126 F. W. Parker — Relation of Geography to History. 



upon all the influences which surrounded it in its earlier stages. 

 Of these influences, probably, the geographical structure is the 

 most potent. 



We owe to the founder of modea-n geography, Carl Ritter, the 

 first systematic investigation in the direction of the relation of 

 history to geography. Ritter's fundamental statement, though 

 not given in his own words, may be stated as follows : That each 

 and every characteristic area of the earth's surface has had a 

 determining influence on the evolution of mankind. This state- 

 ment presents us a Avorldng hj^pothesis for our study of this 

 subject — the relation of history to geography, — but it needs some 

 very marked modifications and limitations in order to make it 

 valuable as a means of searching for truth in history. First, 

 there are marked differences in the influences of a characteristic 

 territory or a specially defined form of surface structure on 

 man in each stage of his development. For example, a particu- 

 lar structure may act as an obstruction to growth in one phase 

 of man's evolution while in another phase it would be of the 

 greatest assistance. The savage aborigines of India probably 

 deteriorated in a land which afterward presented great advan- 

 tages to the invading Aryans. If those savages could have been 

 taken up bodily and put down on the vast steppes of Eurasia, 

 they wouldxhave, in a forced nomadic life, taken a vigorous step 

 in advance, while the Aryans, who had had the education of the 

 plains, took a mighty step forward in the refuge Avhich the great 

 mountain walls offered against the attack of their nomad en- 

 emies. A land of swamp and morass exercises one influence on 

 the savage, as a land of refuge ; to the barbarian and civilized 

 man, however, it is a land easily defended by ditches, canals and 

 dikes. It is of the first importance to know the degrees of de- 

 velopment before we can have any understanding of the influ- 

 ence of the structure of the country. 



The second modification is in regard to the community life of 

 the people or the ethnographic relations in tribes and nations. 

 These relations of gens and tribes and phratres in the evolution 

 of peoples are common to all mankind in whatever part of the 

 globe. They have had a tendency to overcome and control to 

 a certain extent the influences of structure; the Aryan race, for 

 instance, whether they lived in the tropics or in cold Norway, 

 had in their community life the same general tendencies, the 

 same habits and customs, the same worship of ancestors, mod- 



