Coming to look into the antiquity of man, we remember that it is only a few years •since Eiaglish-speaking people very generally accepted the chronology of archbishop Usher, and agreed, without investigation and almost without ,question, that the earth and all that it contains was created 4004 years before the advent of Christ. That and all other known systems of chronology, as fixing the date of the earth's origin, have been entirely Overthrown by geological and astronomical facts; and even as fixing the date of man's origin they have been with great force called in question, and by many investi gators positively rejected. These last assert that it is useless to Speculate as to years or even ages in order to fix dates. The asserted discovery of human bones and articles manufactured by men in strata holding the remains of the fosSIP species of elohant, rhinoceros, etc., would, unless disproved, inevitably lead to the inference that man existed during the life period of those animals. Further 'evidence has been found that seems to take man back to ,the quarternary or drift period; and such evidences are gen erally accepted by geologists as carrying back the existence of man least into the period of the post-glacial drift, in what is now called the qbarternary period, indicating an antiquity at the very least of tens of thousands of years. The 20 centuries of Eng lish and.French history are counted but as a mere fraction of the time that has elapsed rince the stone implements of prehistoric tribes were buried under beds of gravel and sand by the rivers now known as the Thames and the Somme. If we consider the geo logical formation of such valleys as those in which these rivers flow, and estimate from present data the time required for the rivers to dig such valleys, it follows that the drift beds and the men whose works they inclose must have had existence at a period so that any comparison with the received chronology of 'years and centuries is impossible, and the attempt to fix dates would be absurd. For the present we must be content to begin with " Once on a time." Still, certain inferences have been drawn that may be noted. A boring of 90 ft. in the Nile valley, pottery and burnt brick, showing that man in a fairly civilized state dwelt there so long ago that, at the rate of deposit by the river, it must have been several thousands of years. The lake dwellings of Switzerland—huts in number amounting to villages, built on piles in the water at some distance from the shore for safety against attack—indicate very remote antiquity; and the same may be said of the Danish remains of fire-places, or kitchen refuse heaps. Extant chronicles must also be noted. The oldest written records are hieroglyphic inscriptions, and the oldest can be hardly less, and may probably be much more, than 3000 years earlier than the Christian era. It is certain that more than 4000 years ago the Egyptian nation occupied a high plane, in, industrial, social, and political culture. The inscribed bricks of temples iu Chaldea are of a date earlier than 2000 B.C., and Chinese civilization can be certainly traced back to a period anterior to 2000 B.C. Until recently it was the common opinion that the early state of society was one of comparatively high culture; but now the opinion is paramount that whatever may have been the earliest state, all recorded human civilization has been gradually deVeloped from a state of bar barism. This hypothesis makes it necessary, it is claimed, to add 4000 to 5000 years to the earliest dates for Egyptian, Babylonian, and Chinese civilizations as generally traced. It is claimed, also, that much further time should be allowed during which the knowl edge, arts, and institutions of these countries attained the level at which we fix their earliest dates. This view is thought to be strongly corroborated by philology. Hebrew and Arabic are closely related languages, neither of them being the parent of the other, but both the ofIspringof some earlier tongue. Therefore, 'when the Hebrew records have taken back to the most ancient admissible date the existence 'of the Hebrew lan guage, this date must have been long preceded by that of the extinct parent language of the whole Semitic family; while this again may be considered, to be the descendant of languag 's slowly shaping themselves through'ages into this peculiar type. The evidence of the Aryan, or Indo-European, family of tongues is advanced as still more striking. The Hindoos, Medes, Persiaus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Kelta, and Slays make their appearance at dates more or less remote;, as nations separate in language as in history. Nevertheless, it is now generally believed that in some high antiquity, before these nations were divided from the parent stock and distributed over Asia and Europe by the Aryan dispersion, a single barbaric people stood as physical and political representative of the nascent Aryan race, speaking an Aryan language, now perhaps extinct, from which, by a series of modifications not to be estimated as possible in any brief period, there arose languages which have been mutually unintelligible Since the dawn of history, and between which only an age of advanced philology could trace the fundamental rela tionship. Combining these considerations, we find the basis claimed for the hypothesis that the furthest date to which writing, or rock inscriptions, or language, extends, is to he regarded as but the earliest distinctly visible point of the historic period, beyond which stretches back the unknown series of prehistoric ages. ' of the old chronology, While calling attention to the fact that many of these assertions are as yet hypotheses awaiting proof—and that some of the most important-of them can be sub stantiated only on an ascertainment that present rates of geblogical formation and lin guistic construction exactly decide the rate of progresS under perhaps extremely diverse conditions in an Unknown past—are yet not unready to oineede that the old chronology must be regarded aA uncertain in its starting-point, as Well as indefinite in its terms, and as leaving gaps which`are to be filled by tin increasing knowledge. They demand, how ever, that these deficiencies he left unfilled until the undeniable facts are in hand for that purpose: and that 'till, then. no merely probable hypothesis be accepted as of final,
authority. It should be observed that the Bible is not,' as is commonly supposed, responsible for archbishop Usher's chronology. That system is, of many possible tems equally accordant with the Bible, the one which has gained the widest acceptance.
In classifying the races of mankind, a number of systems have prevailed. The color of the skin is the first striking difference in showing race, and this distinction is found in ancient Egyptian portraits, and writers, ancient and modern, speak of white, yellow, and black races. The structure and arrangement of the hair is a better indication of race than the tint of the skin. Stature is an uncertain guide, for there are short and tall men in all races; still, an average rate of stature may indicate descent, and it is note worthy that people of Keltic origin in Great Britain are shorter than those of Teutonic descent (see ANTHROPOMETRY), The conformation of the skull has been used also, and careful measurements of form and capacity have been made; but shapes of the skull vary so greatly even in the same tribe, as to render this method of determining race practi cally worthless. The features, or general contour of the face, being at once apparent to the eye, are much used by scientific observers to determine race. Some of the most notable features, in contrast with European types, are seen in the oblique eyes of the Chinese, the pointed Arab chin, the Kirghis snub nose, the fleshy lips of the negro, and the broad ears of the Kalmuk. In Europe and America the Hebrews are distinguished by their peculiar features, and some physioguomists will undertake to select almost any nationality by mere examination of faces. The adaptation of a people to its climate forms a definite race-character, and typical instances of the relation of race-constitutions to particular diseases are seen in the liability of Europeans in the 'West Indies to yellow fever, from which, as has been thought, though scarcely proved, negrocs are commonly exempt. Even the vermin infecting different races of men have been classified. Physical capabilities of races differ widely; but as the same is true of individuals of all races, such differences can hardly be used for race-classification. Two strongly marked mental con trasts are found in the shy and impassive Malay and the sociable and demonstrative Papuan. Classifications by race have been numerous, but all more or less imperfect, and some worthless. Blumenbach's " five races " is a widely known classification: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Pickering made 11 races, Bory de St. Vincent 15, and Desmoulins 16; but no modern naturalist would accept any of these classifications. On the whole, probably Huxley's scheme more nearly than any other approaches to a classification that may be accepted in definition of the principal varieties of mankind, regarded from a zoological point of view. He makes four types: 1. The Australoid ; chocolate-brown skin, dark brown or black eyes, black hair, narrow skull, brow-ridge strikingly developed, projecting jaw, coarse lips, and broad nose. This type is best represented by native Australians, and the coolies of southern India. 2. The Negroid; chiefly the negroes of Africa; with dark brown to brown-black skin, eyes of like hue, hair usually black, crisp, and wooly; skull narrow, but orbital ridges not prominent, jaws projecting, nasal bones depressed, and thick lips. 3. The Mongoloid; prevailing over the area east from Lapland to Siam; of short build, yellowish-brown skin, black and straight hair, black eyes, broad skull, brow-ridges usually not prominent, small fiat nose, or eyes set obliquely. 4. The Xanthochroi, or fair whites; skin almost colorless, blue or gray eyes, hair from straw color to chestnut, and skull large though variable in size. To these four general divisions he adds Melanochroi ; much like the fair whites, but of smaller stature and darker shade of hair, eyes, and skin—such as the Kelts, the people of southern Europe, the Greeks and Arabs.
On the origin of races there has long been, and still continues, an earnest discussion. On one hand, it is claimed by monogenists that all men descended from a single pair; on the other, it is contended by polygenists that there were many primary species of separate origin. The monogenists rest upon the Bible, and point to Adam and Eve; the polyg enists, while arguing from science, with equal confidence,- show biblical passages from which they infer the existence of contemporaneous non-Adamite races; and even political science was called in to support the idea of more than one original race, when the institution of slavery in the United States was defended on the assumption that the negrocs were a different race, inferior to the whites or the Indians. We do not enter into even a statement of the many variations of the human type, but observe that the general tendency of the evolution theory is against constituting separate species where the differences are moderate enough to be accounted as due to variations from a single type; while it is not inconsistent with evolution to claim that several distinct simious species may have culminated in several races of men. Still the drift of the evolution theory is towards unity of origin. Darwin says: "When naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small habits, tastes, and dispositions, between two or more domestic races, or between nearly allied natural forms, they use the fact as an argument that all are descended from a common progenitor, who was thus endowed ; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man." The experience of the last few years countenances Mr. Darwin's prophecy, that before long the dispute between those who hold that all men came from one pair and those who hold to diverse originals, will die a silent and unnoticed death. [Portions of this article are, with modification, from Eneyclopadla Britannica, ninth edition.]