Human Races

HUMAN RACES. - I. DEFINITION. - That group of men is called a h. r. which, having in common a particular hereditary patrimony, presents among its members, with individual differences, the greatest homogeneity of biological characters transmissible to descendants.

II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The extreme complexity of the subject, much debated, requires a clarification of the various points of view from which the expression "human races" may be examined, which is understood by various authors with different meanings.

a) From the terminological-qualifying point of view, human races represent biological entities insofar as they are individual groupings constituted and distinguished according to biological criteria, that is, on the basis of the similarity or difference of the attributes observable in the human organism, hereditarily transmissible by natural mechanism and which represent so many human biological characters. Such characters are distinguished into: morphological characters, which refer to the form and structure of the body and its parts and which may be: external, if they are located on the external surface of the body (e.g., shape of the hair, eyelid folds, etc.), or internal, if they concern the skeleton or internal organs of the body (e.g., angle of torsion of the femur, weight of the endocrine glands, etc.), or somatoscopic or descriptive or qualitative, if they are expressible by means of description (e.g., color of the skin, degree of hairiness, etc.), or somatometric or quantitative, if they are expressible by means of measurements (e.g., stature, diameters of the pelvis, etc.); physiological characters, those that refer to the functional activities of the various organs and tissues and of the organism as a whole and which may concern, e.g., thermoregulation, basal metabolism, the group-specific properties of the blood, the processes of growth, etc.; psychological characters, those that refer to the psychic activities of man, such as, e.g., intelligence, affective tone, behavior, etc.; physio-psycho-pathological characters, those that refer to morbid predispositions toward determined diseases. Therefore the expression "human races," referring properly to biological entities, cannot be correctly used to indicate other human groupings constituted on the basis of different criteria and distinguishable, e.g., into linguistic families which represent linguistic entities, into peoples which represent historico-cultural entities, into nations which represent ethno-territorial entities, into states which represent territorial and political entities.

b) From the taxonomic or systematic point of view, that is, according to the hierarchy of categories which, in naturalistic classifications, aim to define the degrees of biological affinity of the various living plant and animal organisms, the expression "human races" (at least as far as living races are concerned) is usually referred to groupings of a more restricted rank than that of the species.

As far as man is concerned, the term "race" is attributed a meaning different from that with which the same term is used in zoology, where it is used, now as a synonym of variety to designate the result of determined crosses artificially obtained, now, instead, as a subdivision of the species or of the subspecies and distinguished from the term "variety," which is reserved only for modifications that are not hereditary but conditioned by the environment. In human systematics, races, according to Biasutti, do not represent the category immediately inferior with respect to the species, but this is subdivided into branches or sections (according to Cucinot's expression); the branches are subdivided into groups of races and these into races, which in turn are subdivided into subraces or regional or local types constituted by individual individuals.

c) From the geographical point of view, the expression "human races" has a spatial meaning corresponding to the geographical area occupied by a given race in the period of time one wishes to examine. The mutual interferences between geographical factors, consisting in the oro-hydrographic, climatic and alimentary conditions characteristic of the various territories, and biological factors, represented by the notable possibilities of adaptation, mobility and interfertility presented by man, have, albeit slowly, but continuously, modified the individual biogeographical situations, whose variations are usually utilized as elements of orientation for chronological interpretations. Thus, e.g., the races that today occupy scarcely accessible territories (islands, high mountains, etc.) or with scarce possibilities of internal communications (forests, deserts, etc.) or that occupy marginal or terminal zones (some coastal strips of the continents, etc.) as well as the races dispersed over a great territorial extension or those progressively restricted into ever smaller spaces, are, within certain limits, considered more ancient and less vital races with respect to the others that find themselves in opposite biogeographical conditions (Biasutti). It follows that not always has the same race occupied the same territory and vice versa that the same territory has not always been occupied by a single race. To better define, in individual cases, the correspondence between geographical seat and biological conditions, the expression "geographical race" has been proposed, with which is indicated — according to Rensch — "the set of morphologically similar and interbreeding individuals that occupy a determined area." Therefore, those races that have had a greater spatial stability without or with lesser penetrations on the part of heterogeneous elements, have been able to conserve more purely over time their original biological characters. Vice versa, where, by effect of contiguity and of invasions carried out or undergone, crosses of different races have occurred on a large scale, modifications of the original biological characters have been determined as well as linguistic and cultural phenomena, so that the geographical distributions of races, languages and cultures do not turn out to be superimposable.

d) From the chronological point of view, the expression "human races" is usually attributed the meaning not of entities immutable in time, but of stages "of a process in continuous becoming" (Dobzhanski). According to Rondoni, "race is not something static, but a process that unfolds with the concentrating or diluting of certain genes (v. GENETICA) in different parts of a population." Under this aspect it is also to be considered, as S. Sergi writes, that "the common destiny for which different races live together in the closest relations, provokes continuous crosses that give rise to mixed types, in which it is not easy, nor always possible, to recognize the characters of the ancestors. The products of crossings then appear to us with new aspects that could be considered as the expression of a new race in formation, a human grouping for which the name "ethnos" has been proposed, which is not to be confused with race and can better be identified with people." On the basis of these concepts, the "resultant race" (Martial) and the "synthesis race" (Pende) could be considered synonyms of "ethnos." But besides crossings between different races, the origin of new races can be determined by "mutations" (that is, by abrupt variations of hereditary factors [De Vries], which are presumed either to have arisen from intrinsic conditions of the genetic patrimony or to have been provoked by external causes. Both in the case of crossings and in that of mutations, for a new race to be formed the respectively "hybrid" or "mutant" subjects must reproduce among themselves. The chronological point of view, considered in its maximum extension, is identified with the history of human races and is connected to topics that involve problems of broader scope concerning "how much and how — to put it with S. Sergi — the factors of time (geological), space (geographical), environment (ecological), and intrinsic mechanism (genetic) have contributed to determining the plurality and discontinuity of human morphological types."

On these problems it will suffice to recall that living human races are not the only human forms to have appeared on earth, because they were preceded by others, now extinct. This is documented by the skeletal remains of the "fossil Hominids" and by the objects of their activity, in the finds available so far (v. GENERE UMANO). Following the nomenclature proposed by S. Sergi, the human forms that appeared on earth, "and only insofar as it is permitted to infer from the discoveries so far most securely ascertained," can be distinguished morphologically and chronologically as follows: Protoanthropi or first men, who lived at the beginning of the ice age ("Pleistocene") and then disappeared, and whose remains have been found near Beijing (Asia), near Heidelberg (Europe) and near Lake Njarasa (East Africa); "they disappear at a certain moment and are followed, in a more advanced geological time, by new human types, also today extinct: the Paleoanthropi or ancient men, who lived from the second to the last glacial period (Middle Pleistocene) and 'who ranged over the whole of the Old World, Europe, Asia, Africa, while the rest of the earth does not yet appear to be inhabited by man.' After the glacial periods the Paleoanthropi are no longer encountered; and all the continents, including America and Australia, which previously do not seem to have been occupied by man, now appear inhabited, and only by Phaneranthropi or men of present-day forms, with which the fossil Phaneranthropi who lived at the end of the ice age are undoubtedly genetically linked." "The extraordinary and general polymorphism of the Phaneranthropi thus appears in all its extension at the close of the Pleistocene, already with ethnic differences along several lines, corresponding to the special racial divisions of the present epoch. The so-called present human races have been in evolution since then."

It can be synthetically held that human races are biological entities, representing subdivisions of the species, spatially referred to the geographical areas occupied and chronologically in continuous becoming.

III. RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS

In order to distinguish the different ethnic types (races) it is necessary to establish the characters commonly called racial, which are represented by hereditary attributes detected by appropriate technical methods. In the past many racial classifications were based on so-called "key characters" — that is, on the characters considered most distinctive and most traditionally employed (such as, for example, skin color, hair form, nasal index, etc.) — which, as has been seen in modern times, do not always offer a guarantee of genetic affinity. Moreover, one and the same character may prove discriminating in certain cases and of little importance in others, and may have been used now to distinguish the major groups, now to differentiate their subdivisions.

Here is a list of the most used characters: 1) morphological characters: external somatoscopic: skin color, form and color of the hair, color of the irises, form of the palpebral opening, degree of hairiness, form of the head, of the face (according to the contour and the vertical and horizontal profiles), of the nose, of the lips, of the auricles, of the genitalia, of the female breasts; steatopygia (characteristic accumulation of adipose tissue in the gluteal regions of the Bushmen and Hottentots, etc.); external somatometric: dimensions of the body and of its segments, from which the indices are calculated according to centesimal ratios (for example, skelic index = trunk height × 100: stature), etc.; internal: of the skeleton: morphological and metric; of the soft parts: morphological and metric of the muscles, of the brain, of the endocrine glands, etc. 2) Physiological characters: thermoregulation, basal metabolism, special metabolisms, group-specific properties of the blood, processes of growth, etc. With regard to the group-specific properties of the blood, that is, those relating to blood groups (of which, by now, besides the system of the four classic groups, the M, N, P system and the Rh system and its subgroups are also known, to say nothing of others less extensively studied), it should be remembered that they have served as a basis for some authors in distinguishing certain so-called "serological races" constituted according to determined percentages of distribution of the said group-specific properties. They represent a modern, interesting field of investigation for racial studies, with which Steffan, Ottemberg, Boyd, Lundmann, Genna, etc., have recently concerned themselves. 3) Psychological characters: these too have been taken into consideration for the distinction of human groups. But because of the difficulty of collecting numerous and objective psychological data, the use of such characters has been rather rare, when it has not been done inappropriately. 4) Physio-psycho-pathological characters: particular predispositions or resistances toward determined diseases have been held by some authors to be racial characteristics. But a clear distinction between genetic factors and geographic factors is rarely attainable. For this reason, while admitting theoretically the possibility that immunities or morbid forms linked to race may exist (as, for example, the drepanocytic anemia of Negroes), in practice it is advisable to maintain the broadest reservations in this regard.

IV. THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE HUMAN RACES

The numerous classifications of human races are usually grouped according to the distinctive characters that have been employed and the criteria that have been followed. Thus, for example, those classifications based predominantly on morphological characters are called morphological; genealogical or phyletic, those based on the interpretation of the degrees of kinship or affinity and of the descent of the various races; hierarchical, those based on the interpretation of the degree of evolution inferred from racial vitality (demographic increase, morbidity, territorial extent, geographical conditions of the inhabited space, etc.); geographical, those based predominantly on geographical distribution and on the interpretation of the various biogeographical situations.

The distinction of individual classifications into groups cannot be observed in an absolute sense, because one and the same classification can be at the same time morphological and geographical, morphological and phyletic, etc.; the various classifications comprise a different number of races (and related subraces) and some also a different number of species and even of genera; a certain agreement may be held to exist, in part, for the larger groupings, while for the lower groups discussions are still open, so that some races are assigned now to one group, now to another. Therefore, whatever the criteria followed, they have always been informed by interpretive hypotheses which, together with the difficulty and uncertainty of separating the enormous polymorphism of man within rigid schemes, render the various classifications more or less conventional and destined to be modified by further knowledge. Since it is impossible to examine the various classifications proposed, those among the most recent that have had the widest diffusion are briefly recalled. Already the ancients distinguished the various human types, as is found, for example, in Egyptian paintings, in the Bible, in Herodotus, in Hippocrates; but classifications in the modern sense are made to begin with that of C. Linnaeus (1735), who distinguished the varieties of Homo sapiens on grounds not only morphological, but also psychological and ethnological: a) Americanus (reddish; choleric; of erect gait; black, straight, thick hair; wide nostrils; freckled face; chin almost beardless; tenacious, content, free; paints himself with red labyrinthine lines; governed by custom); b) Europaeus (white, sanguine, muscular; blondish, long hair; blue eyes; agile, sharp-witted, ingenious; covers himself with tight-fitting clothes; governed by laws); c) Asiaticus (yellowish, melancholic, rigid; blackish hair; dark eyes; severe, luxurious, avaricious; covers himself with loose clothes, governed by opinions); d) Afer (black, phlegmatic, relaxed; very black, curly hair; skin smooth as silk; flat nose; swollen lips; the women have the apron of modesty with elongated nursing breasts; cunning, lazy, indolent; anoints himself with grease; governed by caprice).

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1765), on the basis of morphological characters (skeletal) and of the soft parts of the head, distinguished 5 varieties: 1) Caucasian; 2) Mongolian; 3) Ethiopian; 4) American; 5) Malay. For the indication of the spatial areas of the individual varieties, Blumenbach's classification, which is morphological, is erroneously considered geographical. Among the morphological classifications, understood extensively in the sense of somatic, may be included those so-called "chromatic" because based exclusively or predominantly on skin color. Some of them have also been called "tripartite" because they distinguish humanity into three principal groups: Whites, Negroes, Yellows (Cuvier, 1815-17), subsequently called Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids and later still Leucoderms, Melanoderms and Xanthoderms (Stratz, 1922). Among modern morphological classifications, mention should be made of that of Deniker (1900), who, on the basis of the morphology and color of the hair (also including other characters for the subdivisions), distinguishes 6 racial groups, and that of Haddon (1909), which can also be considered tripartite because it distinguishes three great human groups: the Lissotrichi (with straight hair), the Cymotrichi (with wavy hair) and the Ulotrichi (with curly hair). To the group of morphological classifications could still be ascribed those based simultaneously on anthropological and linguistic criteria and which Biasutti calls "artificial." Examples of these may be those of Huxley (1879), of Mueller (1879), of Haeckel (1900), etc.

Among the genealogical or phyletic classifications (which also take account of somatic characters), mention is made of those of Giuseppe Sergi (1911), who admitted 5 genera, two fossil and three living, applying for the first time to man a Latin terminology according to the rules of zoological nomenclature; of Gregory (1924), of Montandon (1928), who, applying to man the hologenesis of Rosa, distinguishes 5 great races originating successively from a common trunk that has been progressively dividing into two branches, of which one is destined to become extinct and the other to evolve. A variation of hologenetic dichotomy was applied by Frassetto (1948) to the classification of fossil human races. Weinert (1939) admits three evolutionary lines: a black one, on which the Negroids would be arranged, a central white one, at whose base would be the Australians and at whose apex the Europeans, and a yellow one on which the Mongoloids would be found; the three lines would branch off from the same trunk from which the lines of the anthropomorphic apes originate. A very recent phyletic classification that refers to the knowledge of genetics is that of Fischer (1936), according to whom from a single original trunk four principal branches would have derived by "mutation," namely those of the Negrids, Australids, Europids, and Mongolids. Within each of these great branches, further mutations, appearing simultaneously in several branches, would have given rise to the racial subdivisions. Thus, for example, the character "curly hair," originally of the Negrids, can also be found in some race of the Australids because it appeared there following mutation. S. Sergi comments on this point that "the mutations envisaged by the author are simple suppositions which have nevertheless had a great suggestive power."

Of the so-called hierarchical classifications (which are in part also genealogical), the oldest is that of Fritsch (1881), who distinguishes human races into the following three categories: the protomorphic or "primitive" races (older), which numerically, geographically and vitally find themselves in conditions of disadvantage; the archimorphic or "dominating" races (more recent), deriving from the former and presenting, with respect to these, conditions of advantage; the metamorphic races or those "derived" from crosses between the archimorphic races or between these and the primitive ones. Analogous to, but more complex than, that of Fritsch is the classification of Stratz (1904), which is followed by that of E. von Eickstedt (1934), which it is thought worth reporting as being among the most recent. The author distinguishes three principal branches: Europiform (leucoderms), Negriform (melanoderms) and Mongoliform (xanthoderms), which in turn are subdivided as follows:

Of the morphological-geographic classifications, an example can be represented by that of Vallois (1948), which, instead of considering the continents properly so called, takes into examination the following 6 great regions, which he calls "anthropological areas," each of which presents a particular racial composition: Europe and the Mediterranean basin; sub-Saharan Africa; India; trans-Himalayan Asia; the Oceanic World; America.

A genealogical-geographic classification is that of Biasutti (1941), which is reported here in full:

1. Cycle of the primary equatorial forms

a) Branch of the Australoids: group of the Austro-Oceanic races: Paleo-Australids (races: Australid and Tasmanid); group of the Papuan-Melanesian races: Papuan-Melanesids (races: Melanesid and Papuasid); group of the Austro-Asiatic races: Veddo-Malids (races: Veddid, Malid and Senoid); b) branch of the Negroid peoples: Austro-African group: Steatopygids (races: Steatopygid); group of the pygmy races: Pygmids (races: Bambutid, Andamanid, Semangid and Aetid); group of the African Negro races: Negrids (races: Sudanid, Nilotid, Congolid and Cafrid). 2. Cycle of the primary boreal forms: c) branch of the Mongoloid peoples: group of the paleomorphic Mongoloid races: Tremongolids (races: Siberid and Tibetid); group of the neomorphic Mongoloid races: Mongolids; neo-Arctic subgroup (races: Eskimid); Asiatic subgroup (races: Tungid, Sinid and South-Mongolid); d) branch of the Europoid peoples: group of the paleomorphic Europoid races: Pre-Europids (races: Ainuid, Uralid and Lappid); group of the neomorphic Europoid races: Europids; European subgroup (races: Nordid, Mediterranid, Adriatid, Baltid and Alpid); Afro-Asiatic subgroup (races: Berberid, Orientalid, Armenid, Assyrid, Turanid and Indid). 3. Cycle of the sub-equatorial derived races: African forms (races: Ethiopid, Saharid and Malgassid); South-Asiatic forms (races: Indo-Melanid and Indonesid). 4. Cycle of the derived races of the Pacific and of America: Pacific forms (races: Polynesid); forms of America; forms with an accentuation of the Mongoloid component (races: Fuegid, Pampid, Amazonid, Isthmid, Planid and Columbid); forms with an accentuation of the Europoid component (races: Lagid, Andid, Sonorid and Appalacid). - See plates XXVIII-XXIX.

Venerando Correnti