Mediterranean type: most Iberians, Corsicans, Sards, Sicilians, Italians; some Greeks; Berbers and other Hamites; Arabs and other Semites; some Hindus; Dravidians, Todas, Ainus, Indonesians, some Polynesians.
Nordic type: Scandinavians, North-west Germans, Dutch, Flemings, most English, Scotch, some Irish, Anglo-Americans, Anglo-Australasians, English and Dutch of S. Africa; Thrako-Hellenes, true Kurds, most West Persians, Afghans, Dards and Siah-post Kafirs.
Alpine type: most French, South Germans, Swiss and Tyrolese; Russians, Poles, Chekhs, Yugo-Slavs; some Albanians and Rumanians; Armenians, Tajiks (East Persians), Galchas.
General Considerations.
It is a remarkable fact that the Caucasic division of the human family, of which nearly all students of the subject are members, with which we are in any case, so to say, on the most intimate terms, and with the constituent elements of which we might consequently be supposed to be best acquainted, is the most debatable field in the whole range of anthropological studies. Why this should be so is not at first sight quite apparent, though the phenomenon may perhaps be partly explained by the consideration that the component parts are really of a more complex character, and thus present more intricate problems for solution, than those of any other division. But to some extent this would also seem to be one of those cases in which we fail to see the wood for the trees. To put it plainly, few will venture to deny that the inherent difficulties of the subject have in recent times been rather increased than diminished by the bold and often mutually destructive theories, and, in some instances one might add, the really wild speculations put forward in the earnest desire to remove the endless obscurities in which the more fundamental questions are undoubtedly still involved. Controversial matter which seemed thrashed out has been reopened, several fresh factors have been brought into play, and the warfare connected with such burning topics as Aryan origins, Ibero-Pelasgic relations, European round-heads and long-heads, has acquired renewed intensity amid the rival theories of eminent champions of new ideas.
The question is not made any simpler by the frequent attacks that have been directed from more than one quarter against the long-established Caucasic terminology, and well-supported objections are raised to the use of such time-honoured names as "Hamitic," "Semitic," and even "Caucasic" itself. But no really satisfactory substitute for "Caucasic" has yet been suggested, and it is doubtful if any name could be found sufficiently comprehensive to include all the races, long-headed and short-headed, fair and dark, tall and short, that we are at present content to group under this non-committal heading. Undoubtedly the term "Caucasic" cannot be defended on ethnical grounds. "Nowhere else in the world probably is so heterogeneous a lot of people, languages and religions gathered together in one place as along the chain of the Caucasus mountains[1000]." But we are no more called upon to believe that the "Caucasic" peoples originated in the Caucasus, than that the Semites are all descendants of Shem or Hamites of Ham. "Caucasic" has one claim that can never be disputed, that of priority, and it would be well if innovators in these matters were to take to heart the sober language of Ehrenreich, who reminds us that the accepted names are, what they ought to be, "purely conventional," and "historically justified," and "should be held as valid until something better can be found to take their place[1001]." It was considerations such as these, weighing so strongly in favour of current usage, that induced me stare per vias antiquas in the Ethnology, and consequently also in the present work. Hence, here as there, the Caucasic Division retains its title, together with those of its main subdivisions—Hamitic, Semitic, Keltic, Slavic, Hellenic, Teutonic, Iranic, Galchic and so on.
The chief exception is "Aryan," a linguistic expression forced by the philologists into the domain of Ethnology, where it has no place or meaning. There was of course a time when a community, or group of communities, existed probably in the steppe region between the Carpathians and the Hindu-Kush[1002], by whom the Aryan mother-tongue was evolved, and who still for a time presented a certain uniformity in their physical characters, were, in fact, of Aryan speech and type. But while their Aryan speech persists in endlessly modified forms, they have themselves long disappeared as a distinct race, merged in the countless other races on whom they, perhaps as conquerors, imposed their Aryan language. Hence we can and must speak of Aryan tongues, and of an Aryan linguistic family, which continues to flourish and spread over the globe. But of an Aryan race there can be no further question since the absorption of the original stock in a hundred other races in remote prehistoric times. Where comprehensive references have to be made, I therefore substitute for Aryans and Aryan race the expression peoples of Aryan speech, at least wherever the unqualified term Aryan might lead to misunderstandings.
This way of looking at the question, which has now become more thorny than ever, has the signal advantage of being indifferent to any preconceived theories regarding the physical characters of that long vanished proto-Aryan race. How great this advantage is may be judged from the mere statement that, while German anthropologists are still almost to a man loyal to the traditional view that the first Aryans were best represented by the tall, long-headed, tawny-haired, blue-eyed Teutonic barbarians of Tacitus—who, Virchow tells us, have completely disappeared from sight in the present population—the Italian school, or at least its chief exponent, Sergi, was equally convinced that the picture was a myth, that such Aryans never existed, that "the true primitive Aryans were not long, but round-headed, not fair but dark, not tall but short, and are in fact to-day best represented by the round-headed Kelts, Slavs, and South Germans[1003]."
The fact is that the Aryan prototype has vanished as completely as has the Aryan mother-tongue, and can be conjecturally restored only by processes analogous to those by which Schleicher and other philologists have endeavoured with dubious success to restore the organic Aryan speech as constituted before the dispersion.