In few, perhaps, in no part of the present volume, am I on more debateable ground than the present. So long has the term Caucasian been considered to denote a type of physical conformation closely akin to that of the Iapetidæ, (i.e., preeminently European,) that to place the Georgians and Circassians in the midst of the Mongolidæ, is a paradox. Again, the popular notions founded upon the physical beauty of the tribes under notice, are against such a juxtaposition; the typical Mongolians, in this respect, having never been mentioned by either poet or painter in the language of praise.
Lastly, it so happens that some of the latest researches in comparative philology have been undertaken with the special object of making the philological position of the Dioscurians coincide with their anatomical one, i.e., of proving that the languages of the Georgians and the Irôn are to be connected with that of the Greeks and Latins, just as was the case with their skeletons.
For the sake of laying before the reader the amount of fact and argument, in contradistinction to the amount of mere opinion, that is opposed by the position here assumed for the Dioscurians, I will analyse the grounds for the current belief under two heads:—
1. The connexion of the Dioscurian nations with those of Europe, as determined by the evidence of Physical Conformation.—The really scientific portion of these anatomical reasons consists in a single fact; which was as follows.—Blumenbach had a solitary Georgian skull; and that solitary Georgian skull was the finest in his collection: that of a Greek being the next. Hence it was taken as the type of the skull of the more organized divisions of our species. More than this, it gave its name to the type, and introduced the term Caucasian. Never has a single head done more harm to science than was done in the way of posthumous mischief, by the head of this well-shaped female from Georgia. I do not say that it was not a fair sample of all Georgian skulls. It might or might not be. I only lay before critics the amount of induction that they have gone upon.
2. The connexion of the Dioscurian nations with those of Europe as determined by the evidence of language.—Here I can only give a sample of the philology which would connect the Georgian with the Indo-European tongues. It consists in the proof that the Georgian numerals are the same as the Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Gothic, Slavonic, and Lithuanic.
| English. | Georgian. | Mingrelian.[38] | Suanic.[38] | Lazic.[38] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One | erthi | arthi | es`gu | ar. |
| Two | ori | shiri | jeru | dzur. |
| Three | sami | sumi | semi | dshumi. |
| Four | othchi | otchi | wors`tcho | atch. |
| Five | chuthi | chuthi | wochus`i | chut. |
| Six | ekhwssi | apchs'ui | usgwa | as`. |
| Seven | s'widi | 'sqwithi | is`gwit | s`kit. |
| Eight | rwa | ruo | ara | ovro. |
| Nine | zehru | c`choro | c`chara | c`choro. |
| Ten | athi | withi | je`st | wit. |
One=Es`gu, Suanic=êka, Sanskrit; jek, Persian, the ἑκα- in ἑκά-τερος, and ἕκ-αστος, Greek.
One=erthi, Georgian; arthi, Mingrelian; ar, Lazic. Here the forms are different from the Suanic esg`u, and have a different origin. Esgu is a true cardinal, just as one is a true cardinal. The Georgian, Mingrelian, and Suanic forms, are not originally cardinal, but derivative from the ordinal, just as would be the case in English, if, instead of saying one, two, &c., we said, first, second, &c. Now the root of the ordinal cardinal of the Georgian, Mingrelian, and Lazic ar, is the πρ- in the Greek, πρῶ-τος, the p-r- in the Lithuanic pir-mas, the fr- in the Mœso-Gothic, fr-ums, and the pr- in the Sanskrit pr-atamas; the initial p having been lost, just as the initial s in the Sanskrit sru,=to flow, is lost in the Greek ῥέω, and the Latin ruo. Hence, arti=, by rati metathesis, just as the Lithuanic pirmas=the Latin primus. The t is the τ of πρῶ-τ-ος.
Two=Ori, Georgian; dva, Sanskrit; δι-, Greek; duo, Latin, &c.
Three=sami, Georgian; dschumi, Lazic; tre, Sanskrit; τρία, Greek; tres, Latin; three, English, &c. Here t becomes s, r is ejected, and m is added, upon the assumption of reflected ordinal.[39]