This text was extracted from an image and needs proofreading.
Publications:
- Lucifer, vol. 4, no. 21, May 1889, pp. 256-260
Read:
Download:
DATA
Title for references: Blake C.C. - Anthropological Queries
Short description:
256
A work has been published, which revolutionises the science of animal life, and marks an epoch in our zoology equivalent in importance to Linnaeus’ great discovery of the binomial nomenclature. I cannot descend to bathos, and compare it with Darwin’s Origin of Species; as the author of the Secret Doctrine is probably aware that several foolish books have been written before her time.
Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona. |
All works that have been the object of self-improvement in science are of literary value. The present age is one wherein the principles of Finality have been assumed by the advocates of the science which, in 1859, was scornfully rejected as a modern invention by those who supported another theory, and in 1889 enjoy the popularity of success, and view anything which is not in conformity with Darwinism as a modern heresy. The high priests of our modern Darwinism do not stop at finality. They are not satisfied with asserting that they have reached perfect knowledge, but authoritatively condemn any proposition which is contrary to their belief. Thus, it may be safely said that if any one were to write a paper discussing any anthropological matter from the standpoint of a polygenist or a special creationist, such a paper would inevitably be rejected either by the Anthropological Institute, or Section H of the British Association. I am happy to say that the present writer has run no such risk. The “Secret Doctrine” is to “Darwinism” like dock-leaves to nettle. It makes no compromise and boldly declares the possibility of another theory of the origin of man to have been probable, and it has a theory, by which, on the assumption of primæval continents having existed at a remote historical epoch, the genesis of the various early races of man may be accounted for; whether we adopt the hypotheses of Wallace or of Sclater; and in whatever way we may limit the existence of the once mighty continents of Lemuria and Atlantis, we see the genesis of such men as the man of Canstadt satisfactorily accounted for. It is on anthropological matters, especially, that the author of the Secret Doctrine is really strong, and after a few years experience of the divagations to which anthropologists have often been led, each writer erecting his fame on the wreck of his predecessor’s faith,
gens ratione ferox, ac mentem posta chimeras, |
we confess to a certain feeling of satisfaction in seeing all the theories dismissed to “the limbo of all hasty blunders,” and the solitary system of H. P. Blavatsky left unique in its magnificence. Such a theory, which boldly attributes the descent of some animals from men by the degradation hypothesis, and rejects the theory of the evolution of men from apes, will naturally find scant support among the moderns. The argument which the late Sir Charles Lyell brought against the transmutation hypothesis, though suppressed in the later 257editions of the Principles of Geology, have still some weight. Professor Huxley, in 1855, lecturing to the Royal Institution, spoke vehemently against the doctrine of transmutation. “Those theorists,” who contended that there had been a progressive development of life since the globe first became habitable, commencing with the simplest forms of life, and proceeding regularly upwards to the most complex, were severely criticized, and it was stated that such a view of creation was not compatible with the facts disclosed by geological researches. Professor Huxley, in 1855, confidently assured his audience that a close examination dispelled the idea of progressive development, and proved that it had no solid foundation. Yet he appears now to have executed what the late General McClellan termed a “change of base.” We now have him writing emphatically in favour of Darwinism as the only possible hypothesis on the Evolutionist side. The theory, however, of Madame Blavatsky, has the advantage of recognising the origin of the lower races of men. Broc and Virey had given some proofs of the relations in which black men are coincident with black apes, and red men with red apes. Earlier, in 1850, Agassiz had remarked on the singularity of the fact that the black orang occurs upon the continent which is inhabited by the black human race, while the brown orang inhabits those parts of Asia over which the chocolate-coloured Malays have been developed. Unless, however, the European race is made to claim descent from the oran-utan (although the gorilla would, à priori, seem to be far more nearly allied to man), this theory leaves us entirely in the dark as to their origin. Neither does it account for the genesis of the Australian negroes, as there is not only no black ape, but no ape at all within that continent which could find hypothetical zoologists with a convenient progenitor.
The arguments in favour of Derivation as opposed to Darwinism have been given at length by Sir Richard Owen, and students of his system of philosophy are perhaps unable to find much distinction between his thoughts and those of the Secret Doctrine. Both agree in the utter rejection of all hypotheses, which like those of Haeckel, darken counsel by words without knowledge, and depend for their own acceptation for the previous acceptation of the Darwinian theory. We see in H. P. B.’s creed, on the other hand, as free emancipation from all shackles as the most ardent student of Burgersdyk or Heereboord could desire. Her hypothesis is a self-contained one. For her whether notre voisin et parent, la punaise, originated by natural selection or in any other manner is quite indifferent. We thus see that some merits of a hypothesis are preserved. Her theory does not depend on any other, and we see that the hypothesis, such as it is, is borne out by the genesis of the inferior races of man. The great point that Madame Blavatsky makes is, that we have two races of men. From each of these are descended various groups of inferior animals, which in reality are the descendants and not the progenitors of man. Thus, we see that her theory is directly at variance with Darwinism. Of course there are Darwinites and Darwinites. The late Charles Darwin was a scholar, but the same cannot be said of many of his successors.
One feature in the Secret Doctrine commends itself to my liking. The author says nothing about the modern doctrines of Evolution. The manner wherein the latter unfortunate word is used by scientific men is prudently not copied. In fact the brightest passages in H. P. B.’s work are those wherein she cuts 258herself boldly away from the fashionable phrases by which, to use the words of Lord Beaconsfield, gaily dressed and vociferating females “prattle of protoplasm in gilded saloons.”
Once the theory is well established that the higher races of man have been the origin of the more degraded forms, we are able to estimate the value of the scheme of filiation by which each individual race has been created. The author might have enounced her argument in one of two forms. Deductively, she might have claimed it as a revelation. Into the sources of her knowledge, true or false, I need not enquire, nor does the author of the Secret Doctrine express. Inductively she might have, and in fact has, considered the genesis of mankind from a purely scientific standpoint. If her theory merely rests on grounds of science, it must be examined on those grounds alone. To attain this end, the precept of Lucretius should guide us.
“Acri |
The races of early man may, from the point of view of the modern anthropologist, be divided into two broad divisions. A, the Man of Canstadt. B, the man of Cromagnon. It is the object of the present remarks to urge that a light has been thrown on modern science by the publication of the Secret Doctrine which illuminates one of the most important epochs in modern anthropology. Such a statement of known fact is probably without precedent in the history of our science. There are some who remember the weary uphill way in which the scientific men of the last generation deliberately directed arrows that, on the whole, were aimed towards the gold centre of truth, and told as much as was known of a science then young and still hardly adolescent.
The leading types of the Canstadt man have been found at Canstadt, Eguisheim, Brux, Neanderthal, La Denise (of the male type); and of the gentler sex at Stangenaes, Olmo, Clichy, Maestricht, Gibraltar, and Larzac. Probably too much has been said about the Neander valley skull, that was at least not simious, though its earlier advocates made it so, and belonged to an individual of whom the antiquity and the peculiarity were alike disproven. The celebrated and mysterious jaw from La Naulette, which undeniably does present some simious characters, is probably referable to the race of Canstadt. There is a palaeontological difficulty, which is stronger than a theoretical one. How do we know that such a jaw as that of La Naulette fitted on to a skull like that of Canstadt or Eguisheim? The type of man most aberrant from the existing forms is merely represented by one, or at most two, lower jaws from La Naulette and Arcy. We have no evidence that the skulls associated with such mandibles were of any peculiar type; they may have been as hyperbrachistocephalic as some existing Norwegians, or as hypsi-stenocephalic as the longest skulled New Caledonian. Where we have not a single fact from which we can legitimately infer even a probable generalisation, silence, at least, so far as regards the cranial type associated with the truly ancient lower jaws, becomes absolutely nesessary. Many of the skulls of the Canstadt (olim “Neanderthaloid”) type are of dubious antiquity, but I mean by this merely to say that taking instance by instance, their association with the remains of extinct animals, 259and then consequent reference to the “post pliocene” period (whatever that may mean) has not passed beyond conjecture in some cases, and a high degree of probability in others. Was the earliest known man in Europe more apish than existing races? The Secret Doctrine has shown good reason on which this plausible theory of modern “Evolution” (pity me for using the unmeaning word) may be denied. Was he of the same race as that which now exists in Western and Central Europe? To this question many answers may be returned. One school would say that the Neanderthal skull for instance is identical in character with many existing Celts. Reference to such skulls as those of Antrim, Louth, Gentoud, “1029 of Davis”, St. Mansuy, Bishop of Toul in the fourth century, Ledbury, Corcomroe, Morrisk, Borris, Nether Urquhart, and perhaps a dozen others, will show that the characters that in 1861, I and many better men (now, alas, “gone home”) thought to be exceptional are now known to be frequent, if not common. An investigation of these skulls, which like those of the direct Canstadt type, are of uncertain age, but of which some have belonged to individuals that have existed within the last five hundred years, will show that the Canstadt men have existed within the historical period. Are they now extinct? I am compelled at this moment to postpone the subject on which a student of anthropology may ask of authority that is more exact and powerful than that of inductive science, whether a race descended from the ancient Lemurians, does not at the present day exist in Ireland. However, in Australia we certainly find it. The distinction between the flat-headed and gable-topped races of Australia is a fact, that, though true, had been obscured in Anthropological Science till the voice of the “Master” (through Madame Blavatsky) proclaimed it to English scientific men. The flat-headed races of Australia thus prove to be an important factor in the chain of man.
In a communication that I made to the Anthropological Society,[1] I advocated the existence, in Australia, of several very distinct types.[2] M. Topinard[3] has done me the rare honour of proposing the same theory, which is in accordance with the arguments of Mr. C. Staniland Wake.[4] From Port Essington,[5] near Moreton Bay, we have a type of Australian skull, that differs entirely from the tectocephalic Australian, and exhibits its Lemurian characters by being in the words of Quatrefages and Hamy[6] “destinée avant tout à souligner les caractères différentiels de la tête osseuse de l’homme, même le plus inférieur, et de celle des anthropomorphes.” But these flat-headed aborigines had their allies in an old English race. The “river-bed” type of skull attracted in 1862 more attention than at present. Evidence of these river-bed skulls is found from Muskham,[7] Towyn-y-Capel,[8] Blackwater,[9] Borris,[10] Eastham,[11] and perhaps Heathery 260Burn.[12] They indicate a race of men that survived at a period of great antiquity, and according to the speculations of Dr. Thurnam and Professor Huxley, were to a certain extent identifiable with, or representative of, the “long-barrow” type of skull. The hasty generalisation of Dr. Thurnam [13] “long barrows, long skulls, round barrows, round skulls,” has long since been forgotten; yet it served to amuse speculators of the year 1866. Professor Busk, [14] who was probably the first to call attention to the “River Bed” skulls, cautiously avoided their identification with any other. As I am now conducting a theosophical, not an anthropological argument, I wish to show that this race exhibits every mark of absolute distinction from the succeeding Belgæ or Celts, the Aryans of the penny papers, whence Europe is supposed to have derived what it is pleased to call its religion and its civilisation. On the other hand, the river-bed type of skull shows no analogy with the apes. Where its true affinity is found is among the flat-headed aborigines of Australia. I refrain from arguing the anatomical question in detail, as I have done so already at great length. But it is this race that may have been the last survivors of the Lemurians in Europe, and have nothing to do with the later types of man.
In these remarks, I have carefully abstained from saying anything about the Cro-magnon or Engis men, that most probably belonged to the Fifth Race.
The questions, therefore, that I have to ask are:
A. Was the Canstadt man a Lemurian?
B. Were the “river-bed” men ejusdem generis with the earlier race of Canstadt. Or at least, were some of them so?
By solving these rather difficult anthropological questions you will confer another benefit on contemporary science.
C. Carter Blake, Doct. Sc.
(Late Secretary Anthropological Society of London).
Footnotes
- ↑ Journal of Anthrop. Society of London. Vol. viii, p. xxxii.
- ↑ Huxley loc. cit., p. 130. [This note is printed on p. 259 with a ¶ sign, but no corresponding reference mark is visible in the text. – Ed.]
- ↑ Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 2nd series, vol. xii, p. 211, 327.
- ↑ Physical Characters of the Australian Aborigines. Journal of Anthropology, 1870, p. 259, xii.
- ↑ Owen. Descriptive Catalogue of Royal College of Surgeons. Nos 5185, 5309, 5336.
- ↑ Quatrefages & Hamy. Crania Ethnica, p. 303.
- ↑ Laing and Huxley. Prehistoric Remains of Caithness, p. 124. Mihi in Geologist. 1862, p. 215
- ↑ Laing & Huxley, loc. cit., p. 124.
- ↑ L. & H. loc. cit., p. 125, mihi in Geologist. 1862, p. 215.
- ↑ L. & H. loc. cit. p. 126, mihi in Geologist. 1862, p. 214.
- ↑ Mihi in Geologist. 1862, p. 213.
- ↑ Mihi in Geologist. 1862, p. 216. Huxley, Geologist, 1863, p. 204.
- ↑ Thurnam, Memoirs Anthropological Society, vol. i., p. 149.
- ↑ Crania Typica. Work unfortunately not published, but of which the plates are in the library of the Anthropological Institute.