it is certain by a reference to the monuments of Egypt, that no perceptible change has taken place in these races within the last 4000 years. Where then in the remote past are we to look for the common origin of races which have thus remained distinct for so long a period, on the monogenist theory? or how account for the development of these three distinct types within the same hemisphere, in accordance with the views of polygenists? Undoubtedly the weight of scientific opinion inclines to the monogenist theory, nevertheless many of the best modern ethnologists, and among them the late Dr. Broca, have been polygenists, but Mr. Darwin is as strongly monogenist in his belief as the greatest stickler for biblical truth, differing, however, in this, that whereas the orthodox trace all mankind to a single pair, called into being by the Divine fiat about 6000 years ago, Darwin would make them the offspring by natural selection of a tribe of highly-developed Simians, allowing for their gradual progress in civilization a period almost incalculable. The latter portion of Mr. Darwin's theory may be considered as established by recent discoveries. The former cannot be so clearly demonstrated, yet it must be confessed that it accounts for many facts otherwise inexplicable, inasmuch as it gives a probable reason for the origin of distinctions of race; for it is easy to understand that if natural selection was sufficiently potent to produce man, however rude, from ancestors only semi-human, the same force, acting through many ages, and aided by climate, soil, and food, would suffice to produce all the varieties we see. At all events, however many difficulties may beset the path of those who believe in the unity of the human race, whether by a single creation, or as the product of development through natural selection, they are outnumbered by those which surround the advocates of polygenesis; for nothing short of a succession of miraculous creations could on this hypothesis account for the occupation of remote lands by races resembling those of remote continents, not only in physical characteristics, but in manners and customs, in language and in mythical beliefs, although some may have advanced much further than others on the road to civilization. Assuming the unity of the human race, the fact of the very early divergence of mankind into distinct species or varieties has to be accounted for; for at least the three great divisions, the black, the yellow, and the white, can be traced back to the earliest monuments; whilst, as before pointed out, the two distinct types of skulls, the long and the round, are found with the very earliest known traces of man. But although these primitive divisions are universally admitted, the causes which have operated to bring them about still remain a mystery. Buckle insists upon the omnipotence of climate, soil, and food in causing the differences observed, and they are doubtless powerful agents; nevertheless, in the present day they would seem to have lost much of their power, although there is certainly, from some cause, a marked difference between the Anglo-American and the English type since the colonization of the United States, and Englishmen transplanted to some of the colonies become taller and more robust, with a greater amount of beard, than in England, which is all the more remarkable when we remember that in many cases the aborigines of these colonies are short and devoid of beard. That change of food acts powerfully upon the brain is well known, but whether it has a similar effect upon the body is not so easily proved. In the lower animals we find the largest size combined with the greatest intelligence in the elephant, which is wholly herbivorous; but we cannot imagine man to have become what he is if entirely confined to a vegetable diet, yet the apes, his nearest congeners, live upon fruit, and occasionally insects. Natives of lands 1 The baboons at the Cape of Good Hope have always devoured scorpions, but they have lately taken to killing and eating young lambs; in the commencement they killed the lambs for the sake of the milk in their stomachs, but they appear now to have acquired a taste for meat, and devour the flesh of their victims. eminently fruitful have but to pluck and eat, and the inventive faculties are not stimulated by want. But if it should be indeed proved that man sprang from some lower form, it is probable that some sudden calamity, in necessitating a change of diet, also brought about an increase of cunning in order to secure it, and that thus instinct was converted into reason; hence primeval man became a hunter and a fisher, and, as proved by the remains found, pre-eminently a flesh-eater. Since animals would not come to be caught and eaten, cunning and force must be employed to gratify an acquired taste for animal food, and implements must be formed wherewith to attack and overcome the prey. Doubtless this change in habits and in food would quickly produce a variation of type, especially in the early stages of that change, lessening as man became accustomed to a new habitat and new modes of life. The homely proverb that "Necessity is the mother of invention" is the key to man's progress: as long as his wants are supplied with little trouble, so long will he remain almost stationary; but cold and hunger stimulate the inventive faculties, and lead gradually to civilization. Nevertheless, the extremes of heat and cold seem alike detrimental to the full development of human energies, and it is therefore to the temperate regions of the earth, and especially to Central Asia, that ethnologists look as the cradle of civilization; but that man existed everywhere in a state of barbarism prior to all civilization, is a fact proved by the discovery, even in the most ancient seats of civilization, of traces of a lower state, in rude implements of stone and bone; and the remarkable likeness observable in these implements, wherever found, would seem to prove conclusively the unity of the race, and also that it had not, at that early period, become so markedly classed into varieties as is shown to have been the case later. The opinion seems to be gaining ground that this very early type was the Australoid, which, spreading from a centre probably now submerged, may be traced in many of the most ancient remains found. Regarding Professor Huxley's classification of the ancient Egyptians under this division of the human race, Mr. Busk said some years ago "I do not understand Professor Huxley to say or to imply that any of the Egyptian races of which we have any means of judging from statues or pictures ever resembled the existing Australian, except in the character of the hair, dark chocolate-colour, and dolichocephalic skull, &c.; and it should be recollected that the races of which we have any actual knowledge must have been removed from the primordial inhabitants, to whom, I presume, Professor Huxley's remark was intended to apply, by incalculable ages of time, and great vicissitudes of events, and have thus become subjected to great admixture of foreign blood." 1 Doubtless Mr. Busk faithfully interpreted the views of our great English ethnologist, for the Australoid type as represented by the skulls of Neanderthal, Cannstadt, Borreby, &c., was doubtless the earliest of which we have any knowledge, and judging by the implements connected with the remains, was also very widely distributed; but the difficulty of accounting for the advent of the second type, the brachycephalic, at so very early a date, is a tough problem for monogenists and evolutionists. French anthropologists of this school are tempted to throw back the origin of man to the Pliocene or even Miocene geological ages, in order to allow time for the development of these two types. The proofs of this extremely early existence of the human race rest, however, at present upon such a very fragile basis, that they are almost universally discredited by English anthropologists; they consist of cuttings upon bones, roughly-hewn flint implements, and some reported American discoveries, all of which are too doubtful to be accepted by men of science, chiefly because the manner of their discovery has not been recorded with sufficient care to determine whether they really belong to the geological period assigned to them, 1 Journal of Anthropological Institute, April 1875, p. 478. whilst in the case of the incised bones, the markings are such as might have been caused by other than human agency. Lyell, as we know, expected that Miocene man would eventually be discovered, since his nearest zoological relations certainly existed at that period, and Darwin thinks he may have diverged from the catarhine stock at an epoch as remote as the Eocene, "for that the higher apes had diverged from the lower apes as early as the upper Miocene period is shown by the existence of the Dryopithecus." It will therefore be seen that although naturalists and anthropologists are both willing to assign an immense antiquity to the genus homo, the actual epoch of his appearance upon earth remains undetermined, and the same uncertainty rests upon the geographical region which witnessed his advent. Three of the greatest naturalists of our time, Darwin, Wallace, and Broca, have all suggested Africa as the probable birthplace of the human race. Darwin writes "We are naturally led to inquire where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the catarhine stock. The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shows that they inhabited the Old World, but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But," he continues, "it is useless to speculate on this subject, for two or three anthropomorphous apes, one the Dryopithecus of Lartet, nearly as large as a man, and closely allied to Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Miocene age, and since so remote a period the earth 1 Descent of Man, chap. vi. P 156. |