which the last quarter century has produced. This has been done for us by a master hand.[1] The logical rottenness of the Asiatic hypothesis, even from the linguistic point of view alone, speedily revealed itself to Latham, Omalius d'Halloy, and others; their contentions were supported by evidences of man's existence in Europe from the remotest antiquity, and of his gradual acquisition of culture on the spot. Then, nearly twenty years ago, arguments based upon the physical characteristics rather than the languages of living European peoples began to be injected into the controversy by Poesche, Penka, and others. Within a decade, physical anthropology dealing with living men, has struggled to its feet and claims the floor—perhaps to the damnation of its predecessors. It may justly be affirmed that no other scientific question, with the exception of the doctrine of evolution, was ever so bitterly discussed, or so confounded at the hands of biased writers by religious and national prejudice.
So much by way of introduction. Let us now at the outset distinguish culture, language, and race; let us rigidly avoid confusing them in any respect. The cultural evidence in turn may be resolved into several distinct parts: arts or customs, language, and perhaps even mythology. Each concerns an entire science by itself. Their relative importance is indicated in the order of naming. The credibility of the testimony of each varies directly with its liability to migrate in entire independence of any actual movement of peoples. Physical traits, of course, are absolutely certain; arts and customs are less apt than is language to be acquired abroad by mere contact. Mythologies are most fluid of all. In this paper we shall deal merely with the first of all these, namely, race, leaving the matter of the origin of culture for future treatment. We shall deal with physical anthropology and the witness of prehistoric archæology alone. Finally, we shall strive conscientiously to distinguish between the positively proved and the merely hypothetical. We shall advance by propositions, keeping them in martial order, as we are entering debatable territory. One great advantage alone we may claim. As Americans, we should be endowed with "the serene impartiality of a mongrel," as the late Professor Huxley put it. No logical conclusion has terror for us. Whether the noble Aryan be
- ↑ The best statement of the progress of opinion upon the Aryan question is given by Canon Taylor in the opening chapters of his Origin of the Aryans. Dr. Beddoe, in his Anthropological History of Europe, has succinctly touched upon it also. In our Bibliography of the Anthropology and Ethnology of Europe, soon to appear in a Bulletin of the Boston Public Library, we have collected about a hundred titles of books and monographs on this subject, indexed chronologically. This affords a striking picture of its relative importance in the domain of ethnology. For convenience we shall refer to all papers in this reference list by means of authors and dates alone. Full titles can be obtained by consulting the list.
