circumstances, there is every appearance that the character brought before the Institute by Captain Burton is, in its form if not in its date, one of the most ancient of its class.

Dr. CHARNOCK said that some of the figures on the drawings resembled the Phoenician letters "daleth”, “nun”, and “resh”, and the Hebrew "heor", "cheth", and "lamed".

The CHAIRMAN said that it appeared to him that the efforts of Captain Burton as regards his researches in Palestine would be of great value in connection with those of the Palestine Exploration Society, of which he (Mr. Harris) had been a supporter from the commencement; following a somewhat different track to what they were doing, and taking up the anthropological department of the subject, as regards more especially the examination of the human remains there discovered. The Anthropological Institute was indebted to Captain Burton alike for his researches in that interesting country, and for the able paper which he had read before them that evening.

Mr. Luke Burke, Mr. W. B. Martin, and Mr. Franks, also offered a few remarks.

The author briefly replied.

The following paper was read.

RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS, as related to CIVILISATION. By J. GOULD AVERY, M.A.I. [Abstract]

RACIAL characteristics are not the result of accident, habit, or climate, but are physical, material, and indelible. . . . Civilisation may be defined as the aggregate of those conditions of mental and social existence in which man differs from the brute.

Races will, however, be classed in this paper under three divisions-civilized, semi-civilized, and savage. . . Nor can any definition of civilization be perfect which does not recognise moral characteristics. . . . Civilization is humanity. . . It is proposed, then, to inquire (1), is there any sufficient evidence that any race now civilized has descended from savages, or that any savage race has become civilized and yet perpetuated its existence? 2. Has any civilized race degenerated into partial or total barbarism? 3. Has any partially or wholly civilized race exchanged its civilization for another? 1. In regard to the first inquiry, the ancestors of the Greeks, Britons, and Germans are alleged to have been savages... Refuted... The Sandwich Islanders, Maoris, Red Indians, and others have partially accepted civilization, but are dying out. The case of the negro is dubious.

The Caffre rejects civilization, and survives. Reason of this.... Summary of argument.

2. Has any civilized race degenerated into partial or total barbarism? Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Bengalis, Spaniards, Lapps, Eskimos. . . . Degeneracy denied. For illustration, imagine that Hindustan were suddenly denuded of its inhabitants, and that historical memorials had perished. The country would then present features similar to those of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, and a traveller admiring the remains of fortresses, palaces, railroads, and other great works, might infer that the country had formerly been peopled by a very powerful and intelligent race; and yet he would be mistaken. Those great works were mainly achieved by strangers and conquerors, and the mass of the native inhabitants had been only their instruments. Such was probably the case in Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The old races who achieved the greatness of their names have died out..... A similar process is now in progress in Turkey. Spaniards are not degenerate, nor Lapps, nor Eskimos.

3. Has any semi-civilized race accepted another civilization instead of its own? Modern intercommunication has made different races well acquainted, and they have made rapid progress, but each along its own groove, preserving its ancient characteristics. Instance the Chinese and Japanese, emigrants of different nations in the United States, etc.

Racial characteristics are indelible. They may be overlaid and concealed by the progress of civilization and by surrounding circumstances, but will on emergencies burst forth afresh and assert themselves with undiminished vigour. Importance of the subject to the student and the statesman.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. LEWIS, while finding some points of agreement with the author as regarded the first part of his paper, thought many facts might be brought forward against the second part. One of these was the account given by Herodotus of the Lydians, who, though once the most warlike people of Asia Minor, were, after being conquered by the Persians, rendered so effeminate by the customs imposed upon them by their conquerors that their cowardice became proverbial. Turning to modern history, Holland might be mentioned as exhibiting an instance of national decadence, unaccompanied, however, so far as he knew, by individual degeneracy. The Jews, whom Mr. Avery had mentioned as being unchanged throughout the course of History, had certainly lost the martial and turbulent character which they possessed when inhabiting Palestine under the Roman government.

Mr. HUGHES objected to the author's definition of civilisation, as not expressive of that which was usually understood by the term, nor as even embracing what the author in his paper evidently included

"that which en

under it. He would prefer some such definition as abled man to obtain the greatest results with the smallest expenditure of force." He showed that, in asking us to point out any instance of a savage race having of its own unaided efforts become civilised, the author was requiring a proof which, from the nature of the case, it was impossible to furnish; for if history could tell us of any such progress as a matter of observation, that implied the contact of a superior race to make the observations. That those who said that the human race had progressed did not hold that each civilised race had become such independently, but that the general advancement went on somewhere all the time; and whenever the more civilised came in contact with the ruder, under conditions in other respects equal, the more civilised either absorbed or exterminated the ruder. He criticised the statements of the author with regard to the divisions of races, showing that in some of the cases adduced the author called one part of the same race barbarous, and another civilised. With reference to the borrowing of civilisation, he pointed out how most of the history of the world was a history of transferred civilisation; and that Greece borrowed from Egypt, Phoenicia, and the East generally, that Rome borrowed from Greece, Britain from Rome, and

so on.

Dr. CHARNOCK thought the author of the paper had to a certain extent disproved his case. He said that uncivilised nations never became civilised, and civilised nations never became uncivilised. Mr. Gould Avery cited an ancient author, to the effect that the ancient Britons (who, by the bye, were not the ancestors of the present English people) were barbarians, but Mr. Avery did not agree therewith; and if the facts given by Mr. Lysons were correct, there is no doubt that the ancient Britons must have been a very civilised people. But what were most of the Keltic Irish of the present day but savages? On the other hand, Mr. Avery said that the ancient Germans were barbarians. Now, there is no doubt that the Germans had in modern times done their best to demoralise Europe, but at the same time, as compared with what they were anciently, they are a civilised people. And what did the author of the paper think of the ancient Peruvians and Mexicans? Their architecture proved that at one time the people of these countries must have been highly civilised. With regard to the Peruvians, the civilisation had grown up among the nation itself, and was not derived from any other people. The most ancient and most important of the monuments of Mexico were not, strictly speaking, Mexican, but were probably the work of the Tolteks. Now, if the latter still existed under some other name, they had ceased to build such monuments; and if they had been blotted out altogether, they must have first become deteriorated.

Mr. AUGUSTUS GOLDSMID observed that he should not have troubled the meeting had it not been for the remarks of one of the speakers, which he could not allow to go forth to the world unnoticed. What that gentleman had stated as the law of England, and as if applicable to all cases-i.e., that a female infant could be ravished with im

VOL. II.

F

punity-might and no doubt was a fact in the particular case quoted, but was the result not of a defect in the criminal law itself, but in the law of evidence as applied to criminal cases, which had since been remedied, requiring in all cases evidence upon oath, founded upon a knowledge by the juror of the religious consequences of a false oath. The other assertion made, that anyone could take up a loaded gun and fire it at another without any kind of penal consequences, was also a confusion between evidence and fact, the law of England requiring that the jury should be satisfied of the intention of a party committing any criminal act; the punishment of such an offender depended on their opinion as to the intent. Mr. Goldsmid further observed that he should have been glad, had not the hour been so late, to have made some remarks on the very interesting paper they had heard, but he would content himself with observing, at all discussions of so large a nature, definition of the subject matter was the first thing needful, and that probably every gentleman in the room might give a different definition of civilisation. As for himself, he could not admit that to be civilisation which was not consistent with the physical wants and circumstances of those subjected to its influences; and improving a race off the face of the earth, whether more or less gradually, was not in his opinion either civilisation or progress.

The CHAIRMAN could not quite acquiesce in Mr. Avery's definition of civilisation, as the aggregate of social and moral conditions in which man differs from the brutes. In some qualities, he feared, we were occasionally below the brutes, and indulged in vices to which they are strangers. Mr. Avery had contended that no savage races were ever civilised. But surely our ancient British forefathers were as savage as any uncultivated races of the present day. The reader of the paper had also said that no race ever adopted the civilisation of another. But had not the ancient Britons adopted the civilisation of the Romans, the Romans that of the Greeks, and the Greeks that of the Egyptians? The modern Greeks and Italians it was, however, argued, were not the descendants of their civilised predecessors in their land. They possessed, however, many qualities and similarities which served to indicate the identity of the race. Holland had been spoken of as a degenerate country, compared with what it had been in former times. It was in ages past great in war; it was now great in commerce. But surely this was an indication of progress in civilisation, not of barbarism. The paper on the whole, however, was one of great value, and had elicited a very interesting and able discussion on the several points which it had so forcibly suggested.

Mr. AVERY said that he had brought forward this subject in the most sincere spirit of scientific inquiry. The paper was the result of the reading and reflection of many years. The points referred to by various speakers were so numerous, and the evening so far advanced, that he could not reply to them all. He would remark, however, that in defining civilisation, he had intended chiefly to explain the meaning which he attached to the word, and not to set up a standard for others, though he confessed he had never seen a better meaning.

But the points he was anxious to direct attention to were the three leading questions in his paper: 1. Is there sufficient evidence that any civilised race had barbarian ancestors? 2. Has any civilised race degenerated into partial or total barbarism? 3. Has any semi-civilised race adopted another civilisation instead of its own? The interest of these inquiries extends far beyond the limits of the present subject; for if it cannot be shown that any race of men have emerged from barbarism to civilisation, it will be very difficult to prove that, according to the Darwinian theory, they have risen from the state of monkeys to that of men. In conclusion, he thanked the meeting for the kind manner in which the paper had been received.

The meeting then separated.

MARCH 18TH, 1872.

DR. R. S. CHARNOCK, Vice-President, in the Chair.

THE minutes of the last ordinary meeting were read and confirmed.

M. LETOURNEUR, Conseiller d'Etat, Algiers, and Dr. HAAST, of Canterbury, New Zealand, were elected Corresponding Members of the Institute.

The following presents were announced, and the thanks of the meeting voted to the respective donors:

FOR THE LIBRARY.

From the SOCIETY.-Jahrbuch der K. K. Geologischen Reichsanstalt, October, November, and December, 1871; Verhandlungen, ditto, October 1871.

From the AUTHOR.-Right-handedness. By Daniel Wilson, Esq.,
LL.D.

From JAMES BURNS, Esq.-Human Nature for March 1872.
From the EDITOR.-The Food Journal for March 1872.

From the INSTITUTE.-The Canadian Journal, February 1872.

From the EDITOR.-Nature, to date.

From the ACADEMY.-Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, Nos. 2-6.

From the SOCIETY.-Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, vol. x, part 1.

From the AssOCIATION.-Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Edinburgh, 1871.

From the EDITOR.-The Mining Magazine and Review for March

1872.