FOOTNOTES:
[183] A short list of the words common to the Coptic and the African tongues at large, may be found in the author's Report on Ethnographical Philology.—Transactions of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1847, p. 223.
G.
SEMITIC ATLANTIDÆ.
No error is greater than to imagine that connection with the Semitic is synonymous with separation from the African stock, a remark which leads us from the Copts to—
THE SEMITIC TRIBES AND NATIONS.
Area.—Abyssinia, Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, parts of Kurdistan.
Physical conformation.—Light-complexioned Atlantidæ, with dolikhokephalic capacious crania, straight or prominent nasal and orthognathic maxillary profiles. Referable to three types. 1. The Arab. 2. The Jew. 3. The Kaldani.
Influence on the History of the World.—Preeminently moral—spiritually as well as intellectually. In the case of the Arabs, material as well.
Religion.—Preeminently monotheistic for the later part of their history. For the earlier part, Paganism.
Social and civilizational development.—Early, influential, and probably as much self-developed as that of either the Ægyptians or the Hellenic Iapetidæ.
Alphabet.—With the exception of the Æthiopic, written from right to left. The earliest in the world.
Divisions.—More or less artificial.—Syrians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phœnicians, Beni Terah, Arabs, Æthiopians, Solymi(?), Cappadocians(?), Elamites(?), Cyprians(?), Philistines(?), Canaanites(?).
SYRIANS.
Area.—Syria, Cœlosyria, part of Mesopotamia, the northern and eastern frontier being undetermined.
Divisions.—1. Syrians of Syria, either extinct or incorporate.
2. Syrians of Mesopotamia, ditto.
3. Syrians of Kurdistan or Kaldani.
Physical appearance of the Kaldani.—Mountaineers, with fair complexions, grey eyes, and reddish beard.
Religion of—a. The ancient Syrians, chiefly Nestorian Christianity. b. Of the Kaldani, the same.
Pantheon of the Pagan Syrians.—Thammuz, Rimmon, &c.
Languages.—1. Syriac of Syria. 2. Chaldee of Mesopotamia. 3. Kaldani of Kurdistan.
The Syrian influence as an element of civilization has, probably, been undervalued. It was through the Syriac that two contiguous nations received much of their knowledge of what was to be learned from Greece, the Armenian and the Arabian; the latter, whose civilizational influence has been proportionately over-rated, being in many cases translators of Syriac translations rather than students of the original Greek.
More important still was the propagandism of the Nestorian Christians in the direction of Central and Eastern Asia. Without hazarding an opinion as to the extent to which their teaching may be the real epoch of the civilization of the Chinese, the fact of the Uzbek Turk alphabet, itself the prototype of the Manchu, being Syrian, is a pregnant one. The alphabet of Palmyra is the alphabet of the wall of China.
ASSYRIANS.
Area.—Assyria, east of the Tigris.
Language.—Known to be Semitic from the remains of it in the Arrow-headed inscriptions of Nimrúd, Khorsabad, &c., deciphered by Major Rawlinson.
Original Pagan Pantheon.—Nisroc (Assarac), Belti, Bar, Ani, Dagon, Bel, Nebo, &c.
BABYLONIANS.
So far as they were Semitic what applies to the Assyrians applies to the Babylonians also; the differences between them being matters of history and archæology rather than strict ethnology.
Among the first if not first builders of cities, among the first if not the first organizers of empires, the inhabitants of both the Lower Tigris and the Lower Euphrates, were one of the earliest influences in civilization, much in the way of Art; more, however, in the way of politics and commerce than either intellectually or morally. It is not, however, for the sake of enlarging upon these points that the notice of the Babylonians detains us.
Gesenius has given reasons for considering the Chaldees to have been other than a Semitic population: thus either disconnecting the Babylonians from them, or else both from the Phœnicians and Hebrews.
Without giving an opinion on the fact, I satisfy myself with indicating its bearings.
The Chaldees (Khasdim), if not Semitic, were either Persian Kurds or Armenians, from the highlands of the Upper Tigris; and if so, their language was Iranian, their religion Fire-worship, and their affiliation with the Iapetidæ.
As far as we may venture to distribute the outward exponents of civilizational development amongst the Semitic nations, the first application of weights and measures seems to have been Babylonian, just as the paramount achievement of alphabetic writing is apparently the work of the—
PHŒNICIANS.
Divisions.—a. Of Phœnicia (Tyre and Sidon). b. Africa (Carthaginian), c. Spain.
Language.—Closely akin to both the Syriac and the Hebrew. Known only from inscriptions, and two scenes in the Pœnulus of Plautus.
BENI TERAH (SONS OF TERAH).
I can think of no better collective name for that portion of the Semitic nations which comprises not only the Jews, but those other tribes which, allied in blood, though separated by belief, are necessary to be noticed in order to give the more important Hebrew nation its due position, than the one at the head of this section; Terah, the father of Abraham, being the eponymus.
AMMONITES (BENI AMMON).
Habits.—Agricultural.
Locality.—East of the Israelites, on the north. Conterminous with, and closely allied to—
THE MOABITES (BENI MOAB).
Habits.—-Pastoral.
Locality.—East of the Israelites on the south.
Chief deity.—Chemosh.
The Moabites and Ammonites were, probably, transitional between the Hebrews and the Syrians; the next families being transitional between the Hebrews and the Arabs.
ISHMAELITES (BENI ISHMAEL.)
Locality.—Probably migratory tribes on the frontier of the Desert.
EDOMITES.
Area.—From the Dead to the Red Sea.
Habits.—Partly pastoral, partly commercial and industrial.
BENI ISRAEL (HEBREWS, THE TWELVE TRIBES).
Area.—Palestine.
Divisions.—1. Samaritans (The Ten Tribes). 2. Jews (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin).
SAMARITANS.
Divisions.—1. Samaritans Proper. 2. Galileans.
Canonical books.—The Pentateuch.
Alphabet.—A nearer approach to the Phœnician than the Jewish, and probably an older form.
Æra.—National existence terminated A.D. 721. Since then either extinct or incorporated. Equivocal remains in the neighbourhood of Nablous.
JEWS.
Æra.—National existence terminated, A.D. 89. Since then dispersed, but not incorporated.
Physical Conformation.—Differing from that of the Arab in a. greater massiveness of frame; b. thicker lips; c. nose more frequently aquiline; d. cranium of greater capacity.
Intellectual culture.—Preeminently early, and preeminently continuous, i.e. from the time of the Prophets to that of the Rabbinical writers of the Middle Ages, and from these to the present moment; in the latter case the medium generally being languages other than the Hebrew, i.e. those of the respective countries of the different writers.
Moral influence.—1. As manifested by Jewish writers of modern Europe, identified with that of the literature of the particular country which produced it.
2. As manifested by the Rabbinical writers anterior to the revival of literature, and subsequent to the dispersion, limited, or nearly limited, to the Semitic nations.
3. As manifested in the evolution of monotheistic creeds co-extensive with a. Judaism Proper. b. Christianity. c. Mahometanism.
ARABS.
Physical conformation.—Face, oval; forehead, vaulted; nose, straight or aquiline; lips, thin, even when thick not projecting; hair, wavy or curled; complexion, various shades of brown; limbs, spare.
With the Arab of Africa, the colour is sometimes nearly black, the frame more massive, and limbs more fleshy than in the Peninsula.
Religion.—Originally Sabæanism; since the Hejirah, Mahometanism.
Alphabets.—1. That of the Koran, based on the Cufic forms of the Syriac 2. That of the Himyarite inscriptions, akin to the Æthiopic.
Languages.—1. Arabic Proper.—A. Ancient—of the Koran. B. Modern—of a. The greater part of the Arabian peninsula. b. Syria. c. Ægypt. d. Western Africa.
2. Himyaritic Arab.—a. Ancient—of the Himyaritic Inscriptions. b. Modern=the Ekhili.
Intellectual culture.—Later in origin than that of either the Jews or Syrians. Less continuous than that of the former.
Moral influence.—1. As manifested by the non-religious portion of the Arabic literature, considerable in amount and diffused in area.
2. As manifested in the propagation of a creed, co-extensive with Mahometanism—the religion of many sections of the Mongolidæ and Atlantidæ, but of none of the Iapetidæ.
The remarks upon the extent to which Syria has been one of the intellectual influences of the world, anticipated the notice that would otherwise have been required for Arabia.
The love of learning which appreciated, and the zeal which diffused the valuable sections of Greek science and philosophy have taken the garb of the power of originating; the extent to which this latter was the case, even in the departments most generally admitted to have been developed by Arabian cultivation, being by no means ascertained.
In the way of minute ethnology, the spread of the Arabs has engendered numerous complications; though the facts of a nation speaking the Arabic language, and exhibiting an Arabic physiognomy are primâ facie evidence of Arab extraction, they are anything but conclusive. Thus, the extent to which the old Ægyptian stock may still survive in Ægypt has been indicated in the notice of the Copts, although the Coptic language has ceased to be spoken. Here, however, as the physical appearance bore a marked difference, the recognition of a Copt population was safe.
Perhaps the same might have been done in Syria, where there is special testimony to the two separate ranges of Lebanon and the Amanus retaining remnants of the original Syrian. I do not, however, know the evidence on which the statements rest; indeed, in order to be conclusive, it would require to be of a very peculiar kind.
Physical form would not be likely to supply any evidence at all, since no one can say how an Arab naturalized in Syria would differ from an absolute Syrian.
Language, too, if only used as the language of religion, would be inconclusive; since the Syriac being the tongue of the Nestorian Christians, might be retained by even an Arab population, if previously Christianized.
Again, the same intermixture which a certain amount of the Arab stock has undergone in combining with Coptic, Syriac, and other imperfectly-incorporated populations, occurs in the history of the primitive, ante-Mahometan religion of Arabia. Without, at present, being enabled to separate the Mahometan, Christian, and other elements from the anomalous creeds of the Yezids, as described by Layard; of the Mendajaha, of Chesney; and, perhaps, of the Druses, as well, it is nearly certain that Sabæanism is the oldest element in them all. The ground, however, here is full of ethnological problems.
The immigrant Arabs of Africa may be viewed under four aspects:—
1. In respect to their geographical distribution.—a. Of Ægypt. b. Nubia. c. Dongola. d. Mauritania. e. The Northern and Middle Sahara. f. The Southern Sahara.
2. In respect to their origin.—a. Arabs direct from Arabia. b. Arabs from tribes already occupants of Africa.
3. In respect to their habits.—a. Beduins, or wandering, pastoral, or predatory Arabs. b. Settled agricultural Arabs.
4. In respect to the purity or intermixture of blood.—From what I collect from Prichard, purity of blood is the rule rather than the exception; the chief Africans by which it is crossed being those of the Tuarick division of the Amazirgh. The Southern Sahara, to the north of the Niger and the Sahara, and the ethnological frontier of the Woloff, Mandingo, Fulah, Sungai, and Howssa Negroes form the great area of the Arab and Tuarick intermixture.
ÆTHIOPIANS.
Area.—Abyssinia.
Physical condition of area.—An elevated table-land, or system of terraces—disconnected from the other portions of the Semitic area by the Red Sea (geographically), and by the Nubian and Ægyptian areas (ethnologically).
Division, Languages, and Religion.—1. Tigré, of the province of Tigré, speaking a language generally admitted to be derived from the Gheez or ancient Æthiopic. Christians.
2. Amharic Æthiopians of South-western Abyssinia, speaking a language not generally admitted to be derived from the Gheez, but still so like the Tigré as most probably to be so descended. Christians.
3. The Gafat Æthiopians, Pagans, nearly displaced by the Gallas, but whose language is considered to be allied to the Amharic.
Alphabet of the Christian Æthiopians.—Written from left to right, not (like the Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic) from right to left. Closely allied to the Himyaritic Arabian of the inscriptions.
Antiquities.—Chiefly of the ancient Gheez capital, Axum.
The ethnology of the Semitic Abyssinians has the following complications.
1. The Gheez language is too closely allied to the Arabic and Hebrew to lead to the belief that it is aboriginal, i. e. other than of comparatively recent introduction.
2. The Amharic, on the other hand, and, à fortiori, the Gafat, have too many African elements to lead to the belief that the first Semitic immigration was that which introduced the Tigré.
The hypothesis, which would reconcile these discrepancies, would be—
That the Gafat represented a primary, the Tigré a secondary migration; and this is much the same view which was taken concerning the relations between the island of Sumatra and the Peninsula of Malacca. It is also one which arises from the circumstance of the Isthmus of Suez being only one of the passages from Asia to Africa—the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb being the second.
Hence, the present classification is provisional, since if we admit the Gafat to be primarily Semitic, the Tigré to represent a secondary influx of population, and the Amharic to be fundamentally the same as the Gafat, only containing a greater admixture of the Gheez, we have a class into which other sections of the Abyssinian populations should be admitted; e.g. the Agows, truly considered by Dr. Beke to be the aborigines of Æthiopic Africa.
In order to exhibit in full the elements of the ethnology of the Semitic class, notice must be taken of—
1. The Hittites, Hivites, &c.—The earlier inhabitants of Palestine, Canaanitish idolaters, geographically, but not genealogically, Semitic.
2. The Philistines.—Uncircumcised idolaters, of which a portion remained unconquered at and beyond the date of the Jewish Captivity. Language, probably unintelligible to the Hebrews; on the other hand, they seem to have been closely related to the Phœnicians—facts not easily reconciled.
3. Solymi.—Cilicians. The question involved in the Semitic character of the Solymi, is the difficult question as to the north-western frontier of the Semitic area.
4. Elamites.—These have the same import with the Solymi, mutatis mutandis, i.e. in the consideration of the south-eastern Semitic frontier.
5. Cyprians.—Almost certainly Semitic; probably Phœnician.
6. Cappadocians.—Stated by Strabo to have been white Syrians.
Throughout the whole of the present volume the complex question of descent, or the relation between the people of antiquity and the modern populations of the same area is only indicated. Truly a part of ethnology, it is the one most liable to extreme differences of opinion, as well as the one which involves the most subtle and minute criticism.
THE MALAGASI.
Locality.—Madagascar.
Physical Conformation.—Generally speaking, African rather than Amphinesian; in some cases Amphinesian rather than African.
Language.—Amphinesian rather than African.
Religion.—Feticism.
Name of one of the Malagasi Deities.—Vintana. Compare this with the Australian Wandong.
The Malagasi have already been enumerated amongst the Oceanic Mongolidæ. Why were they, then, only mentioned by name, and why do they now find a place at the end of the Atlantidæ? The reason lies in the antagonism between the evidence of their language and the evidence of their physical conformation; the first pointing exclusively towards Malacca, the latter partly towards Malacca and partly towards the opposite coast of Africa. The phænomenon of intermixture is, in this ease, so likely, that the doctrine that the Malagasi are Africans speaking a Malay language, or, at least, that there is a strong African intermixture, almost forces itself upon the investigator.
There is nothing, however, in what has hitherto been noticed which induces me to admit any African element at all; since after considerable reflection and hesitation I have come to the conclusion that the differences in physical form, as described by many excellent observers, are not greater than those which occur within the pale of the Amphinesian populations themselves.
On the other hand it is difficult to imagine that the first human pair who set foot in Madagascar, were from beyond India rather than from the coasts of Mozambique, or Zanzibar. To which must be added the tradition—perhaps we may say the existence—of the Vazimbers.
Drury writes that in his time the interior of the island was inhabited by undersized Negroes, called Verzimbers.
Of these—as living occupants—no trace now remains. Instead thereof, the Hovas of the Vazimber localities pay a superstitious reverence to certain upright stones, the graves of the Vazimbers.
This, in my mind, points towards Africa as the birth place of the Madagascar aborigines; and considering the degree to which the extent of their extermination is evidence of physical inferiority, combined with what has been said concerning the original northward extension of the Hottentots, it is, on the whole, more probable that such aborigines—provided they really existed at all—were of the stock of the Koranas, or Gonaquas, rather than of the Koosas or Bechuanas, i.e. Hottentot rather than Kaffre.
Are all the alphabets, that have ever been used, referable to one single prototype, as their ultimate original, or has the process of analysing a language into its elementary articulations, and expressing these by symbols, been gone through more than once? The answer to this is, partially a measure of the intellectual influence of the Semitic nations. Great would be that influence, even if only the Greeks and Romans had adopted the alphabet of the Phœnicians. How much greater if the world at large had done so.
The doctrine of a single prototype is the most probable. For the present alphabets of Europe the investigation is plain enough—indeed they are all so undeniably of either Greek or Roman origin, that doubt upon the matter is out of the question.
For others, however, the affiliation is less clear; and lest the extent to which many of them differ from each other, as well as from their assumed original, be over-valued, the following principles of criticism are suggested.
1. That considering the undeniable differences in form, order, number, and direction of writing between alphabets so undeniably connected as (say) the Hebrew, and (say) the English, no objections to the doctrine of a common origin is to be taken from mere points of dissimilarity in any of the above-named characters.
2. That, considering the probability that such alphabets as the Hieroglyphic and Arrow-headed are just as likely to be artificial derivations from some simpler ones—either in way of cypher alphabets, or in way that the illuminated letters of the Middle Ages differ from common manuscript—no arguments in favour of their antiquity are to be drawn from their undoubted peculiarity of structure.
3. That an alphabet, however much it may differ from others in the arrangement of the lines and points which form its letters, is not to be considered original if it has been framed within the literary period, and with a knowledge of previous ones—the idea of the analysis of a sentence into words, and of words into elementary articulations, being the really great achievement in the invention of an alphabet, and this, in such cases, not being original.
4. That the question of the affiliation or originality of alphabets be considered not only with a view to the particular alphabet, but with a due recognition of the fact that, taking the world at large, the derivation of one alphabet from another, rather than the repetition of the very remarkable process of the analysis of words, and the symbolization of their articulate elements, is the rule, and that the apparent instances of the reverse are the exceptions.
With these, as preliminaries, we may enumerate the alphabets which most put on the garb of original inventions, and most appear to invalidate the doctrine that alphabetic writing was but once, and once for all, invented.
1. 2. The hieroglyphic and arrow-headed[184] modes of writing—Subject to Rule 2.
Fig. 16.
3. The Runes of the Gothic nations.—Deficient in proof of antiquity, not remarkably unlike the older Greek characters, and not originating in either an age or country where alphabets that might serve as models were inaccessible.
Fig. 17.
4. The Irish Ogham.—Shown to be of a very limited antiquity—See two papers of Professor C. Graves on the subject.
5. 6. Georgian and Armenian.—Not generally considered to be derivations from the Syriac, only from the differences of their characters; a ground of separation subject to the application of Rule 1.
7. The alphabets of Southern India.—Subject to Rule 1;
8. The alphabets of Northern India.—Subject to Rule 1; except so far as they rest upon the two following assumptions:—1st, That portions of the Hindu literature (the Vedas) are of an antiquity so remote as to be previous to either the invention or the diffusion of the first Semitic alphabet. 2d, That an Indian alphabet of equal antiquity, was necessary to embody them.
Admitting the latter of these two assumptions, I agree with those who doubt the first; and so far from inferring the existence of an ancient alphabet from the Vedaic writings, am inclined to infer a recent date for the Vedaic writings from the absence of an undeniably old and original alphabet.
9. The original alphabets of the Malays of Sumatra, Celebes, the Philippines, &c.—Subject to Rules 1 and 4.
10. The Tuarick alphabet of Oudney and Richardson.—So deficient in signs of antiquity as to come under Rule 3.[185]
11. 12. The[186]Cherokee and Vei Alphabets.—Manifestly subject to Rule 3.
Fig. 18.
14. The Chinese and its derivatives.—It is chiefly on the strength of Rule 4, taken along with the general unsatisfactory character of the evidence as to the antiquity of the Chinese civilization, that I allow no greater claims to originality to this than to any of the preceding alphabets.
Upon the whole, it may safely be said that no known alphabet, except the Semitic, has any very strong claims to be considered as an original and independent invention, by any one who admits the validity of the four foregoing rules, and recognizes the full difficulty and complexity of the notation of sounds addressed to the ear, by lines and points addressed to the eye.
The accumulation of climatologic influences, and the angle of the line of migration.—Other conditions being equal, why do two tribes under the same degree of latitude differ? e.g. Why are not all tribes under the equator like the Negro of the Niger, and vice versâ?
Without venturing upon the enumeration of all the elements of this difference, I will indicate one, assuming only that the climatological influences of a certain degree of latitude have some effect, and that some effect must be the result of the force in question. I call it the accumulation of climatologic influences.
Let a certain locality under a given degree of latitude (say the west-coast of Africa, under the equator) be peopled by a line of population migrating from Denmark, under one supposition, and from Bombay, under another, the line of migration being, for convenience sake, supposed to be a straight one.
From Denmark, such a line, at its junction with the point in question (say the mouth of the Gaboon River), would form with the equinoctial line, and with each intermediate degree of latitude, a right one.
From Denmark, the angle would be, a very acute one.
Now, just as the angle formed by the line of latitude and the line of migration is acute, the approach made by a moving population towards any particular point under that line (of latitude) is gradual, and in proportion as such an approach is gradual, the number of generations over which a condition of climate, like that of the final point, has been acting is increased; and in this way its influences become accumulated.
Thus, assuming Bombay to be the original cradle of our species—
The Gaboon Negro is the descendant of ancestors who, before they reached their present abode, had moved in a line lying almost wholly within the tropics; whereas—
The American of Quito, is the descendant of ancestors who passed through the tropics by the shortest cut (i. e. at nearly a right angle with the equator), themselves descended from progenitors upon whom the influences of the several North-American, Arctic, and Siberian climates had been at work.
In the latter case how great have been the changes and how rapid the transitions from the conditions of one latitude to another; how different, too, the effects upon a series of generations moving along a line a thousand miles long, from north to south, from those upon a stream of population propagated along an equal distance east and west.
The former takes them through half the latitudes of the world. The latter keeps them within a single zone—Arctic, Equatorial, or temperate, as the case may be, the climatologic influences seconding, instead of counteracting those of blood, and that in a ratio progressing geometrically.