Either the Osmanli Turks were never Mongols, or they have lost every trace of it by intermixture. Our portraits on the opposite page give little indication of Asiatic derivation except in their accentuated short-and broad-headedness. This is considerably more noticeable in Asia Minor than in European Turkey.[1] West of the Bosporus the Turks differ but little from the surrounding Slavs in head form. They have been bred down from their former extreme brachycephaly, which still rules to a greater degree in Asia Minor. In our portraits from this region the absence of occipital prominence is very marked. In addition to this, the Turks are everywhere, as Chantre observes, "incontestably brunet." The hair is generally stiff and straight. The beard is full. This latter trait is fatal to any assumption of a persistence of Kirghez blood, or of any Mongolic extraction, in fact. The nose is broad, but straight in profile. The eyes are perfectly normal, the oblique Mongol type no more frequent than elsewhere. In stature tallness is the rule, judging by Chantre's data, but in this respect social conditions are undoubtedly of great effect. On the whole, then, we may consider that the Turks have done fairly well in the preservation of their primitive characteristics. Chantre especially finds them quite homogeneous, considering all the circumstances. They vary according to the people among whom their lot is cast. Among the Armenians they become broader-headed, while among the Iranian peoples—Kurds or Persians—the opposite influence of intermixture at once is apparent.
The Bulgarians are of interest because of their traditional Finnic origin and subsequent Europeanization. This has ensued through conversion to Christianity and the adoption of a Slavic speech. Our earliest mention of these Bnlgars would seem to locate them between the Ural Mountains and the Volga.[2] The district was, in fact, known as Old Bulgaria till the Russians took it in the fifteenth century. As to which of the many existing tribes of the Volga Finns represent the ancestors of these Bulgarians, no one is, I think, competent to speak. Pruner Bey seems to think they were the Ostiaks and Voguls, since emigrated across the Urals into Asia; the still older view of Edwards and Klaproth made them Huns; Obédénare, according to Virchow, said they were Samoyeds or Tungus; while Howorth and Beddoe claim the honor for the Chuvashes. These citations are enough to prove that nobody knows very much about it in detail. All
- ↑ On the anthropology of European Turks, Weisbach, 1873, is the only authority. He found an average cephalic index of 82.8 in 148 cases. Elisyeef, 1890-'91, and Chantre, 1895, pp. 206-211, have worked in Anatolia, with indices of 86 for 143 individuals, and 84.5 for 120 men, respectively. Both von Luschan and Chantre give a superb collection of portrait types in addition.
- ↑ Read Pruner Bey, 1860 b; Howorth; Obedenare, and especially Kauitz, 1875, for historic details.
