XVII. The Mongol race admits two varieties or sub-races: Tunguse or Northern Mongolian, with oval or round faces and prominent cheek-bones, spread over Manchuria, Corea, Northern China, Mongolia (Figs. [20], [115], [116], and [118]); and Southern Mongolian, with lozenge-shaped or square faces and cheek-bones laterally enlarged, which may be observed especially in Southern China (Fig. [119]) and in Indo-China (Fig. [121]).
We have now sketched out the classing of races, that is to say of the somatological units. It remains for us to deal with the “ethnic groups” or sociological units.
In these the grouping must rest on linguistic, sociological, and especially geographical affinities, for sociological difference, are very often the product of differences in the immediate environment.
I have already spoken of the classing of languages (p. [127]) and social states (p. [124]). In subordinating them to considerations of habitat, I shall give the table of mixed classification, geographico-linguistic, which I have adopted in the descriptive part of this work. But first, a few words on the relations of the different classifications of ethnic groups one with another.
The purely linguistic grouping does not correspond with the geographical grouping of peoples: thus in the Balkan peninsula, which forms a unit from the geographical point of view, we find at least four to six different linguistic families; in the British Isles, two or three, etc. Neither does this grouping coincide with the somatological grouping: thus, the Aderbaijani of the Caucasus and Persia, who speak a Turkish language, have the same physical type as the Hadjemi-Persians, who speak an Iranian tongue; the Negroes of North America speak English; several Indians of Mexico and South America speak Spanish as their mother-tongue; different Ugrian tribes (Zyrians, Votiaks, Permiaks) make use of Russian, etc. In European countries cases of changes of language in any given population are known to every one. The limits of the Breton language in France, of the Irish in Ireland in the sixteenth century, were at least 60 miles to the east of their present frontier. The limits of Flemish in France, of Lithuanian in Prussia, have perceptibly receded to the east during the last hundred years; it is the same with so many other linguistic limits in Europe, the only continent where accurate data on this subject exist.
But similar, though isolated facts may be adduced from other parts of the world. Thus in India the Irulas, who differ physically from the Tamils, yet speak their language; many of the Kol, Dravidian, and other tribes at the present time speak Hindustani instead of their primitive tongues. According to the last census,[335] out of 2,897,591 Gonds, only 1,379,580, less than half, speak the language of their fathers.
However, in certain regions where there is little intermixture due to conquest, in South America for example, language may give valuable indications for the classification of ethnic groups. As to “states of civilisation,” it is very difficult to make clear sub-divisions, seeing that frequently one and the same people may be at the same time shepherds and fishers (Chukchi), hunters and tillers of the soil (Tlinkits), hunters, shepherds, and tillers of the soil (Tunguses), etc. Certain characters of civilisation, especially of material culture, are of clearly defined extent, and form what Bastian calls “ethnographic provinces.” I have spoken of them in connection with the geographical distribution of plate-armour, the throwing-stick, pile dwellings, etc. But similarity of manners and customs, and identity of objects in common use, do not yet give us the right to infer an affinity of race or language, and still less a common origin. At the very most, they may indicate frequent communication, whether pacific or not, between two peoples and “adoption” of customs and material culture. Sometimes even two distinct peoples, having never communicated with each other, may happen to produce almost identical objects and adopt almost similar manners and customs, as I have previously shown.
Having said this much I shall proceed to give the classification of the “ethnic groups” adopted in this work.
I adopt in the first place the best known geographical division, into five parts, of the world (including Malaysia or the Asiatic Archipelago with Oceania).[336] I afterwards divide each part of the world into great linguistic or geographical regions, each comprising several populations or groups of populations, according to the following arrangement:—
I. EUROPE.—We may distinguish here two linguistic groups: Aryan and Anaryan, and a geographical group, that of the Caucasians.