Island. It is still known to a few individuals that this tale was introduced by a man who had for many years been a slave in Alaska, and who was ultimately ransomed by his friends. Nevertheless, the myth is regularly told as part of the Raven cycle, although it is repudiated by all the neighboring tribes. Another example is the introduction of the Badger clan in Laguna by a Zuñi woman. Her husband, also from Zuñi, introduced to Laguna Zuñi kachina rituals and Zuñi stories which are now flourishing in their new environment. In earlier times the carrying away of women after raids, adoptions of foreigners, and other similar phenomena must have been a fruitful source of introduction of foreign ideas, the more so the smaller in numbers the tribe, and the more efficacious the influence of a single person. The introduction of new ideas must by no means be considered as resulting purely mechanically in additions to the cultural pattern, but also as an important stimulus to new inner developments.

A purely inductive study of ethnic phenomena leads to the conclusion that mixed cultural types that are geographically or historically intermediate between two extremes, give evidence of diffusion.

The question then arises as to how the extreme and most divergent forms must be considered. In our particular examples, the North Pacific clan organization with a small number of clans and many local groups possessing definite privileges must be compared with the bilateral organization of the south with numerous independent local units practically without privileges. In the Southwest, the matrilineal clan organization of the western Pueblos, almost entirely devoid of moieties, must be compared with the paternal moieties of the east without clans.

If it can be shown inductively that one of these types is the older one and that there are inherent dynamic conditions that tend to bring about transition from the older condition to the newer one, and that these conditions work in such a way that their potency decreases from the center to the periphery, the theory of a uniform development might be maintained. We require, therefore, in this case proof of three historical conditions: First, proof that one type is older than the other; second, that the younger type develops necessarily from the older one—in other words, that the dynamic conditions for a change in this direction are ever present; and thirdly that these conditions act with increasing intensity from the periphery towards the center.

As against these hypotheses the theory of diffusion takes the two distinctive types as given, and accepts as proven the presence of diffusion.

It should be borne in mind that the assumption of the antiquity of one particular type is essentially due to a classification in which the form that appears as the simplest from any one point of view is considered at the same time as historically the oldest. Nobody has felt the weakness of this assumption more clearly than Tylor who tried to support the general thesis by the study of survivals which indicate the character of earlier developmental stages. It cannot be claimed that a systematic attempt has ever been made to substantiate the theory of a definite evolutionary sequence on the basis of the study of survivals. All that can be said is that fragments of earlier historical stages are bound to exist and are found. We can, perhaps, best illustrate this by the example of matrilineal institutions. Whenever these are connected with the holding of social prerogatives in the hands of men, and where, nevertheless, the family in our sense is an important social feature, there is a constant cause of conflict because the matrilineal descent requires that property or position must pass out of the family into another family group. This entails an element of weakness, because the allegiance of the individual is divided between two conflicting groups. It is, therefore, plausible, that, in this case, matrilineal society contains elements of instability, and may, owing to inner dynamic conditions, develop into a patrilineal or bilateral system. Then we may find examples of the survival of matrilineal forms in patrilineal society. This, however, does not by any means prove that everywhere matrilineal society must have been the earlier form. It merely proves the instability of matrilineal society of a certain type.

To us the assumption of a unique form of cultural beginnings does not seem plausible. Setting aside the question of what form of social life may have existed at the time when our ancestors first developed speech and the use of tools, we find everywhere phenomena that point to very early differentiations from which even the simplest cultural forms developed. Language and art are perhaps the best proof of this contention. Even if we should accept with Trombetti the unity of the origin of human speech, or with Marty, the conscious invention of language for the purpose of communication, we must concede that in the early development of language fundamental categories of grammar and lexicography have arisen that cannot be reduced to common principles, excepting those general forms that are determined logically or by the fact that language is a means of communication. The same is true in regard to stylistic forms of art which cannot be reduced to a single source. What is true of language and art, which do not become a subject of retrospective reasoning, seems to us no less true of those aspects of life which are subject to remodeling by rationalizing processes. To this class belong the forms of social organization. The theory of the priority of maternal organization implies necessarily that the original economic and social unit consisted of a first generation of mothers and their brothers and of a second generation of children, and that the fathers of the children and the grandchildren were only temporary visitors to the family unit. It implies, therefore, a cohesion of this group long after the children had become independent adults, and a group consciousness in which no relations between father and children existed. The continued cohesion between mother and adult children is, to say the least, doubtful. According to the usual division of labor, such an organization rigidly carried through in a sparsely occupied territory and among a tribe dependent on hunting, would have doomed to extinction all groups without brothers and adult sons. While groups of this type may result from nonmarital sexual relations, we do not know of any cases where relations between men and women remain temporary throughout life, but marital relations continuing over a more or less extended period are the norm, and the social group includes the father.^[165] It is, therefore, to us equally likely that primary units existed which consisted of families in our sense, and that adult children separated from the original groups and formed new family groups. Unless it can be proved that in an overwhelming number of cases the bilateral family retains evidences of a prior maternal stage, we have no right to assume that all the ancient types of groups of kin would conform to the same pattern, without any regard to the economic and other conditions that determine the size and character of the social unit.

It seems to us that the uniformity of early patterns cannot be proved. By analogy to the phenomena recently mentioned, we may rather infer diversity of early patterns.

We believe, therefore, that the great mass of observed facts bears out the theory that in the regions under consideration two fundamentally distinct forms came into contact, that the one is not derived from the other, but that through the mingling of the two forms new types arose in the intermediate districts.

REVIEW OF GRAEBNER, “METHODE DER ETHNOLOGIE”^[166]

Mr. Graebner is one of the serious and broad-minded students who are not satisfied with an accumulation of facts, but who are carrying through their own investigations according to a well-considered plan, and who try to contribute to science in a certain well-defined line of research and look for results that have a definite bearing upon the whole field of their inquiries. In the present book Mr. Graebner gives us a statement of the method that he is following and which will interest all ethnologists. If, however, Mr. Graebner calls his method the method of ethnology, we cannot agree with him. He must not expect that all ethnologists will limit the field of their researches in the way set forth in these “Methods.” It appears from Mr. Foy’s, the editor’s, preface, that in this respect his own views and Graebner’s coincide; in fact, in outlining the program of the whole series, Mr. Foy excludes expressly “alle geschichtsphilosophischen und völkerpsychologischen Betrachtungen” (p. v). This exclusion of the psychological field seems to me to give to the whole “Method” a mechanical character, and to be the essential cause of differences of opinion between the author and myself which I shall briefly characterize in the following pages.

The book is divided into three chapters: critique of sources, interpretation of data and combination of data. I do not quite share Mr. Graebner’s unfavorable view in regard to the lack of critique of all writers on ethnological subjects, and in regard to the feeling that we are confronted by an appalling lack of all method; a feeling that, according to the author, the historian experiences who takes up the study of ethnology. It is true that much that has been written is based on inadequate evidence, and that particularly the so-called “comparative” ethnologists do not weigh their evidence well. Spencer, Frazer and Westermarck, not to mention others, have been criticized again and again by experts from this point of view. However, the whole modern method of ethnology, at least as developed in the United States, is a continuous struggle for gaining a critical viewpoint in regard to data collected by earlier authors who did not understand the objects and problems of modern anthropology. We believe that a safe interpretation of the older observed data must be based on careful archeological, ethnological and somatological field work. While I see a perfectly sound tendency in these studies, sounder than Mr. Graebner believes it to be, I still recognize the usefulness of the first chapter in which the author expresses the experiences of the historian in a form interesting and important to the unexperienced ethnologist. On the whole, the training given nowadays to students in universities and museums will impress upon them the safeguards on which the author insists, and which are too often forgotten by the amateur.

Our interest centers in the following two chapters: Interpretation and Combination of Data. The fundamental difference of opinion between the author and myself appears in the chapter on Interpretation. He defines interpretation as the determination of the purpose, meaning and significance of ethnic phenomena (p. 55); but he does not devote a single word to the question how these are to be discovered. He accepts, without any attempt at a methodical investigation, myths as interpretations of celestial phenomena (pp. 56, 57), as, for instance, the Jona theme as signifying the temporary disappearance of a heavenly body; a conclusion which I for one am not by any means ready to accept. At this place the complete omission of all psychological considerations makes itself keenly felt. The significance of an ethnic phenomenon is not by any means identical with its distribution in space and time, and with its more or less regular associations with other ethnic phenomena. Its historical source may perhaps be determined by geographic-historical considerations, but its gradual development and ethnic significance in a psychological sense, as it occurs in each area, must be studied by means of psychological investigations in which the different interpretations and attitudes of the people themselves, toward the phenomenon present the principal material. In the case of mythology, by means of which Mr. Graebner exemplifies his considerations, I should demand first of all an investigation of the question: why, and in how far are tales explanatory or related to ritualistic forms? The very existence of these questions and the possibility of approaching them has been entirely overlooked by the author. On the whole, he seems to assume that the psychological interpretation is self-evident in most cases, but that by migrations and by dissemination combinations may be brought about which may lead to misinterpretations in so far as several groups that were originally distinct may be considered as one by origin (p. 64).

Related to this disregard of the psychological problem is Mr. Graebner’s claim, that no objective criteria have been found that can prove relations other than those due to historical connection; that the evolutionary investigation can do no more than answer the question: “How can I best and with the least number of contradictions imagine the course of human development in accordance with my general, fundamental views?” (p. 82). Against this method he claims that transfer has been proved to exist everywhere, while the presence of parallel development cannot be proved by objective criteria (p. 107). I think, we must say, that certain types of changes due to internal forces have been observed everywhere, and that, therefore, the question of similar or dissimilar evolution through internal forces does not rest on a more hypothetical basis than changes due to transmission.

Another fundamental difference of opinion between Graebner and myself relates to the phenomenon of “convergence,” and here again the conclusions reached by the author seem to me due to a narrow, mechanical definition of the term “convergence.” He ascribes this idea to Thilenius and Ehrenreich. I may, perhaps, point out that I have raised the essential point in an essay “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology,”^[167] and again in my essay “The Mind of Primitive Man.”^[168] Graebner’s first error in regard to this phenomenon is one which he shares with almost all other students of anthropogeography. I quote from p. 94: “Gleichartige Erscheinungen können auch durch Angleichung ursprünglich verschiedener Erscheinungen unter dem Einfluss gleicher Natur- oder Kulturumgebung zustande kommen. Da eine spezifisch gleiche Kulturumgebung ausser durch Kulturverwandtschaft aber ihrerseits nur als durch gleiche Naturumgebung hervorgerufen denkbar ist, bleibt diese allein als primäre Ursache von Konvergenzen übrig.” This presupposes an existence of a mankind without any individual differences, or an absolute identity of the psychical conditions that are affected by geographical environment. As soon as the cultural basis is distinct, even the most absolute identity of environment cannot be assumed to lead to the same result. It is a curious view that is so often held, that when we speak of the influence of environment upon the human mind, only the environment need be considered. Is not in every problem of interaction the character of each of the interacting phenomena of equal importance? In the particular case here discussed we may say that our whole experience does not exhibit a single case in which two distinct tribal groups are so much alike in their mental characteristics that, when they are subjected to the same modifying causes, these mental differences could be disregarded, and it is an entirely hypothetical and improbable assumption that in earlier periods absolute mental uniformity as expressed in culture ever existed in distinct groups.

The idea that in cases of independent origin of the same cultural phenomena identity of environment can give the only satisfactory explanation is deeply rooted in Mr. Graebner’s mind, for he repeats, on p. 112: “Gleiche Kulturbedingungen bei selbständiger Entstehung können ihrerseits wieder nur auf die Naturbedingungen zurückgehen.”

The phenomenon of convergence is next considered as non-existent for two reasons: a theoretical one and an empirical one. The former is based on the consideration that convergence can occur only under identical cultural conditions, and that, therefore, heterogeneous cultural conditions such as are found in cultures not genetically related, cannot possibly lead to the same result. The empirical argument is based on a consideration of conditions found in Europe (pp. 113-114). A consideration of the same data leads me to results diametrically opposed to those observed by Graebner. The very fact that in modern civilization a new idea is frequently discovered independently by several individuals seems to me a proof of parallel lines of thought; and Mr. Graebner’s statement that the thought of only one man becomes socially active, i.e., is adopted, seems to me to demonstrate just the reverse of what he claims. For an idea expressed at a time that is not ready for it remains barren of results; pronounced at a period when many think on similar, convergent lines, it is fruitful and may revolutionize human thought. May I point out that Graebner’s own book may be taken as an example of this tendency? For it expresses the same fundamental idea that is so potent at present in all lines of biological research, that of the permanence of unit characters. An idea may become effective whenever the ethnic conditions are favorable to its adoption and development, no matter what the historical origin of the present general status may have been.

The questions of independent origin and convergence cannot be entirely separated, and some of the previous remarks may perhaps rather relate to the probability of independent origin which Graebner practically denies. One aspect of the theory of convergence relates more specifically to the question whether two ethnic groups that are genetically distinct, which are confronted by the same problem, will solve it in a similar manner. The theory of convergence claims that similar ways may (not must) be found. This would be a truism, if there existed only one way of solving this problem, and convergence is obviously the more probable the fewer the possible solutions of the problem. This, however, is not what we ordinarily understand by convergence. Ethnic phenomena are, on the whole, exceedingly complex, and apparently similar ones may embrace quite distinct complexes of ideas and may be due to distinct causes. To take a definite example: Taboos may be arbitrarily forbidden actions; they may be actions that are not performed because they are not customary, or those that are not performed because associated with religious or other concepts. Thus a trail may be forbidden because the owner does not allow trespassing, or it may have a sacred character, or it may be feared. All ethnic units, separated from their cultural setting, are artificial units, and we always omit in our comparisons certain groups of distinctive characteristics—no matter whether the comparisons are made from the point of view of cultural transmission, or of evolutionary series. Thus, in our case, the forbidden action stands out clearly as a unit, that of the taboo, although its psychological sources are entirely distinct—and this is one of the essential features of convergence. Nobody claims that convergence means an absolute identity of phenomena derived from heterogeneous sources; but we think we have ample proof to show that the most diverse ethnic phenomena, when subject to similar psychical conditions, or when referring to similar activities, will give similar results (not equal results), which we group naturally under the same category when viewed not from an historical standpoint, but from that of psychology, technology or other similar standpoints. The problem of convergence lies in the correct interpretation of the significance of ethnic phenomena that are apparently identical, but in many respects distinct; and also in the tendency of distinct phenomena to become psychologically similar, due to the shifting of some of their concomitant elements—as when the reason for a taboo shifts from the ground of religious avoidance to that of mere custom.

In the foregoing remarks I have tried to show why Mr. Graebner’s negative critique of parallelism and convergence does not seem to me conclusive. Just as little convincing appear to me the arguments on which he bases his method of determining cultural relationships. Here, also, the fundamental error seems to me based on the complete disregard of mental phenomena. Mr. Graebner lays down the following methodological principle: “Two or more phenomena are comparable, and the one may be used to interpret the other, if it can be shown that they belong, if not to the same local cultural complex, at least to the same cultural group” (p. 64). It seems to me an entirely arbitrary hypothesis to assume a priori the homogeneity of similar phenomena belonging to the same cultural group. Mr. Graebner explains his standpoint by the example of the discussion of agricultural rites in Frazer’s “Golden Bough,” and accepts the discussion on account of the homogeneity of the cultural groups of Europe and western Asia, from which the examples have been taken. This part of Frazer’s deductions seems to me just as unmethodical as the others which are based on examples taken from a wider series of cultural groups. The concepts of comparability and homogeneity, as I understand them, have to deal not only with historical relationship, but to a much higher degree with psychological similarity, for only as elements of the mental make-up of society do ideas or actions become potent and determining elements of further development. To give an instance of what I mean: If the aged are killed by one people for economic reasons, by another to insure them a happy future life, then the two customs are not comparable, even if they should have their origin in the same historical sources. Graebner’s idea appears clearly in the following statement: “If in different parts of the earth peoples are found that are closely related in their ways of thinking and feeling, evidently the same question arises, that has been treated before in regard to cultural forms, viz., whether these similarities are not based on community of descent or on early cultural contact” (p. 112). Such a view can be maintained only if we disregard the action of inner forces, that may lead two people of like cultural possessions after their separation to entirely distinct conditions. In short it is based on the view of a very limited action of internal forces.

Through the restriction of comparability and interpretation exclusively to the phenomena of transmission and original unity—a definition that I do not find given, but that is everywhere implied—and by the hypothesis, that ethnic phenomena that occur in two areas due to transmission or to original unity will always remain comparable and can be mutually interpreted, the author is necessarily led to his conclusions, which are merely a restatement of his incomplete definitions and of his hypothesis; for, if we call comparable exclusively phenomena that are historically related, naturally then there can be no other kind of comparability, and psychological ethnology does not exist.

Exactly the same criticism must be made against the sense in which the term “causal connection” is used. Here also the psychological connections are intentionally excluded, because the psychological argument, its method and validity, are not congenial to the author; and “causal connection” is simply identified with historical connection. On this basis only can I understand the statement that in literary tradition causal relations are directly given (p. 73). This is not meant to refer to modern historical science, but to the literary sources of Asia and Europe. Is not literary tradition on the whole proof of the misunderstanding of causal relations, rather than the reverse—provided we understand under causal nexus not the simple mechanical aspect of transmission, but the complex social conditions that admit transmission and that bring about internal changes.

A correlate of the assumption that ethnic elements that are genetically related remain always comparable plays a most important part in Mr. Graebner’s method of proving cultural relations: “Whenever a phenomenon appears as an inorganic element in its ethnic surroundings, its presence is due to transmission.” This might be true if primitive cultures were homogeneous units; which, however, is not the case. The more we learn of primitive culture, the clearer it becomes that not only is the participation of each individual in the culture of his tribe of an individual character, or determined by the social grouping of the tribe, but that also in the same mind the most heterogeneous complexes of habits, thoughts and actions may lie side by side, without ever coming into conflict. The opinion expressed by Mr. Graebner seems to me so little true, that I rather incline toward the reverse opinion. It seems at least plausible, although it has never been proved, that on the whole only such ethnic features are transmitted that in some way conform to the character of some feature of the life of the people that adopt them. The criterion in question seems to me, therefore, not acceptable, until it can be sustained by observed facts.

This idea is probably related to the author’s conception of the transmission of cultural elements in the form of complexes. He says: “A migration of single cultural elements, also of tales, over wide distances, without the spread of other cultural possessions at the same time, may be designated without hesitation as a ‘kulturgeschichtliches’ nonsense” (p. 116). I should like to see the proof of this daring proposition. It is, of course, not the question whether one cultural group owes much or little to another one, but whether cultural elements are necessarily transmitted in groups. To take only a few examples. Is not the gradual introduction of cultivated plants and domesticated animals a case in kind? Does not the irregular distribution of tales show that they are carried from tribe to tribe without relation to other transmissions? It seems to me that the more the problem of cultural contact is studied, the more amazing becomes the independence of far-reaching influences in one respect, from the spread of other cultural possessions. The example of language used by Mr. Graebner (p. 111) presents facts entirely different from those which he imagines. Thus we find phonetic influences without corresponding lexical or morphological influences and vice versa. The serious defect of the “Method” is here clearly seen. Instead of operating with the purely mechanical concepts of transmission and conservatism relating to the most ancient types of culture, we must investigate the innumerable cases of transmission that happen under our very eyes and try to understand how transmission is brought about and what are the conditions that favor the grouping of certain new elements in an older culture.

I think I have shown that not only the psychological and evolutionary standpoints contain hypothetical elements that must be subject to a rigid criticism, but that the restriction of all ethnic happenings to mechanical transmission or preservation contains many hypotheses the validity of which is open to most serious doubt. Mr. Graebner has failed in his attempt, because he does not apply the same rigorous standard to his own favorite views, that he applies so successfully to a discussion of the evolutionary theory (pp. 77 et seq.) Here he is at his best, and his criticism of the many hypothetical assumptions contained in all theories of the evolution of culture are well taken and should be read and minded by all students of ethnology. In a few cases, particularly in the discussion of correlated ethnic phenomena, he does not seem to do quite justice to the force of the argument, because he prefers spatial interpretation of these correlations to a sequential one; but both are certainly equally possible and probable.

It is, however, curious to note that, notwithstanding his uncompromising negative position, the author tacitly re-introduces some of the most fundamental concepts of cultural evolution. Thus he speaks on p. 63 of the “well-known tendency of degeneration and disintegration, according to which myths become legends and fairy-tales, significant institutions formal traits”; and again on p. 152: “Undoubtedly sound points of view are, that the beginnings of every phenomenon must be simple and in a way grow naturally, and that the development must be intelligible by the most simple psychological process.” My criticism of these assumptions would be much more far-reaching than that of Mr. Graebner.

Thus it seems to me that the methods of Mr. Graebner are subject to the same strictures as those of the other schools, and the “Ferninterpretation,” “Kulturkreise” and “Kulturschichten” must be considered as no less hypothetical than the “Stufenbau” of Breysig or the sequences of Lamprecht.

In the development of science it is, however, useful to carry through a hypothesis to its limits and to investigate the ultimate conclusions to which it will lead. From this point of view pages 104-151, in which the principle of conservatism and transmission are strained to the utmost with an absolute disregard of all other possibilities, will be helpful for a gradual clearing of our views. Perhaps even more helpful is the actual application that Mr. Graebner has made of these principles in his chosen field of Melanesia in its relations to the whole rest of the world.

My own opinions in regard to the value of a single evolutionary series, the importance of very old cultural elements that survive in many parts of the world, and the occurrence of transmission over enormous areas coincide to a great extent with those of Mr. Graebner. I also hold the opinion that the discovery of a really new idea is much more difficult than is generally admitted, and therefore a manifold spontaneous origin quite unlikely. Nevertheless, I cannot acknowledge that he has given us any safe criterion that would enable us to tell that in any given case transmission can be definitely proved against independent origin, and I am just as skeptical as before reading his book in regard to the advisability of accepting Ratzel’s “Ferninterpretation.” I rather repeat once more the warning that I have given again and again for twenty years: rather to be overcautious in admitting transmission as the cause of analogies in cases of the sporadic occurrence of similar phenomena, than to operate with the concept of lost links of a chain of cultural intercourse.

That through the exaggerated application of a single principle, when several must be admitted as acting, new viewpoints may be discovered—that much I willingly admit, and I enjoy to follow the daring generalizations to which Mr. Graebner is led. I may, however, be pardoned if I cannot accept this as the method of ethnology. I see safe progress essentially in the patient unraveling of the mental processes that may be observed among primitive and civilized peoples, and that express the actual conditions under which cultural forms develop. When we begin to know these, we shall also be able to proceed gradually to the more difficult problems of the cultural relations between isolated areas that exhibit peculiar similarities.

HISTORY AND SCIENCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY: A REPLY^[169]

It was interesting to me to read Dr. Kroeber’s analysis not only of my scientific work but also of my personality.^[170] I may perhaps misinterpret both. Nevertheless I wish to express my complete disagreement with his interpretation. It is quite true that as a young man I devoted my time to the study of physics and geography. In 1887 I tried to define my position in regard to these subjects,^[171] giving expression to my consciousness of the diversity of their fundamental viewpoints. I aligned myself clearly with those who are motivated by the affective appeal of a phenomenon that impresses us as a unit, although its elements may be irreducible to a common cause. In other words the problem that attracted me primarily was the intelligent understanding of a complex phenomenon. When from geography my interest was directed to ethnology, the same interest prevailed. To understand a phenomenon we have to know not only what it is, but also how it came into being. Our problem is historical. Dr. Kroeber suggests as

I confess that to me this does not give any sense. We have descriptions of culture more or less adequately understood. These are valuable material. They yield, if well done, most illuminating material in regard to the working of the culture, by which I mean the life of the individual as controlled by culture and the effect of the individual upon culture. But they are not history. For historical interpretation the descriptive material has to be handled in other ways. For this work archaeological, biological, linguistic, and ethnographic comparisons furnish more or less adequate leads.

If Dr. Kroeber calls my first piece of ethnological work, “The Central Eskimo,” (written in 1885), historical, I fail to understand him. It is a description based on intimate knowledge of the daily life of the people, with bad gaps, due to my ignorance of problems. The only historical points made are based on a comparison of the tribe studied with other Eskimo tribes and with the Indians of the Mackenzie basin, on a careful study of evidences of earlier habitations of the Eskimo, and a guess as to the course of their early migrations. The rest is description pure and simple. If in later writings I did not stress geographical conditions the reason must be sought in an exaggerated belief in the importance of geographical determinants with which I started on my expedition in 1883-84 and the thorough disillusionment in regard to their significance as creative elements in cultural life. I shall always continue to consider them as relevant in limiting and modifying existing cultures, but it so happened that in my later field work this question has never come to the fore as particularly enlightening.

May I remind Dr. Kroeber of one little incident that illustrates my interest in the sociological or psychological interpretation of cultures, an aspect that is now-a-days called by the new term functionalism. I had asked him to collect Arapaho traditions without regard to the “true” forms of ancient tales and customs, the discovery of which dominated, at that time, the ideas of many ethnologists. The result was a collection of stories some of which were extremely gross. This excited the wrath of Alice C. Fletcher who wanted to know only the ideal Indian, and hated what she called the “stable boy” manners of an inferior social group. Since she tried to discredit Dr. Kroeber’s work on this basis I wrote a little article on “The Ethnological Significance of Esoteric Doctrines”^[172] in which I tried to show the “functional” interrelation between exoteric and esoteric knowledge, and emphasized the necessity of knowing the habits of thought of the common people as expressed in story telling. Similar considerations regarding the inner structural relations between various cultural phenomena are contained in a contribution on the secret societies of the Kwakiutl in the Anniversary Volume for Adolf Bastian (1896) and from another angle in a discussion of the same subject in the reports on the Fourteenth Congress of Americanists, 1904 (published 1906); the latter more from the angle of the establishment of a pattern of cultural behavior. These I should call contributions to cultural history dealing with the ways in which the whole of an indigenous culture in its setting among neighboring cultures builds up its own fabric.

In an attempt to follow the history of a culture back into earlier times we are confined to indirect evidence and it is our duty to use it with greatest circumspection. Dr. Kroeber accuses me of not being interested in these questions. I do not know, then, why I should have used years of my life in trying to unravel the historical development of social organization, secret societies, the spread of art forms, of folktales on the Northwest Coast of America. I think that such a detailed study is worth while not only for its own sake but because it illuminates also general aspects of the history of mankind, for here we see the totality of cultural phenomena reflected in the individual culture. Is it that painstaking work of this kind does not seem to Dr. Kroeber worth while, but that it requires the flight of an unbridled imagination to have his approval? I cannot understand in any other way his praise of a public lecture which I gave as President of the New York Academy of Sciences on “The History of the American Race,”^[173] guarding my statement, however, at the very beginning by saying that I should give my fancy freer rein than I ordinarily permit myself. When as early as 1895^[174] I made a careful analysis of the then available material, showing the relations of Northwest Coast mythologies among themselves and to other American and Old World areas, the object was to demonstrate historical relations. Perhaps I did not go far enough for Dr. Kroeber in establishing the center of origin of each element; but there I balk, because I believe this can be done in exceptional cases only. The fact that a phenomenon has its highest development at a certain point does not prove that it had its origin there. The belief in this, which I consider an unjustified assumption, and a more light-hearted weighing of evidence differentiates our methods. In a conversation Dr. Kroeber admitted that I wanted a high degree of probability for a conclusion, while he was satisfied with much less. That is an Epicurean position, not that of a modern scientist.

I am sorry that I cannot acknowledge as fair the summary of my work. It is true that I have done little archaeological work myself. My own only contribution was the establishment of the sequence of archaic, Teotihuacan type and Aztec in Mexico, I believe—except Dall’s work on the Aleutian Islands—the first stratigraphic work in North America; but in the plan of the Jesup Expedition I assigned an important part to archaeological work which in the careful hands of Harlan I. Smith gave important results on Fraser River showing the invasion of inland culture. If farther north it did not give any results the cause was not lack of interest but failure to find significant material. I may also claim to have kept before our scientific public year after year the necessity of careful archaeological work in northern Alaska, which has unfortunately been deviated from its main object by sensational artistic finds, although the main problem remains that of the occurrence or non-occurrence of pre-Eskimo types in the Bering Sea region.

In regard to linguistic work Dr. Kroeber’s criticism does not seem to me to hit the mark at all. Relationship of languages is a powerful means of historical research. It remains equally valid, whether we assume purely genetic relationship or whether we ask ourselves whether by contact languages may exert far-reaching mutual influences. This question is important for the interpretation of relationships but has absolutely nothing to do with an historic or non-historic approach. If it can be settled we shall know how to interpret historically the linguistic data. That I am here as elsewhere opposed to ill substantiated guesses, goes without saying, but has nothing to do with the case. Here also a 40% possibility is no satisfactory proof for me.

Dr. Kroeber’s strictures on my book on “Primitive Art” are entirely unintelligible to me. He says style has not been treated. There is a whole chapter on style and one specific one on Northwest Coast style intended as a sample of treatment of the problem. Maybe Dr. Kroeber has an idea of his own of what style is, as he has an idea of his own of what history is. He reproaches me for not having written on the history of Northwest Coast style. Unfortunately there are no data that throw any light on its development. It appears in full bloom and disappears under the onslaught of White contact. The slight local differences and the relation between the arts of the Eskimo and other neighboring tribes do not seem to me to throw any light on the subject. Does he want me to write its history without such data? Am I to repeat the wild guesses of Schurtz?

I have never made the statement that history is legitimate and proper, but historical reconstruction unsound and sterile. As a matter of fact, all the history of primitive people that any ethnologist has ever developed is reconstruction and cannot be anything else. There is, however, a difference between cautious reconstruction based on ascertained data and sweeping generalizations that must remain more or less fanciful. I do recognize quite a number of very fundamental general historical problems in regard to which I have more or less decided opinions, such as the distribution and relationships of races, the relation of America to the Old World, that of Africa to Asia, and so on. It depends entirely upon the evidence how strongly I hold to these opinions. It has happened to me too often that a suggestion cautiously made has been repeated by others as though I had pronounced it as a set dogma.

Now as to the use of statistics in ethnology as a tool of research. Being somewhat familiar with the difficulties of statistical work I do not believe that it is a safe guide in ethnological inquiry. I believe I was the first after Tylor’s discussion of 1888^[175] to try it on the field of mythology, and if at that time the correlation method had been as much abused as it is now, and since I had not yet understood its dangers, I might have established some nice coefficients of correlation for elements of mythology.^[176] The data of ethnology are not of such character that they can be expressed by mathematical formulas so that results are obtained which are in any way more convincing than those secured by simpler ways of numerical comparison. Behind these always loom the unanswered questions in how far the materials enumerated are really comparable, or in other types of problems, like Tylor’s, in how far they are independent.

I regret that Dr. Kroeber also does not see the aim I have in mind in physical anthropology. We talk all the time glibly of races and nobody can give us a definite answer to the question what constitutes a race. The first stimulus to my active participation in work in physical anthropology was due to G. Stanley Hall and to the atmosphere of Clark University, and had little to do with racial questions, rather with the influences of environment upon growth. When I turned to the consideration of racial problems I was shocked by the formalism of the work. Nobody had tried to answer the questions why certain measurements were taken, why they were considered significant, whether they were subject to outer influences; and my interest has since remained centered on these problems which must be solved before the data of physical anthropology can be used for the elucidation of historical problems. Equally important seems to me the question in how far the functioning of the body is dependent upon bodily structure. The answer to this problem is the necessary basis for any intelligent discussion of racial physiology and psychology.

Dr. Kroeber refers to the discussion on anthropological methods at the time of the Americanist Congress held in New York in 1928. He does not quite completely tell the story of this incident. The discussion had centered entirely around Kulturkreise and other attempts at historical reconstruction. Finally I said that I had all through my life tried to understand the culture I was studying as the result of historical growth, but since the whole discussion had been devoted to historic sequences I had to arise as the advocatus diaboli and defend those who sought to understand the processes by which historical changes came about, knowledge of which is needed to give a deeper meaning to the picture. This was no new position of mine, as I think has become sufficiently clear from the preceding. It is true enough that in general the participants in the discussion did not want to have anything to do with the investigation of “processes” which seemed anathema but preferred to stick to their pet theories.

Robert Redfield, in the introduction to “Social Anthropology of North American Tribes” (Chicago, 1937) takes up Kroeber’s argument. He accepts Kroeber’s definition of history: “a historian is he who confines himself to ‘functional’ ethnographic accounts—definitions of unique societies, without comparison, but each presented as an organic whole composed of functionally interrelated and integrating organs.” Others would call this a good ethnographic description and I do not believe that any historian would accept this as history. Redfield’s criticism of my work is summed up in the words: “he does not write histories, and he does not prepare scientific systems.” The latter point agrees fully with my views. The history of any selected group or of mankind—history taken both in the ordinary sense of the term and in the abnormal sense given to it by Kroeber—including biological, linguistic and general cultural phenomena, is so complex that all systems that can be devised will be subjective and unrevealing. Classification, which is a necessary element of every system, is misleading, as I tried to illustrate in the discussion of totemism (pp. 316 et seq. of this volume). What Kroeber and Redfield call the “history” of a tribe appears to me as a penetrating analysis of a unique culture describing its form, the dynamic reactions of the individual to the culture and of the culture to the individual. It obtains its full meaning only when the historical development of the present form is known. Unfortunately we are compelled to reconstruct the historical development of primitive cultures from very inadequate material, but part of it at least can be inferred. I think that Radcliffe-Brown’s indifference to these reconstructions is based on an overestimation of the certainty of documentary history, particularly of history of culture. Some of our results obtained by means of archaeological or distributional studies are no less certain than those obtained by documentary history. The difficulties encountered in the attempts to give an adequate picture of the dynamism and integration of culture have often been pointed out. To introduce the analogy between an organism and society—one of the early speculative theories—as Radcliffe-Brown seems to do in his emphasis on function—is no help.

Redfield objects to what he calls ambiguity of methodological approach, that is to say “a reluctance to classify the historical and social anthropological (‘scientific’) approach.” This seems to indicate that he considers these approaches as mutually exclusive. An unbiased investigator will utilize every method that can be devised to contribute to the solution of his problem. In my opinion a system of social anthropology and “laws” of cultural development as rigid as those of physics are supposed to be are unattainable in the present stage of our knowledge, and more important than this: on account of the uniqueness of cultural phenomena and their complexity nothing will ever be found that deserves the name of a law excepting those psychological, biologically determined characteristics which are common to all cultures and appear in a multitude of forms according to the particular culture in which they manifest themselves.

The confusion in regard to my own point of view is perhaps largely due to the fact that in my early teaching, when I fought “the old speculative theories,” as I am now fighting the new speculative theories based on the imposition of categories derived from our culture upon foreign cultures, I stressed the necessity of the study of acculturation (1895, see p. 425) and dissemination. When I thought that these historical methods were firmly established I began to stress, about 1910, the problems of cultural dynamics, of integration of culture and of the interaction between individual and society.

Absolute systems of phenomena as complex as those of culture are impossible. They will always be reflections of our own culture.

THE ETHNOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF ESOTERIC DOCTRINES^[177]

In recent years the study of the esoteric teachings found in American tribal society has become one of the favorite subjects of research of ethnologists. The symbolic significance of complex rites, and the philosophic views of nature which they reveal, have come to us as a surprise, suggesting a higher development of Indian culture than is ordinarily assumed. The study of these doctrines conveys the impression that the reasoning of the Indian is profound, his emotions deep, his ethical ideals of a high quality.

It seems worth while to consider briefly the conditions under which these esoteric doctrines may have developed. Two theories regarding their origin suggest themselves: the esoteric doctrine may have originated among a select social group, and the exoteric doctrine may represent that part of it that leaked out and became known, or was made known, to the rest of the community; but it may also be that the esoteric doctrine developed among a select social group from the current beliefs of the tribe.

It seems to my mind that the second theory is the more plausible one, principally for the reason that the contents of the teachings among different tribes are often alike, no matter how much the systems may differ. Almost all the rituals that are the outward expression of esoteric doctrines appear to be old, and many have probably existed, almost in their present form for considerable periods. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence of frequent borrowing and changes of sacred rites. Examples are the Sun Dance, various forms of the Ghost Dance, and the Mescal ceremonials. Miss Fletcher has called attention to the fact that Pawnee rituals have influenced the development of the rites of many tribes of the Plains. I might add similar examples from the Pacific coast, such as the transmission of Kwakiutl rituals to neighboring tribes.

There is also abundant proof showing that the mythologies of all tribes, notwithstanding the sacredness of some of the myths, contain many elements that can be proved to be of foreign origin. It seems very likely that similar conditions prevailed in the past, because the wide distribution of many cultural features can be understood only as the effect of a long-continued process of borrowing and dissemination.

Since the esoteric teaching refers to the rituals, and is often largely based on mythological concepts, it seems plausible that it should have developed as a more or less conscious attempt at systematizing the heterogeneous mass of beliefs and practices current in the tribe. Whenever a certain ceremonial came to be placed in charge of a small social group, were they chiefs, priests or simply men of influence, the conditions must have been favorable for the development of an esoteric doctrine. The thoughts of the men charged with the keeping of sacred rites must have dwelt on philosophical or religious questions, and it would seem natural that in the succession of generations the sacredness of the rite grew, and its philosophical significance increased in depth.

If this view is correct, the esoteric doctrine must have been evolved on the foundation of the general culture of the tribe, and must be considered as a secondary phenomenon the character of which depends upon the exoteric doctrine.

The opposite view, that the exoteric doctrine is a degenerate form of esoteric teaching, does not seem to me equally plausible, because it presupposes a highly complex system of actions and opinions originating spontaneously in a selected group of individuals. It is difficult to conceive how, in tribal society, conditions could have prevailed that would make such a development possible. This theory would seem to presuppose the occurrence of a general decay of culture. There is no reason that compels us to assume that such a decay has taken place, although it may have occurred in exceptional cases. If, on the other hand, we assume that the esoteric doctrine developed from popular beliefs, we do not need to assume any cultural conditions materially different from those found at the present time. It is quite evident that the esoteric doctrine, after it was once established, influenced, in its turn, popular belief, and that, therefore, there is a mutual and probably inextricable interrelation between the two doctrines.

If these considerations are correct, then the esoteric doctrine must, to a great extent, be considered as the product of individual thought. It expresses the reaction of the best minds in the community to the general cultural environment. It is their attempt to systematize the knowledge that underlies the culture of the community. In other words, this doctrine must be treated like any other system of philosophy, and its study has the same aims as the study of the history of philosophy.

Two characteristics of esoteric doctrine are quite striking. The first is that at the bottom of each doctrine there seems to be a certain pattern of thought which is applied to the whole domain of knowledge, and which gives the whole doctrine its essential character. This line of thought depends upon the general character of the culture of the tribe, but nevertheless has a high degree of individuality in each tribe. The theory of the universe seems to be based on its schematic application. The second characteristic is that, notwithstanding this systematization of knowledge, there remain many ideas that are not coordinated with the general system, and that may be quite out of accord with it. In such cases the contradiction between the general scheme and special ideas often escapes entirely the notice of the native philosophers. This phenomenon is quite analogous to the well-known characteristics of philosophic systems which bear the stamp of the thought of their time. The philosopher does not analyze each and every conclusion, but unconsciously adopts much of the current thought of his environment ready-made.

The theories regarding the origin of esoteric doctrine may be proved or disproved by a careful study of its relations to popular beliefs and to esoteric doctrines found among neighboring tribes. It is evident that the material needed for the solution of the problem includes both the esoteric teaching and the popular forms of belief.

What has been said before shows that, to the ethnologist, the problem of the genesis of exotery is of no less importance than that of esotery. However we may consider the origin of the latter, it must be admitted that it is the expression of thought of the exceptional mind. It is not the expression of thought of the masses. Ethnology, however, does not deal with the exceptional man; it deals with the masses, and with the characteristic forms of their thoughts. The extremes of the forms of thought of the most highly developed and of the lowest mind in the community are of interest only as special varieties, and in so far as they influence the further development of the thought of the people. It may, therefore, be said that the exoteric doctrine is the more general ethnic phenomenon, the investigation of which is a necessary foundation for the study of the problems of esoteric teaching.

It is, therefore, evident that we must not, in our study of Indian life, seek for the highest form of thought only, which is held by the priest, the chief, the leader. Interesting and attractive as this field of research may be, it is supplementary only to the study of the thoughts, emotional life, and ethical standards of the common people, whose interests center in other fields of thought and of whom the select class forms only a special type.

It has taken many years for the study of the culture of civilized peoples to broaden out so as to take in not only the activities of the great, but also the homely life of the masses. The appreciation of the fact that the actions of every individual have their roots in the society in which he lives, has developed only recently, and has led to the intensive study of folk-lore and folk-customs that is characteristic of our times. It seems peculiar that, with increasing knowledge of the more complex forms of Indian culture, we seem to be losing interest in the popular belief; that we look for the “true” inward significance of customs among the select few, and become inclined to consider as superficial the study of the simpler and cruder ideas and ideals of the common folk. If it is true that for a full understanding of civilized society the knowledge of the popular mind is a necessity, it is doubly true in more primitive forms of society, where the isolation of social groups is very slight, and where each and every individual is connected by a thousand ties with the majority of the members of the tribe to which he belongs.

Far be it from me to deprecate the importance of studies of the philosophies developed by the Indian mind. Only let us not lose sight of their intimate relation to the popular beliefs, of the necessity of studying the two in connection with each other, and of the error that we should commit if we should consider the esoteric doctrine, and the whole system of thought and of ethical ideals which it represents, as the only true form of the inner life of the Indian.

THE ORIGIN OF TOTEMISM^[178]

In the numerous discussions of totemism published during the last few years much has been said about the “American theory” of totemism—a theory for which I have been held responsible conjointly with Miss Alice C. Fletcher and Mr. Charles Hill-Tout. This theory is based on the idea that the clan totem has developed from the individual manitou by extension over a kinship group. It is true that I have pointed out the analogy between totem legend and the guardian-spirit tale among the Kwakiutl, and that I have suggested that among this tribe there is a likelihood that under the pressure of totemistic ideas the guardian-spirit concept has taken this particular line of development.^[179] Later on Mr. Hill-Tout^[180] took up my suggestion and based on it a theory of totemism by generalizing the specific phenomena of British Columbia. About the same time Miss Fletcher^[181] gave a wider interpretation to her observations among the Omaha. Mr. J. G. Frazer^[182] and Emile Durkheim^[183] both discuss my arguments from this point of view. Their interpretation of my remarks is undoubtedly founded on their method of research, which has for its object an exhaustive interpretation of ethnic phenomena as the result of a single psychic process.

My own point of view—and I should like to state this with some emphasis—is a quite different one.^[184] I do believe in the existence of analogous psychical processes among all races wherever analogous social conditions prevail; but I do not believe that ethnic phenomena are simply expressions of these psychological laws. On the contrary, it seems to my mind that the actual processes are immensely diversified, and that similar types of ethnic thought may develop in quite different ways. Therefore it is entirely opposed to the methodological principles to which I hold to generalize from the phenomenon found among the Kwakiutl and to interpret by its means all totemic phenomena. I will state these principles briefly.

First of all it must be borne in mind that ethnic phenomena which we compare are seldom really alike. The fact that we designate certain tales as myths, that we group certain activities together as rituals, or that we consider certain forms of industrial products from an esthetic point of view, does not prove that these phenomena, wherever they occur, have the same history or spring from the same mental activities. On the contrary, it is quite obvious that the selection of the material assembled for the purpose of comparison is wholly determined by the subjective point of view according to which we arrange diverse mental phenomena. In order to justify our inference that these phenomena are the same, their comparability has to be proved by other means. This has never been done. The phenomena themselves contain no indication whatever that would compel us to assume a common origin. On the contrary, wherever an analysis has been attempted we are led to the conclusion that we are dealing with heterogeneous material. Thus myths may be in part interpretations of nature that have originated as results of naïvely considered impressions (Naturanschauung); they may be artistic productions in which the mythic element is rather a poetic form than a religious concept; they may be the result of philosophic interpretation, or they may have grown out of linguistic forms that have risen into consciousness. To explain all these forms as members of one series would be entirely unjustifiable.

What is true of wider fields of inquiry is equally true of narrower fields. Decorative art as applied by an artist who devotes much time and an inventive genius to the making of a single beautiful object, and decorative art as applied in factory production, which occurs in certain primitive industries as well as in modern industries, are not comparable, for the mental processes applied in these two cases are not alike. Neither are the free invention of design in a familiar technique and the transfer of foreign designs from an unfamiliar technique to another familiar one comparable. To disregard these differences and to treat decorative art as though the psychological processes involved were all of the same character means to obscure the problem.

The phenomenon of totemism presents a problem of this kind. A careful analysis shows that the unity of this concept is a subjective, not an objective one.

I quite agree with the view of Doctor Goldenweiser,^[185] who holds that the specific contents of totemism are quite distinct in character in different totemic areas. Common to totemism in the narrower sense of the term is the view that sections of a tribal unit composed of relatives or supposed relatives possess each certain definite customs which differ in content from those of other similar sections of the same tribal unit, but agree with them in form or pattern. These customs may refer to taboos, naming, symbols, or religious practices of various kinds, and are in their special forms quite distinctive for different totemic areas. There is no proof that all these customs belong together and are necessary elements of what Doctor Goldenweiser calls a “totemic complex.” Since the contents of totemism as found in various parts of the world show such important differences, I do not believe that all totemic phenomena can be derived from the same psychological or historical sources. Totemism is an artificial unit, not a natural one.

I am inclined to go a step farther than Doctor Goldenweiser does in his later publications. I consider it inadvisable to draw a rigid line between totemic phenomena in a still more limited sense,—namely, in so far as the characteristics of tribal exogamic sections deal with the relations of man to animals and plants,—but believe that we should study all the customs connectedly, in their weaker form as well as in their most marked totemic forms.

Although we must lay stress upon the subjective character of the groups that we isolate and make the subject of our studies, it is important to bear in mind that the processes by which extended groups of mental activities are systematized by retrospective thought (that is by reason), occur also as an ethnic phenomenon in each social unit, so that the unification of heterogeneous material that we attempt as an ill-founded scientific method, is only one aspect of a wide range of ethnic phenomena, the essential feature of which is the remodeling of activities, thoughts, and emotions under the stress of a dominant idea. Thus, in the case of totemism the dominant idea of exogamic division has attracted the most varied activities of most diverse origin which now appear to the people themselves as a unit, and to us as a problem that we are tempted to solve as though it were the result of a single historical process, and as though it had its historical origin in a single psychological condition. I have discussed associations of this type in one of the essays to which I referred before.^[186]

It follows from this consideration, that under the stress of a uniform dominant idea analogous forms may develop from distinct sources. Thus I do not feel convinced that the substratum of the totemism of the tribes of northern British Columbia and southern Alaska must have been the same. On the contrary, there seems to be evidence showing that their beginnings may have been quite different. Still, historical contact, and the effect of the idea of privilege attached to position, seem to have modeled the totemic customs of these tribes and of their southern neighbors, so that they have assumed similar forms. We call this development from distinct sources “convergence,” no matter whether the assimilation is brought about by internal psychic or by external historical causes.

In order to state my position in regard to the theoretical problem definitely, I have to add a third point. Wundt^[187] and Durkheim^[188] use the term “totemic viewpoint” in a sense quite different from the one that I am accustomed to connect with it. While they do not disregard the connection between social group and totemic ideas, they lay stress upon the identification of man and animals; that is, a characteristic feature of totemism in the most restricted sense of the term. This idea occurs in many other aspects of the mental life of man,—in his magic, art, etc. Neither is this view an essential part of the totemic complex in its widest sense. It seems to me that if we call this the basis of totemic phenomena, one trait is singled out quite arbitrarily, and undue stress is laid upon its totemic association. It appears to me, therefore, an entirely different problem that is treated by these authors,—a problem interesting and important in itself, but one which has little bearing upon the question of totemism as a social institution. Their problem deals with the development of the concepts referring to the relation of man to nature, which is obviously quite distinct from that of the characterization of kinship groups. The only connection between the two problems is that the concepts referring to the relation of man to nature are applied for the purpose of characterizing social, more particularly kinship groups.

I am inclined to look at the totemic problem as defined before in a quite different manner. Its essential feature appears to me the association between certain types of ethnic activities and kinship groups (in the widest sense of the term), in other cases also a similar association with groups embracing members of the same generation or of the same locality. Since, furthermore, exogamy is characteristic of kinship groups, endogamy of generation groups or local groups, it comes to be the association of varying types of ethnic activities with exogamy or endogamy. The problem is, how these conditions arose.

The recognition of kinship groups, and with it of exogamy, is a universal phenomenon. Totemism is not. It is admissible to judge the antiquity of an ethnic phenomenon by its universality. The use of stone, fire, language, is exceedingly old, and it is now universal. On this basis it is justifiable to assume that exogamy also is very old. The alternative assumption, that a phenomenon of universal occurrence is due to a psychic necessity that leads to it regularly, can be made for the kinship group, not for the other cases. We may, therefore, consider exogamy as the condition on which totemism arose.

When exogamy existed in a small community, certain conditions must have arisen with the enlargement of the group. The size of the incest group may either have expanded with the enlargement of the group, or individuals may have passed out of it, so that the group itself remained small. In those cases in which, perhaps owing to the ever-recurring breaking-up of the tribes into smaller units, cohesion was very slight, the exogamic group may always have remained restricted to the kinship group in the narrow sense of the term, so that there must always have been a large number of small co-ordinate independent family groups. A condition of this type, which is exemplified by the Eskimo, could never lead to totemism.

On the other hand, when the tribe had greater cohesion, the consciousness of blood relationship may well have extended over a longer period; and if the idea of incest remained associated with the whole group, a certain pressure must soon have resulted from the desire to recognize at once an individual as belonging to the incest group. This may be accomplished by the extension of the significance of terms of relationship, by means of which the members of the incest group may be distinguished from the rest of the tribe. Many systems of relationship include such a classification of relatives; but with increasing size of habitat or tribe, this form must also ultimately lead to the passing of individuals of unknown relationship out of the incest group.

The assignment of an individual to the incest group is easiest when the whole group is given some mark of recognition. As soon as this existed, it became possible to retain the incest or exogamic group, even when the family relationship of each individual was no longer traceable. It is not necessary that such an assignment should be made by naming the group. Common characteristics, like a ritual or symbols belonging to the whole group, would have the same result.

It is obvious that this characterization of an incest group presupposes the development of the concept of the unilateral family. Where this concept does not prevail, permanent differentiation of subgroups of the tribe can hardly develop. The origin of the unilateral family must probably also be looked for in the conditions of life of the primitive economic group. Where permanent marital relations prevailed, and both maternal and paternal lines were represented in the economic group, conditions for the development of a unilateral family were absent. A case of this kind is presented by the Eskimo. Where, however, marital conditions were unstable and the women remained members of the parental economic group, maternal descent was the only one possible. Where in the case of more permanent marital relations either husband or wife separated from his or her parental group and joined the opposite parental group, conditions favored the growth of unilateral families. Such changes of domicile may have been determined by a variety of considerations. They would result even in primitive conditions where property right in the man’s hunting territory existed, and in which, therefore, the strange woman would join the economic group of the man. We might expect in this case the development of paternal families. When, on the other hand, property right in agricultural land prevailed, the man may have joined the woman’s group and a maternal family would have developed. Possibly this may be related to the prevalence of maternal descent among the agricultural tribes of North America.

It is not my aim to follow out here the development of the unilateral family. I merely wish to point out that a varied development may be expected under varying primitive conditions.

It will readily be seen that the elements of totemic organization are given wherever a unilateral family is designated by some characteristic feature.

Furthermore, wherever unilateral descent prevails, either paternal or maternal, there must be a tendency towards a decrease of the number of lines that constitute the exogamic units. This must be the case the more, the smaller the number of individuals constituting the tribal unit and the slower the rate of increase of population. If we assume as initial point a number of women, all representing distinct lines, then all those men (or women) whose descendants do not reach maturity and those who have only sons (or daughters, as the case may be) will not become originators of lines, and obviously the number of lines will decrease with the progress of generations, unless this tendency is counteracted by new accessions or by subdivision into new lines. In small social units the reduction would continue until only two exogamic units are left. Historical evidence of the extinction of unilateral families is represented in the disappearance of families of the European nobility.^[189]

The three lines of development, namely the restriction of the incest group to the family without the occurrence of large exogamic groups, the extension of terms of relationship over larger groups, and the naming or other characterization of exogamic groups are all represented in the ethnological data that have been collected.

If the theory outlined here is correct, we must expect to find a great variety of devices used for the purpose of characterizing exogamic groups, which must develop according to the general cultural type to which the people belong. It is obvious that in such cases, when the characterization of the group is due to the tendency to develop a distinguishing mark, all these marks must be of the same type, but different in contents. It does not seem plausible that distinguishing traits should belong to entirely distinct domains of thought; that one group might be recognized by a name, another one by a ritual, a third one by crests or emblems. The fundamental principle of classification as manifested in the mental life of man shows that the basis of classification must always be founded on the same fundamental concepts. We may conclude, conversely, that the homology of distinguishing marks of social divisions of a tribe is a proof that they are due to a classificatory tendency.

THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN RACE^[190]

The custom which demands that your President address you at the time of the annual meeting—not when the Academy is in formal session, but when seated around the hospitable board—lays upon him a difficult duty. You expect from him the best that he can give in his science; and still what he gives should be appropriate to the hour, when in pleasant personal intercourse thoughts find expression as they arise, and the stimulated imagination carries us away to more daring flights than those we venture on when our thoughts are given to serious work. Permit me, therefore, to join in the imaginative mood and to lay aside the scruples and doubts of the study and to tell you how in my dreams the stones that we are shaping with arduous labor, and that may in time form a solid structure, but none of which is finished as yet, seem to fit together; and let me sketch before your eyes the airy picture of a history of the American race as it appears before me in dim outlines.

Man had arisen from his animal ancestors. His upright posture, his large brain, the beginnings of articulate and organized language and the use of tools marked the contrast between him and animals. Already a differentiation of human types had set in. From an unknown ancestral type, that may have been related to the Australoid type, two fundamentally distinct forms had developed—the Negroid type and the Mongoloid type. The former spread all around the Indian Ocean; the latter found his habitat in northern and central Asia, and also reached Europe and the New World. The uniformity of these types ceased with their wide spread over the continents, and the isolation of small communities. Bushmen, Negroes and Papuans mark some divergent developments of the one type; Americans, East Asiatics and Malays, some of the other. The development of varieties in each group showed similarities in all regions where the type occurred. The races located on both sides of the Pacific Ocean exhibited the tendency to loss of pigmentation of skin, eyes and hair; to a strong development of the nose, and to a reduction of the size of the face. Thus types like the Europeans, the Ainu of Japan and some Indian tribes of the Pacific coast exhibit certain striking similarities in form. This tendency to parallel modification of the type indicates early relationship.

After these conditions had developed, one of the last ice ages set in. The members of the race that lived in America were cut off from their congeners in the Old World, and during a long period of isolation an independent development of types occurred. Still the time was not long enough to wipe out the family resemblance between the Asiatics and Americans, which persists up to this day; but numerous new lines of growth developed. The face assumed a distinct form, principally through the increase of size of the nose and of the cheek-bones. The wide spread of the race over the whole territory of the two Americas that was free of ice, and the isolation and small number of individuals in each community, gave rise to long-continued inbreeding, and, with it, to a sharp individualization of local types. This was emphasized by the subtle influences of natural and social environment. With the slow increase in numbers, these types came into contact; and through mixture and migration a new distribution of typical forms developed. Thus the American race came to represent the picture of a rather irregular distribution of distinct types and colors, spread over the whole continent. The color of the skin varied from light to almost chocolate brown; the form of the head, from rounded to elongated; the form of the face, from very wide to rather narrow; the color of the hair, from black to dark brown and even blond, its form from straight to wavy; the lips were on the whole moderately full; the nose varied from the eagle nose of the Mississippi Indian to the concave nose of some South Americans and northwest Americans. Notwithstanding the wider distribution of these types, each area presented a fairly homogeneous picture.

Gradually the great ice-cap retired. Communication between America and Asia became possible, while Europe was cut off by the wide expanse of the Atlantic Ocean. Man followed the ice-cap northward. Members of the American race crossed over to Asiatic soil and occupied parts of Siberia, where finally they came into contact with the Asiatic group, which had also spread northward with the retreat of the ice.

Even at this early time, when the tribes were small in number and weak, human migration was only halted by impassable barriers; and thus contact of members of one group with those of another was not rare, and was always accompanied by the exchange of inventions and other cultural possessions.

We must revert once more to the earlier period, when man first entered our continent. The step from animal to man had long been made. Man brought with him a language, the use of fire, the art of making fire, the use of tools for breaking and cutting and his companionship with the dog. No other animal had yet become the associate of man. Whether he was acquainted with the bow and arrow, the lance and other more complex tools, is doubtful.

What the languages of the earliest Americans may have been we cannot tell. There is no reason to believe that there was only one language, for the slow infiltration of scattered communities may have brought groups possessing entirely different forms of linguistic expression into the continent. Certain it is, that, when man began to increase in numbers, the number of languages spoken were legion. Complexity of form characterized all of them. Sprung from the same root, some became so much differentiated, that their genetic relationship can hardly be recognized. By mutual influences, the articulations of some were so changed as to agree with those of their neighbors. Forms of thought as expressed in one language influenced others, and thus heterogeneous elements were cast in similar forms. As the race increased in numbers, some tribes became more powerful than others, and in intertribal wars many communities were exterminated. With them died their languages and sometimes also their types, although it is likely that in most cases these persist in the descendants of captured women. Thus a gradual elimination of the older stocks occurred, which were replaced by newer dialects of a few groups in which, for this reason, genetic relationship can still easily be traced. Only in those regions where no tribe gained the ascendancy does the old multiplicity of stocks persist. Hence the confusion of languages in California, in many parts of Central and South America, and the comparative homogeneity on the Great Plains, on the plateau of Mexico, and in eastern South America. The diversity of sound and grammatical form which pertains to the old stocks is so great that it is hardly possible to find one feature that is common to the languages of America and that does not belong also to other continents. Certainly all the most prominent characteristics of many American languages are found to the same extent among the tribes of Siberia.

When the contact between Asia and America was re-established, the culture of the whole continent was very simple. Some new inventions had been added to the old stock; weapons had been perfected; the beginnings of decorative art had been laid, and the ideas of the race had advanced in many directions. At this period, the Central Americans made the important step from the gathering of roots, berries and grains to the permanent cultivation of plants near their homes. The development of the cultivated Indian corn occurred. With it the food-supply of the people became more stable, and the population increased at a much more rapid rate than before. Other plants, like the bean, were taken into cultivation; and the more certain the food-supply, the more rapid became the increase in population. The process that began in the Old World with the cultivation of millet and other grains was paralleled here; and step by step the new art spread over new territories, until it had reached the area now occupied by the Argentine Republic in the south, and the Great Lakes in the north. Only the extreme south of South America and the extreme north and northwest of this continent remained outside of this zone, partly due to climatic reasons, partly due to their remote geographical position.

The cultivation of plants and the concurrent increase in population revolutionized the ethnological conditions of the continent; for, owing to their large numbers, the agricultural people also gained the ascendancy over others who did not conform to their habits and remained fewer in numbers.

About this time, perhaps even before the perfected cultivation of plants, a marvelous industrial development set in. Basketry, pottery and weaving were some of the important industries that originated in this period. It is not likely that their origin can be traced in the same way to one restricted area, as in the case of the cultivation of Indian corn, but the many beginnings were more or less moulded in one form, and cultural stimuli probably flowed in many different directions, giving rise to technical forms that, notwithstanding their great diversity, bear the impress of one continental development. Nothing shows this process of assimilation more impressively than the decorative art of the continent. Forms exuberantly developed in Mexico or western South America recur in simpler form in the United States and in the Argentine Republic—not identical, to be sure, but still betraying their family resemblance. The marginal people of the continent alone have learned nothing of these arts. Pottery reached neither the Pacific Northwest nor the extreme south of South America, and the art forms of the North Pacific coast and of the Arctic coast show no affiliation with those of the middle portions of the continent. These districts remained almost excluded from the general flow of American culture, as it developed in the agricultural areas of the middle parts of the two Americas. Here we may perhaps still find something similar to what existed in our continent before the period of rapid cultural advance set in.

The religious life of the race grew with its other cultural achievements. A strong ceremonialism pervaded the whole life and attained its culminating point in the most complex and populous communities. The fundamental ideas were disseminated from tribe to tribe and found an echo wherever they reached. Thus from many distinct beginnings grew up a peculiar type of ritualism that preserves a similar character almost wherever it exists at all. The thinkers among all these tribes were moved by one fundamental set of ideas, and hence all developed on somewhat similar lines; but the harder the conditions of life, the less is the number of independent thinkers, and the diversity and individuality of tribal ritualism decrease, therefore, as the agricultural resources of the tribes dwindle. In the extreme Northwest and South, only weak traces of the middle American ceremonialism are found.

Thus presents itself to our minds the picture of American civilization developing in the favored middle parts of the continents and spreading by a continuous flowing to and fro of ideas and inventions which stimulated continued growth. In contrast to these, the marginal areas of the extreme South and of the North and Northwest remained in a more stable condition.

Neither history nor archæology nor ethnology allows us at present to follow this complex development in any detail. On the contrary, there seem to be yawning gaps between the various centers that sometimes seem as though they could not be bridged; and still the conviction grows stronger and stronger that this whole culture represents as much an inner unity as that of the Old World.

Somewhat aside from the general current stands eastern South America, which, although not uninfluenced by the stream of Western culture, followed in a halting way only, and in many respects went its own way. The isolation of the dense forests, the smallness of the tribes and their position aside from the great current of events that had their seat in the plateaus of the west may have contributed to this condition of affairs. Sufficient vigor, however, existed here to allow an energetic expansion northward, which built a cultural bridge between the Atlantic slopes of North and South America that brought about a certain degree of individualization of the East as compared to the West.

I will not follow the higher civilizations that were built up on the basis of the western culture in Mexico, Yucatan and on the western plateaus of South America. When these civilizations arose, their foundations were probably those that I described before as pertaining to a large portion of middle America, extending from some parts of the United States well south into South America. On this basis, however, they built up a promising structure: they laid the foundation of the sciences, developed the art of writing, learned how to work precious metals and copper and advanced in the arts of architecture and engineering. When the advent of the Spaniards cut short this growth, it had attained a stage that might easily have led to accelerated advances.

We must now turn to the northern marginal area, which did not take part to any considerable extent in the cultural work of the people of middle America. Notwithstanding this, the area was not isolated but received stimuli from another direction. The Old World lies near at hand, and from here flowed the sources of new cultural achievements.

As in the New World the early growth of culture in Central America had stimulated the neighboring tribes, and as inventions and ideas had been carried to and fro, so it happened in the Old World. A constant exchange of cultural achievements may be observed from the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea to China and Japan. What wonder, then, if the waves of this movement struck the shores of our world where it is nearest Asia, not with a strong impact but as the last ripples of the spreading circle. The Siberians and Americans were closely affiliated before the introduction of domesticated animals gave a new character to Siberian life; and at this time the Asiatic house, bow, armor and Asiatic tales found their way to America and spread over the whole northwestern portion of the North American continent, reaching even the tribes of our western prairies.

The southern marginal area, the extreme south of South America and parts of Brazil present a different set of conditions—an isolation that is probably equaled in no other part of the world excepting, perhaps, in Tasmania. Unfortunately, our knowledge of these regions is so imperfect that almost nothing can be said in regard to the type of culture of the tribes inhabiting this area. May I point out that here lies the most important problem for the investigation of the earliest ethnic history of the American Continent, because here alone may we hope to recover remains of the earliest types of American mental development. The investigation of this problem, of the ethnology of the Fuegians and Ghes tribes according to modern thorough methods, may therefore urgently be recommended to the Carnegie Institution, that furthers so many lines of research, or to other institutions that are devoted to the advancement of knowledge.

Here halts my fancy, which has taken me in rapid flight over thousands of years, over endless changes of types and peoples. I do not venture to speculate about the question of a cultural relation between the islands of Polynesia and South America; for the suggestions are too slight, and the improbability of relations seems at present too great.

We may, however, cast a glance at the forms that America presents when compared with the Old World. If our picture contains any truth, the independence of American achievements from Old World achievements stands out prominently. The industrial arts were discovered in two large areas independently—the Afro-Asiatic and the American. They spread over continents but remained separated until the period of European colonization. To a great extent, the discoveries made were analogous—basketry, weaving, pottery, work in metals, agriculture. The important step that the Asiatic or European hunter made to the domestication of animals had hardly begun in America, where the Peruvians had developed the use of the llama. Much less had the still more far-reaching discovery been made of agriculture with the help of animals and the invention of the wheel. The use of smelted iron for tools was not known. Important differences may also be traced in fundamental forms of social institutions, arts and religious beliefs. Thus some of the most important advances of the races of the Old World were not known in America, although in other respects the work of civilization had far advanced.

In concluding, I beg to remind you once more that the sketch that I have given, although based on the accumulation of observed data, must not be taken as more than a lightly woven fabric of hypothesis. At every step, there are lacunae of our knowledge which our imagination may temporarily bridge to serve as a guide for further inquiries but which have to be filled by solid, careful work to reach results that will be acceptable before the forum of science.

ETHNOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN CANADA^[191]

At the meeting of the International Congress of Americanists, held at Quebec in 1906, I called attention to a number of unsolved problems relating to the ethnology of Canada. If on the present occasion I venture to speak again on this subject, I am prompted by its urgency. With the energetic economic progress of Canada, primitive life is disappearing with ever-increasing rapidity; and, unless work is taken up at once and thoroughly, information on the earliest history of this country, which has at the same time a most important bearing upon the general problems of anthropology, will never be obtained.

During the last three years, comparatively speaking, very little anthropological work has been done in the Dominion. The Archæological Institute of Ontario has continued its work. Mr. Teit is still carrying on his valuable researches on the Salish tribes of British Columbia. Dr. Lowie has obtained some information on the tribes of the southern Mackenzie region; but the most important investigation has been the study of the Ojibwa by the lamented William Jones, who lost his life in the service of science. Under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution, he made a profound study of the tribes of Lake Superior. Some work has also been conducted by Mr. Hill-Tout, under the auspices of the Committee of your Association^[192] appointed to conduct an ethnological survey of Canada. Some valuable information, collected by Scotch and American whalers in the northern waters of the Dominion, has also been accumulated since 1906.

I do not propose to discuss today in detail the various special problems that invite investigation. I may be allowed merely to point out again that the interior of Labrador, the eastern part of the Mackenzie Basin, the northern interior of British Columbia, the Kootenay valley, and southern and western Vancouver Island require intensive study.

During the last twenty years a general reconnaissance of the ethnological conditions of the Dominion has been made, largely stimulated by your Association; and it seems to my mind that the time has passed when superficial reports on the various tribes and on the archæological remains of various districts are of great value. Collections of miscellaneous data hastily gathered can no longer take the place of a thorough study of the many important anthropological problems that await solution. Brief reports on local conditions were well enough when even the rough outlines of our subject had not come into view. Since these have been laid bare a different method is needed. Not even exhaustive descriptions of single tribes or sites fulfil the requirement of our time. We must concentrate our energies upon the systematic study of the great problems of each area. The fruitfulness of such inquiries following general surveys has been demonstrated by the scientific success of the work of the Cambridge Torres Strait Expedition, and by the many points cleared up by the systematic inquiries of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, which dealt with the ethnology of the coasts of British Columbia, Alaska, and north-eastern Asia.

I may be allowed to formulate today a few problems that seem to me of great magnitude, and which must be solved by the labors of an ethnological survey of Canada. In doing so, I may omit mention of the importance of all anthropological and ethnological research for the purpose of clearing up the earliest history of the country. I will rather call attention to a few problems relating to the whole continent, the solution of which rests on a thorough study of the tribes of Canada.

In a general survey of the ethnic conditions of the American Continent a peculiar uniformity of culture may be observed among the Indians living around the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, on the Great Plains, in the eastern United States and in a considerable part of South America. All these tribes, notwithstanding far-reaching differences among themselves, have so much in common, that their culture appears to us as specifically American. The extended use of Indian corn, of the bean and the squash, the peculiar type of ritualistic development, their social institutions, their peculiar angular decorative art, are among the most characteristic features common to this area. When we compare this culture with the cultures of Polynesia, Australia, Africa, or Siberia, the similarities appear clearly by contrast with the non-American types of culture, and the common American traits stand out quite markedly.

There are, however, a number of American tribes that differ in their culture from that of the large area just mentioned. In South America many tribes of the extreme south and of the Atlantic coast, far into the interior of Brazil, exhibit marked differences from their north-western neighbors. On the northern continent the tribes of the Arctic coast, of the Mackenzie basin, of the Western Plateaus, and of California, do not participate in the type of culture referred to before. Looking at the distribution of these phenomena from a wide geographical standpoint, it appears that the tribes inhabiting the extreme north and north-west and those inhabiting the extreme south and south-east, have ethnic characteristics of their own.

This observation gives rise to two important lines of inquiry: the one relating to the origin of the similarities in what may be called in a wider sense the middle part of America, the other relating to the interpretation of the characteristics of the marginal areas: the one in the extreme south-east of South America, the other in the extreme north-west of North America. The unity of culture in the former area suggests mutual influences among the tribes of this vast territory. The solution of this problem must be attempted by a searching study of the tribes concerned, beginning in the Argentine Republic and reaching northward to the Great Lakes and the Western Prairies, and including the continental bridge between North and South America formed by Central America, as well as the insular bridge formed by the West Indies.

The isolation of the tribes of the extreme south-east and of the extreme north-west suggests that these districts may have preserved an older type of American culture that has not been exposed, or that has at least not been deeply impressed by the influences that swept over the middle parts of the continent and left their impress everywhere. If our point of view is correct, we might expect to find a gradual decrease of the typical middle American elements as we go northward and southward; and we might expect that on the whole the tribes least affected were also the latest to come under the dominating influences of middle American culture. From what I have said it appears that the bulk of the Canadian aborigines belong to the northern marginal area. The important problem of the significance of the type of culture here found is therefore specifically a Canadian problem.

Its solution must be attempted by means of a painstaking analysis of the physical characteristics, languages, and forms of culture of the various tribes of the Dominion, with a view to segregating the characteristics of the older aboriginal type of culture from those elements that may have been imported from the south. Some general considerations relating to this subject may here be given.

In the east the Iroquois seem to be closely allied to tribes of the south. Although historical evidence shows that at the time of the discovery the Iroquois were located along the lower St. Lawrence River, where they were met by Champlain, I have reasons to believe that the previous seats of this tribe were somewhere in the southern part of the United States, perhaps near the Mississippi River.

The Cherokee, who are linguistically related to the Iroquois, have resided in the Southern Appalachian area ever since they have been known, thus forming a link between the Iroquois and the Southern tribes. Other tribes, still more closely related to the Iroquois, lived near them. What appears to me as more important is the fact that the morphological structure of the Iroquois language has nothing in common with the structure of Eskimo, Algonquian, and Siouan tribes, whose neighbors they are in the north, and with whom they have been in contact during the last few centuries; but that it must be classed with the highly incorporating languages of the south-west, which embody the nominal object in the verb—a peculiarity which was formerly believed to be characteristic of all American languages.

Although the relationship between the Iroquois and the tribes of the south, if it really exists, may well be so old that none of the cultural elements belonging to the one area exist in the other, the linguistic observations here referred to necessitate inquiries in this direction. As a matter of fact, it is easy to show that the Iroquois have absorbed or retained many of the most characteristic features of middle American culture; and we may even venture to point out that some of their inventions, like the blow-gun, connect them directly with the tribes of the Gulf of Mexico and of South America. I am inclined to lay great stress upon the peculiar development of the clan system of the Iroquois and upon the type of their tribal organization, which exhibits the very common American trait that social divisions are assigned definite political functions.

If these views should prove to be true, the Iroquois would have to be considered as not belonging to the northern marginal area.

The conditions among the Algonquian are quite different. The Algonquian tribes have changed their habitat so extensively during the last few centuries that it seems necessary, first of all, to reconstruct their earlier distribution. In comparatively speaking recent times the two important western tribes of Canada—the Ojibwa and Cree—resided north and north-east of the Great Lakes. They have gradually migrated westward, and their territory extends at present to the foot-hills of the Rocky Mountains. We even know of Cree warriors who reached a point near Kamloops on the Thompson River in British Columbia.

A comparison between the culture of the Algonquian and that of their neighbors of the prairies shows even at the present time a peculiar contrast. The Algonquian appear as the typical inhabitants of the north-eastern woodlands. They were essentially food-gatherers, and agriculture played a very unimportant rôle in their life. They carried with them the peculiar mide ceremonies which have been adopted by their nearest Siouan neighbours, particularly by the Winnebago. The most western offshoots of the Algonquian are highly differentiated. The Cheyenne and Arapaho, as well as the Blackfoot who belong in part to the Dominion of Canada, have come to be prairie tribes. It has been shown, however, that the Cheyenne and Arapaho, who resided formerly upon the eastern borders of the Prairie, practised agriculture; while the Blackfoot seem to have come from the Saskatchewan, where they may have lived in a way similar to the present Central Algonquian tribes north of the Great Lakes. From these considerations I am inclined to infer that the Algonquian were at one time a north-eastern tribe; that the most southern branches—namely those extending through the Middle Atlantic States, and south of the Iroquois towards Lake Michigan—have by contact been assimilated to the tribes of the south-east; while the most western offshoots, then living on the upper Mississippi, were influenced by the agricultural tribes of the Lower Mississippi. If this view be correct, we may expect to find the earlier type of Algonquian culture north of the Great Lakes and in the interior of Labrador, which for this reason are particularly inviting to the student. From what little I know of the unpublished results of Dr. Jones’s study of the Ojibwa, north of Lake Superior, the views here expressed seem to be fairly well supported, and are certainly worthy of further investigation. On the whole, the organization of the northern Algonquian seems to be so loose, their social structure so simple, that the impression of a strong contrast between the tribe and those of the south is conveyed. The conditions in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces, where related though distinct tribes reside, are also in accord with the views here expressed.

Still clearer are these conditions in the vast area extending from Hudson Bay north-west to the Arctic Ocean, and westward into the interior of Alaska and to the Coast Range of British Columbia. This is the home of the Athapascan tribes. Their migrations and adaptations to different social conditions secure to them a peculiar place among the tribes of North America.

Isolated Athapascan tribes are found all along the Pacific Ocean, in British Columbia, in Washington, Oregon, and California; and two of the most important tribes of the South—the Apache and Navaho, who occupy the borderland between the United States and Mexico—belong to this stock. All the isolated bands in Oregon share the Oregonian culture, and are indistinguishable in their physical type from their neighbors speaking other languages. The Athapascans in California are Californians in type and culture; and those of the southwest are a typical south-western tribe in appearance as well as in their industrial arts and their beliefs. What is true of the isolated bands is also true of the large body of Athapascans of the north. Wherever they come into contact with neighboring tribes they have readily adopted their customs. Thus the Athapascan tribes of the lower Yukon are to all intents and purposes Eskimo; those of the upper course of the Skeena River in British Columbia have adopted much of the coast culture; and those of the coast of Alaska have learned many of the arts and beliefs of their neighbors. The most southern groups of the Mackenzie Basin proper have adopted the customs of the Algonquian tribes. I do not think that this adaptability should be considered as a characteristic racial trait. It seems much more an effect of the lack of intensity of the old Athapascan culture. The same phenomenon is repeated among other tribes whose culture resembles that of the Athapascan. The Salishan tribes of British Columbia and Washington and the Shoshonean tribes of the Western Plateaus of the United States have been affected by their neighbors in exactly the same manner. It would seem, from reports of older travellers, that Athapascan culture, comparatively speaking, uninfluenced by neighboring tribes, may be found in the district west of Hudson Bay, and perhaps also on the upper courses of the western tributaries of the Mackenzie River.

Investigation of this simple culture must be considered as one of the most important problems of Canadian ethnology. Its importance lies in the probability that we may recognize in it an older type of American culture than the cultures observed on the prairies and in the eastern part of the United States.

From what little we know about this district, it seems likely that its culture may be similar to that of the Salishan tribes of the interior of British Columbia, which are being thoroughly investigated by Mr. James Teit. A simple social organization, simplicity of industrial life, and what may perhaps be called a general individualistic tendency, seem to be common to both groups of tribes. This tendency, combined with sparsity of population, with lack of great rituals which bring people together, and accompanied by a lack of strong artistic proclivities, seems to make these tribes susceptible to foreign influence.

There is little doubt that the Eskimo, whose life as sea-hunters has left a deep impression upon all of their doings, must probably be classed with the same group of peoples. The much-discussed theory of the Asiatic origin of the Eskimo must be entirely abandoned. The investigations of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, which it was my privilege to conduct, seem to show that the Eskimo must be considered as, comparatively speaking, new arrivals in Alaska, which they reached coming from the east.

I must not leave the discussion of the significance of the culture of this whole district without referring, at least, to the important question of the relation between America and Asia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, the plans for which I suggested in 1897, was intended to contribute to the solution of this problem, and I think our investigators have succeeded in showing that there has been close contact between Siberia and the northern marginal area of America. I may be permitted to mention a few of the points which prove the existence of diffusion of culture throughout this territory. Many traditions have been found that are common to Siberia and the north-western part of the American Continent, reaching as far as northern California, the northern Prairies, and Hudson Bay. The treatment of birch-bark, the method of embroidering with reindeer and moose-hair, the forms of houses—all suggest long-continued intercourse. A consideration of the distribution, and the characteristics of languages and human types in America and Siberia, have led me to suggest the possibility that the so-called Palae-Asiatic tribes of Siberia must be considered as an offshoot of the American race, which may have migrated back to the Old World after the retreat of the Arctic glaciers.

I have so far left entirely out of consideration one of the most difficult problems of Canadian ethnology—that of British Columbia. Nowhere in the Dominion is a like number of types and languages met within so small an area; nowhere is found a culture of such strong individuality as in this region.

The fundamental features of the material culture of the fishing tribes of the coast of north-eastern Asia, of north-west America, and of the Arctic coast of America, are so much alike that the assumption of an old unity of this culture seems justifiable, particularly since the beliefs and customs of this large continuous area show many similarities. These have been pointed out by Mr. Jochelson in his descriptions of the Koryak of the Okhotsk Sea. On this common basis a strongly individualized culture has originated on the coast of British Columbia, particularly among the Haida, Tsimshian, and Kwakiutl, which presents a number of most remarkable features, and is best exemplified by the style of art of this region, that has no parallel in any other part of our continent. At the same time some of the customs and beliefs of these people recall so strongly customs that are found only east of the Rocky Mountains, and again customs of the Melanesians that a highly interesting and difficult problem arises, which has so far baffled a complete interpretation, notwithstanding the detailed investigations that have been conducted.

Let us turn now from the consideration of these geographical and historical problems to that of their bearing upon fundamental theoretical questions. In our previous discussions we made the tacit assumption, with which perhaps not all of you agree, that the culture of the tribes of our continent is a complex historical growth, in which by careful analysis the component elements may be segregated, and which in this way becomes historically intelligible. We started with the hypothesis that the ideas of a people depend upon the cultural elements handed down to them by their ancestors, upon additions to their knowledge based on their own experience and upon ideas that they have acquired from their neighbors. Our hypothesis implies that ideas and activities of a people undergo fundamental changes due to complex causes.

We must recognize that this hypothesis does not exhaust the field of anthropological experience. Besides similarities due to obvious cases of borrowing, there are others that cannot be thus explained—similarities sometimes extending to minute details, which occur in regions widely separated. We believe that their occurrence is due to a psychological necessity, which brings about the appearance of certain groups of ideas and activities on certain stages of culture.

The phenomena here referred to have, however, given rise to the further hypothesis that these peculiar similar phenomena, which are not historically connected, arise by necessity whenever a tribe lives in the corresponding cultural conditions; and, furthermore, that these phenomena show us the sequence of all early cultural development the world over. So far as the theory assumes a psychological basis for similarities of ethnic phenomena in regions far apart, it seems to me incontrovertible; in so far as it assumes the necessary occurrence of this whole group of phenomena and their fixed sequence, I believe it is open to grave doubt.

An example will make clear the difference between these points of view. One of the striking features found among primitive people are the customs and beliefs which we are used to combine under the term “totemism.” Totemism is found among many American tribes. In Canada it occurs among some Algonquian tribes, the Iroquois, and on the Pacific coast. It is often combined with maternal descent—with the custom of reckoning the child as a member of the mother’s family, not as a member of the father’s family. Totemism and maternal descent have existed in earlier times among many people where they have now disappeared, and a complete recurrence to these customs, after they have once been given up, is rare, and has never been observed in the history of the civilized world. From this it is inferred that totemism and maternal descent belong to an earlier period in the evolution of civilization, and have gradually been superseded by other forms of social organization and belief. While we may grant that this is the general course of events, the conclusion that totemism and maternal descent precede everywhere paternal descent and family organization does not seem to me necessary. The tendency to their disappearance may exist everywhere; but this does not prove that they are a necessary stage in human development. In many parts of the world they may never have existed. The conditions in America are not at all favorable to the assumption of their omnipresence. The tribes which have the least complex culture, like those of the Mackenzie Basin, and which therefore would appear to be less developed, have paternal descent and no trace of totemism. Those that are socially and politically highly organized, like the tribes of the eastern part of the United States, have maternal descent and highly developed totemism. This has been proved by the investigations of Dr. John R. Swanton. Furthermore, I have tried to show that totemism and maternal descent have been adopted by tribes of British Columbia that were apparently in former times on a paternal stage. Mr. Hill-Tout later on confirmed some of my conclusions, and similar observations were made by Father Morice in the interior of British Columbia. The attempts to give a different interpretation to these facts, which have been made, for instance, by Breisig, do not seem convincing to me, because they start from the assumption that the unusual sequence of cultural forms is against the hypothetical general scheme of evolution.

It would seem that an acceptable general theory of the development of civilization must meet the demand that the historical happenings in any particular region conform to it. So far as I can see, the various theories of totemism all fail to do so, because they try to explain too much. To the student who delves into the depths of the thought of primitive man, without paying attention to theories, it becomes very soon apparent that the convenient term “totemism” covers a wide range of the most diverse ideas and customs, which are psychologically not at all comparable, but which have in common certain ideas in regard to incest groups—groups in which marriage is forbidden—and peculiar types of religious ideas. Where these ideas occur they tend to associate themselves, and are called “totemism.�