Human Races

RAZZE UMANE. -

I. DEFINIZIONE

A human race is defined as that aggregate of human beings who, sharing a particular hereditary endowment, exhibit among themselves, alongside individual differences, the greatest homogeneity of biological characteristics transmissible to their descendants.

II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

The extreme complexity of the highly debated subject demands a clear

clarification on the various points of view from which the expression "human races" can be examined, which various authors understand with different meanings.

a) From a terminological and qualificatory 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 observable attributes in the human organism, hereditarily transmissible through a natural mechanism and representing as many human biological characteristics. Such characteristics are divided into: morphological characteristics, which refer to the form and structure of the body and its parts and which can be: external, if located on the external surface of the body (e.g., hair shape, palpebral folds, etc.), or internal, if concerning the skeleton or internal organs of the body (e.g., torsion angle of the femur, weight of the endocrine glands, etc.), or somatoscopic or descriptive or qualitative, if expressible by means of description (e.g., skin color, degree of hairiness, etc.), or somatometric or quantitative, if expressible by means of measurements (e.g., stature, pelvic diameters, etc.); physiological characteristics, 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, blood group-specific properties, growth processes, etc.; psychological characteristics, those that refer to human psychic activities, such as, e.g., intelligence, affective tone, behavior, etc.; physio-psycho-pathological characteristics, those that refer to morbid predispositions toward certain diseases. Therefore, the expression "human races", properly referring to biological entities, cannot be correctly used to indicate other human groupings constituted on the basis of different criteria and dis-

tinguishable, e.g., into language families which represent linguistic entities, peoples which represent historical-cultural entities, nations which represent ethnic-territorial entities, states which represent territorial and political entities.

b) From a 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 various living vegetable and animal organisms, the expression "human races" (at least as regards living races) is usually referred to groupings of a narrower rank than that of the species.

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

c) From a geographical point of view, the expression "human race" has a spatial meaning corresponding to the geographical area occupied by a given race in the period of time one wishes to examine. The reciprocal interferences between geographical factors, consisting of the oro-hydrographic, climatic, and nutritional conditions characteristic of various territories, and biological factors, represented by the remarkable possibilities of adaptation, mobility, and interferential capacity presented by man, have, albeit slowly but continuously, modified the individual biogeographical situations whose variations are commonly used as orientation elements for chronological interpretations. Thus, e.g., races that today occupy poorly accessible territories (islands, high mountains, etc.) or territories with scarce internal communication possibilities (forests, deserts, etc.) or that occupy marginal or terminal zones (certain coastal strips of the continents, etc.) as well as races dispersed over a large territorial extension or those progressively restricted to increasingly smaller spaces, are, within certain limits, considered older and less vital races compared to others found in opposite biogeographical conditions (Biasutti). It follows that the same race has not always occupied the same territory and conversely 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, by which is indicated — according to Rensch — "the set of morphologically similar and interbreeding individuals occupying a given area". Therefore, those races that have had greater spatial stability without or with lesser penetrations by heterogeneous elements have been able to preserve their original biological characteristics purer over time. Conversely, where, as a result of contiguity and invasions carried out or suffered, large-scale crossings of different races have occurred, modifications of the original biological characteristics as well as of linguistic and cultural phenomena have been determined, so that the geographical distributions of races, languages, and cultures are not superimposable.

d) From a chronological point of view, the expression "human race" is usually attributed the meaning not of entities immutable in time, but of stages "of a process in continuous evolution" (Dobzhansky). According to Rondoni, "race is not something static, but a process that unfolds with the concentration or dilution of certain genes (v. GENETICA) in different parts of a population". From this aspect, one must also consider, as S. Sergi writes, that "the common destiny by which different races live together in the closest relationships causes continuous crossings that give rise to mixed types, in which it is neither easy nor always pos-

sible to recognize the characteristics of the ancestors. The products of the crosses 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 of 'ethny' has been proposed, not to be confused with race and which can be better identified with people". On the basis of such concepts, synonyms of "ethny" could be considered "result race" (Martial) and "synthesis race" (Pende). But besides crosses between different races, the origin of new races can be determined by "mutations" (that is, sudden variations of hereditary factors [De Vries], which are presumed either to have arisen from intrinsic conditions of the genetic patrimony, or to have been caused by external causes. Both in the case of crosses and in that of mutations, for a new race to form, the respective "hybrid" or "mutant" subjects must reproduce among themselves. The chronological point of view, considered in its maximum extension, identifies with the history of human races and connects to topics involving broader problems concerning "how much and how — to quote 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 such problems it will suffice to recall that living h. r. are not the only human forms that have appeared on earth, because they were preceded by others, now extinct. This is documented by the skeletal remains of "fossil Hominids" and by the objects of their activity, in the finds available so far (v. GENERE UMANO, ETÀ DEL). Following the nomenclature proposed by S. Sergi, the human forms that have appeared on earth, "and only to the extent that can be ascertained from the most securely verified discoveries thus far," can be morphologically and chronologically distinguished as follows: Protoanthropic or first men, who lived at the beginning of the glacial epoch ("Pleistocene"), later disappearing and whose remains were found near Beijing (Asia), near Heidelberg (Europe), and near Lake Njarasa (East Africa); "they disappear at a certain point and are followed, at a later geological time, by new human types, also extinct today: the Paleoanthropic or ancient men, who lived from the second to the last glacial period (Middle Pleistocene) and "who range throughout the Old World, Europe, Asia, Africa, while the rest of the earth does not yet appear to be inhabited by man. After the glacials, Paleoanthropic men are no longer encountered; and all continents, including America and Australia, which previously do not seem to be occupied by man, are now found to be inhabited exclusively by Phaneroanthropic men or men of current forms, with which the fossil Phaneroanthropic men who lived at the end of the glacial epoch are undoubtedly genetically linked." "The extraordinary and general polymorphism of the Phaneroanthropic men thus appears in all its extension at the close of the Pleistocene, already with ethnic differences along multiple lines, corresponding to the special racial divisions of the present epoch. The so-called current h. r. have been evolving ever since."

It can be synthetically concluded that h. r. are biological entities, representing subdivisions of the species, spatially referred to the geographical areas occupied and chronologically in continuous evolution.

III. RACIAL CHARACTERS

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

Here is a list of the most used characters: 1) morphological characters: external somatoscopic: skin color, hair form and color, iris color, shape of the

palpebral fissure, degree of pilosity, shape of the head, of the face (according to outline and vertical and horizontal profiles), of the nose, lips, auricles, genitals, female breasts; steatopygia (a characteristic accumulation of fat in the gluteal regions of Bushmen and Hottentots, etc.); external somatometric: dimensions of the body and its segments, from which indices are calculated according to centesimal ratios (e.g., scelic index = trunk height × 100: stature), etc.; internal: of the skeleton: morphological and metric; of the soft parts: morphological and metric of the muscles, brain, endocrine glands, etc. 2) Physiological characters: thermoregulation, basal metabolism, special metabolisms, group-specific properties of the blood, growth processes, etc. Regarding the group-specific properties of the blood, i.e., relative to blood groups (of which by now, in addition to the system of the four classical groups, the M, N, P system and the Rh system and its subgroups are also known, not to mention others less extensively studied), it must be remembered that they have served as a basis for some authors to distinguish certain so-called "serological races" constituted according to specific percentages of distribution of said group-specific properties. They represent a modern, interesting field of investigation for racial studies, which have recently been dealt with by Steffan, Ottemberg, Boyd, Lundmann, Genna, etc. 3) Psychological characters: these too have been taken into consideration for the distinction of human groups. But due to the difficulty of gathering 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 towards certain diseases have been considered racial characteristics by some authors. But a clear distinction between genetic factors and geographical factors is rarely achievable. For this reason, while theoretically admitting the possibility that there exist immunities or morbid forms linked to race (such as, for example, sickle-cell anemia in Negroes), in practice it is advisable to maintain the utmost reservations in this regard.

IV. THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF 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, classifications are called morphological when based predominantly on morphological characters; genealogical or phyletic when based on the interpretation of degrees of kinship or affinity and the descent of the various races; hierarchical when based on the interpretation of the degree of evolution deduced from racial vitality (demographic increase, morbidity, territorial extension, geographical conditions of the inhabited space, etc.); geographical when based predominantly on geographical distribution and the interpretation of various biogeographical situations.

The division of individual classifications into groups cannot be observed in an absolute sense, because the same classification can be morphological and geographical at the same time, morphological and phyletic, etc.; the various classifications comprise a different number of races (and relative subraces) and some even a different number of species and genera; a certain agreement may be considered to exist, in part, for the major groupings, whereas for the lower groups discussions are still open, so that some races are made to belong 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. Given the impossibility of examining the various proposed classifications, those that have had the widest dissemination are briefly recalled among the most recent. The ancients already distinguished the various human types as found, for example, in Egyptian paintings, in the Bible, in Herodotus, in Hippocrates; but classifications in the modern sense begin with that of C. Linnaeus (1735), who distinguished the varieties of Homo sapiens based not only on morphological, but also on psychological and ethnological clues: a) Americanus (reddish; choleric; with erect gait; black, straight, coarse hair; wide nostrils; freckled face; almost beardless chin; tenacious, contented, free; paints himself with red labyrinthine lines; governed by custom); b) Europaeus (white, sanguine, muscular; yellowish, long hair; blue eyes; agile, witty, 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, lax; pitch-black, crisp hair; silk-smooth skin; snub nose; tumid lips; women have the apron of modesty with elongated nursing breasts; cunning, lazy, indolent; greases himself with fat; governed by caprice).

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1765), based on morphological characters (skeletal) and those 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 morphological classifications, understood extensively in the somatic sense, can be included those called "chromatic" because they are based exclusively or predominantly on skin color. Some of these have also been called "tripartite" because they distinguish humanity into three main groups: Whites, Negroes, Yellows (Cuvier, 1815-17), subsequently called Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids, and still later Leucoderms, Melanoderms, and Xanthoderms (Stratz, 1922). Among modern morphological classifications, mention should be made of that of Deniker (1900) who, based on 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 large human groups: Lissotrichi (with straight hair), Cymotrichi (with wavy hair), and Ulotrichi (with crisp hair). To the group of morphological classifications one might still ascribe those based simultaneously on the anthropological and linguistic criterion, which Biasutti calls "artificial". Examples of these may be those of Huxley (1879), Müller (1879), Haeckel (1900), etc.

Among genealogical or phyletic classifications (which also take somatic characters into account), 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); and of Montandon (1928) who, applying Rosa's hologenesis to man, distinguishes 5 major races originating successively from a common trunk that has progressively divided into two branches, one of which is destined to become extinct and the other to evolve. A variation of the hylogenetic dichotomy has been applied by Frassetto (1948) to the classification of fossil human races. Weinert (1939) admits three evolutionary lines: a black line, upon which the Negroids would be arranged; a central white line, at the base of which would be the Australians and at the apex the Europeans; and a yellow line upon which the Mongoloids would be found; the three lines would branch off from the same trunk from which the lines of the anthropoid apes originate. A very recent phyletic classification that refers to the insights of genetics is that of Fischer (1936), according to which four main branches derived from a single original trunk through "mutation", precisely those of the Negrids, Australids, Europids, and Mongolids. Within each of these large branches, further mutations, appearing simultaneously in multiple branches, would have given rise to racial subdivisions. Thus, for example, the "crisp hair" character, originating in the Negrids, can also be found in some race of the Australids because it appeared there as a result of mutation. S. Sergi comments on this that "the mutations posited by the author are mere suppositions which have nevertheless had a great suggestive power."

Of the so-called hierarchical classifications (which are partly genealogical as well), the oldest is that of Fritsch (1881), which distinguishes human races into the following three categories: protomorphic or "primitive" races (most ancient) which are at a disadvantage numerically, geographically, and vitally; arcinorphic or "dominating" races (more recent) derived from the former and presenting, with respect to them, advantageous conditions; and metamorphic or "derived" races resulting from crosses between the arcinorphic ones or between these and the primitive ones. Analogous to Fritsch's, but more complex, is the classification of Stratz (1904), followed by that of E. von Eickstedt (1934), which is reported here as being among the most recent. The author distinguishes three main branches: Europiform (leucoderms), Negriform (melanoderms), and Mongoliform (xanthoderms), which in turn are subdivided as follows:

An example of morphological-geographical classifications is that of Vallois (1948), who, rather than considering continents proper, examines the following 6 major regions, which he calls "anthropological areas," each presenting a particular racial composition: Europe and the Mediterranean basin; Sub-Saharan Africa; India; Trans-Himalayan Asia; the Oceanic World; and America.

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

1. Cycle of the equatorial primary forms

a) Branch of the Australioids: group of the austro-oceanic r.: Paleo-australids (r.: Australid and Tasmanid); group of the papua-melanesian r.: Papua-melanesids (r.: Melanesid and Papuasid); group of the austro-asian r.: Veddo-Malids (r.: Veddid, Malid and Senoid); b) branch of the Negroids: austro-african group: Steatopygids (r.: Steatopygid); group of the pygmy r.: Pygmids (r.: Bambutid, Andamanid, Semangid and Aetid); group of the black African r.: Negrids (r.: Sudanid, Nilotid, Congolid and Caffrid). 2. Cycle of the boreal primary forms: c) branch of the Mongoloids: group of the paleomorphic mongoloid r.: Tremongolids (r.: Siberid and Tibetid); group of the neomorphic mongoloid r.: Mongolids; neoarctic subgroup (r.: Eschimid); asian subgroup (r.: Tungid, Sinid and Sudmongolid); d) branch of the Europoids: group of the paleomorphic europoid r.: Pre-europids (r.: Ainuid, Uralid and Lappid); group of the neomorphic europoid r.: Europids; european subgroup (r.: Nordid, Mediterraneanid, Adriatid, Baltid and Alpinid); afro-asian subgroup (r.: Berberid, Orientalid, Armenid, Assirid, Turanid and Indid). 3. Cycle of the sub-equatorial derived r.: African forms (r.: Ethiopid, Saharid and Malgassid); south-asian forms (r.: Indo-melanid and Indonesid). 4. Cycle of the derived r. of the Pacific and America: Pacific forms (r.: Polynesid); American forms; forms with an accentuation of the mongoloid component (r.: Fuegid, Pampid, Amazonid, Istmid, Planid and Columbid); forms with an accentuation of the europoid component (r.: Lagid, Andid, Sonorid and Appalacid). - See plates XXVIII-XXIX.