348 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



tribes of tbe Ilamitic family, speaking allied languages, vary notably 

 witb tbe climate. Tbe Gallas and Somalis, near tbe equator, bave 

 dark-brown skins and frizzly bair, wbile tbeir kindred, tbe Berbers of 

 Nortb Africa, bave, in tbe plains, olive complexions and wavy brown 

 or black bair — and in tbe mountain valleys, wbere tbe climate reminds 

 one of Germany, often display fair skins and reddisb or blonde bair, 

 wbicb take our tbougbts back to tbe same country. Here, too, ad- 

 mixtures of negro. Vandal, and otber races bave been needlessly sug- 

 gested, to account for facts wbicb tbe differences of climate sufficiently 

 explain. 



But we bave examples before our eyes. Tbe differences wbicb 

 bave been caused solely by climate, in two or tbree centuries, between 

 Anglo-Americans and Englisbmen, and between Spanisb-Americans 

 and Spaniards, are certainly mucb greater tban tbe differences of lan- 

 guage. In Australia, wbile tbe language remains unaltered, two gen- 

 erations have sufficed to give rise to a distinct variety of the English 

 "breed of men." It is somewhat surprising that witb these examples 

 in full view, and witb tbe many like instances wbicb bave been accu- 

 mulated by Pritcbard, Darwin, Quatrefagcs, and otber writers — and 

 in face, too, of tbe well-known facts that tbe Semitic, tbe Chinese, and 

 the Arj^an tongues have remained radically unaltered for thousands of 

 years — tbe delusive notion should still be entertained that physical 

 traits are more permanent than language. 



Those who deny the necessary connection of race and language 

 argue that an individual can not change the physical traits which sbow 

 his origin, while be can, and often does, change his language. But it 

 should be remembered that an individual never thus adopts a new lan- 

 guage unless when residing among the people who speak it, and among 

 whom, if he remains and has descendants, these must become inter- 

 mingled and absorbed. In like manner a community, as has been 

 shown, never adopts a new language except under the direct pressure 

 of a stronger population, witb which it ultimately becomes united in 

 one people of mixed blood. If, in this mingled race, one element is 

 much stronger tban the other, the weaker element is finally absorbed, 

 leaving perhaps little or no apparent trace, either in the language or 

 the aspect of the population. If both elements are strong, the aspect 

 of tbe people and the form of the language alike show evidence of tbe 

 mixture. Tlie fact, therefore, remains that language is the indication, 

 and the only sure indication, of the origin of a community. 



But how, then, it may be asked, are we to determine the position 

 of those prebistoric populations, of whom such remarkable traces have 

 been brought to light — the " river-drift men," tbe " cave men," the 

 lake-dwellers, the mound-builders, the cliff-dwellers — whose languages 

 are utterly unknown? The answer is, that tbis is a matter which be- 

 longs solely to anthropology, and in no manner to etbnology. Much 

 can be learned, of tbe highest interest and importance, about the men 



