What are the historical and archaeological KEYS which unlock the racial origins of the people of North-west Europe? The main emphasis in this thesis will be on "secular" history rather than on "sacred" history! We must, however, briefly consider Biblical history before we can rightly understand the mountain of evidence available from the uninspired historical accounts. For over three thousand years, the Scriptures have given detailed prophecies concerning the various races and nations of this earth. Throughout the centuries many scores of prophecies have predicted accurately the fates of many of the smaller nations like Egypt, Libya, Syria, Greece, Italy, Spain, Arabia and Ethiopia. But are such modern, mighty nations as France, Britain, Germany, America and Russia excluded in these prophecies? Would God ignore these major nations? Most students of Biblical prophecy know that the Russian nation and peoples are mentioned under such names as Meschech and Tubal (Moscow and Tobolsk), and Gog and Magog (Ezek 38:2). But would not the same Being who inspired these prophecies also mention America, Britain and France? God has not ignored these nations. They are all mentioned in the Bible — not under their present-day names — but under their ancient Biblical names! Before one can know the names under which these nations are mentioned in the Bible, he must understand the names by which those nations were called in Bible times. The great FAMILY TREE from which every nation of this earth has sprung must be thoroughly understood. Bear in mind that God makes and unmakes nations (Job 12:23). "Behold the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance" (Isa. 40:15). God reveals that He sets the boundaries of the nations — He reduces one nation and enlarges another. It is God Almighty (the Controller of the destinies of all nations) who does all these things, none can thwart His will. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, after seven years of insanity inflicted on him because of his great pride, said, "... He (God) doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest thou?" (Dan. 4:35).
EVOLUTION — THE BIG HOAX
Before we can intelligently trace the racial origins of the peoples of North-western Europe, it is imperative that we see why the conclusions of this thesis are all based on the concept of SPECIAL CREATION rather than the theory of EVOLUTION! Firstly, Evolution is a hypothesis which is neither proven nor provable! Secondly, there is not one scintilla of proof to substantiate the Evolutionary Theory. Science can produce nothing to show that Evolution has ever occurred; neither can Science offer anything to show that Evolution is now occurring on this earth — or anywhere in the Universe! Let us now thoroughly analyze this subject of SPECIAL CREATION versus EVOLUTION from (1) Science, (2) intelligent reason and (3) from the revealed Word of the Creator — the Bible! It is important to bear in mind that there is no conflict (neither indeed can there be) between the facts of Science and the revealed Word of God! Any real conflict between "Science" and those who believe in God is always a result of (1) misinterpretation of scientific knowledge, resulting in erroneous deductions which lead to fallacious conclusions; or (2) misinterpretation of the revealed Word of God which always results in the formulation of erroneous doctrines. There are some who try to reconcile the beliefs of Evolution with the Bible. These "Theistic Evolutionists" are willing to compromise the truth of the Bible in order not to appear ridiculous or uninformed in the eyes of those who hold the cherished theories of Evolution. But it is impossible to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible and also Evolution — according to its true meaning! The Bible and Evolution are just as incompatible and unmixable as water and oil! According to the theory of Evolution, all life on this earth (from the one-celled amoeba up to the most complicated life forms) evolved from dead matter! This supposed evolution of life from dead matter, we are told, was from the simple to the complex — first one-celled amoebas, invertebrates, vertebrates (fish, fowl, animals and finally man)! The following order of Evolution of the vertebrates is often given — fish, amphibia, reptiles, mammals, then man!
ANTIQUITY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
It will undoubtedly come as a surprise to many to learn that the old Greek philosopher, Thales (640?-546 B.C.) believed that water or moisture was the primordial (or primary) germ from which all life evolved. Another Greek philosopher, Pythagoras (circa 6th century B.C.) thought that "number" was the primordial germ. A disciple of Thales, Anaximander (611-547 B.C.) taught that all plant and animal life evolved from the earth by heat and moisture. And Anaxagoras (500?-428 B.C.) believed that both plants and animals were the products of germs carried in the air which, by some unknown process, gave fecundity to the earth. He believed that "animals and man sprang from warm and moist clay." So the atheistic concept of Evolution is by no means a new theory! In modern times, however, Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882) is the man who, more than anyone else, popularized the Evolutionary hypothesis. It was he who propounded (in 1858) the theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species by a process which he called "natural selection" and "the survival of the fittest." (See his "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" and "The Descent of Man."). He considered natural selection as the most important single factor in Organic Evolution. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (2nd ed.) NATURAL SELECTION is defined as, "The natural process tending to cause the 'survival of the fittest' (that is, the survival of those forms of animals and plants best adjusted to the conditions under which they live) and extinction of poorly adapted forms. Darwin considered natural selection as the most important factor in organic evolution." Before examining this doctrine of "the survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" more thoroughly, let us consider another important hypothesis which is accepted by many Evolutionists. Even before Darwin, the French naturalist, Lamarck (1744-1829), postulated the theory of "organic evolution" — that changes in the environment cause changes in the structure of plants and animals, and that such changes ("acquired characteristics") are transmitted to the offspring. He received great acclaim for his hypothesis; but this fanciful theory has now been completely discredited by Science. The hypothesis simply stated is as follows: If a creature of the sea needs to swim, fins will sprout. But if it finds itself on the land and has a need to walk, legs will appear; if it needs to fly, wings will spontaneously form; if it needs to see, eyes appear; if it needs to hear, ears will develop; if it needs to smell, a nose will emerge; if it needs to eat or talk, a mouth will appear. There can be no doubt that there is a certain amount of continued multiplicity of characters or characteristics of plants and animals of every kind producing infinite varieties. There is, however, not one scintilla of fact to support the theory that: (1) life originally evolved from simple to complex life forms, or (2) that Evolution has been or is occurring anywhere in the world today!
EVOLUTION — THE ATHEIST'S RELIGION
Just what is Evolution? The Theory of Evolution is perhaps the most pernicious and widely-accepted lie being palmed off on today's gullible world. It is, however, an erroneous concept based upon false deductions without the support of any scientific facts! In reality, Evolution is the religion of atheists! The Theory of Evolution is merely a modern form of atheism dressed up in the deceptively respectable-appearing garb of pseudo-science. Most (if not all) atheists believe in Evolution. Though the Atheistic Evolutionist ridicules the Christian for his supposed "blind faith" in a Creator, yet the Evolutionist has a remarkable faith in the Theory of Evolution - his particular form of religion! The chief exponents of the Evolutionary Theory are the "high priests" of their new-found faith — Evolution. They preach and teach their sinister doctrine. The Evolutionist has only two tools at his disposal — observation and reason. Those who believe in Special Creation not only have these tools at their disposal, but they have a third tool — God's revelation to man — the Bible! Let us consider from "observation" to see what Science has been able to reveal regarding the origin of matter and life. "Just where did all of the matter in the Universe come from?" The Evolutionist believes matter has always existed. The Bible, however, teaches that God created the Universe (Genesis 1:1) and that this material, physical, tangible Universe was created out of the invisible, unseen world of spirit essence. " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of (or from) things which do appear" (Heb. 11:3). The Evolutionist denies the existence of a Creator, of spirit beings, of miracles or of anything supernatural. There is, however, a mountain of metaphysical evidence accessible to Science today, proving there is an unseen world of the supernatural. God Almighty created the material world out of His own dynamic energy — from the Spirit of the living God!
POINTS WHICH BAFFLE THE EVOLUTIONISTS
(1) The Evolutionist bases his theories on the hypothesis that matter has always existed. But the facts of Science disprove this theory. If matter had always existed then all radio-active elements such as uranium, radium and strontium, would have disintegrated and have become non-radio-active — countless ages ago! All radio-active elements continue to disintegrate (according to the "half-life period" law) at a uniform, but measurable rate. There is no scientific evidence to show that any radio-active elements are being brought into existence by any process known to man. And certainly the Evolutionist will not admit that there is a Creator who could create new radio-active materials. The inescapable conclusion (if one rejects a Creator) is that THERE HAS BEEN NO PAST ETERNITY OF MATTER! Evolutionists are only guessing when they say that matter has always existed! They have no proof — they don't know! (2) The Evolutionist postulates the ridiculous theory that life evolved from dead matter by the hypothetical means of "spontaneous generation." But there is not one shred of scientific evidence to show that any form of life ever evolved by any process known to man, including that of "spontaneous generation." One of the most inexorably binding "Laws of Nature" is the "Law of Biogenesis" — that life can only come from life! The inanimate cannot product the animate! The Bible shows that God created life, but the Evolutionists say it just evolved by "spontaneous generation." They don't know how this may have happened; neither is there any way they or anyone else can prove their theory. They freely admit there is no such "spontaneous generation of life" occurring today. They are merely guessing — they have not one proof that life evolved by "spontaneous generation." (3) We see in the world tremendous powers, energies and forces. Where did this dynamic power and energy originate? The Evolutionist does not know. Again, he can merely guess. He cannot account for the existence of the incalculable forces and energies which exist in the Universe today. (4) The material world is governed by certain inexorably binding laws. These laws (the Laws of Gravity, Inertia, Thermo-dynamics, Biogenesis, Motion, Heredity and all of the LAWS OF NATURE) are not able to be accounted for by the Evolutionist. He cannot explain who or what established these so-called "Laws of Nature" which govern the whole Universe! Neither can the Evolutionist explain what or who sustains these "Laws of Nature." (5) The world in which we live is inhabited by myriads of forms of animal life — all possessing varying degrees of intelligence. Where did this INTELLIGENCE come from? Dead matter has no intelligence whatsoever. (Intelligence cannot come from nonintelligence). The Evolutionist admits that intelligence exists, but by what power or through whom it came into existence — he does not know! Again, he must acknowledge he does not know how intelligence came into being, neither is there any scientific proof whatsoever to show that intelligence evolved by any known laws. (6) The earth and the entire Universe is laid out or constructed according to a marvellous plan, an awe-inspiring DESIGN! The countless forms of life among fishes, fowl and mammals (including man) manifest not only varying degrees of intelligence, but they also reveal infinite wisdom, knowledge and understanding of the principles of design. In fact, man designs and patterns almost everything he makes after something in nature. Many volumes could be written explaining and extolling the marvellous design and function of the human body — the most perfectly designed in all the universe! The Bible reveals that God Almighty designed the human body after His own image — in His own likeness! Mankind was made in the general form and shape of his Creator, and therefore his bodily form possesses the most perfect design found in the Universe. There is no way that the basic, over-all design of the human body could possibly be improved! Every member in the body is put in the right place, and functions perfectly. One would not want two noses with one being located in the back of his head. Neither would one want and extra eye, or perhaps a couple of extra eyes, placed on any other location in the body. Not only would such innovations in the human body look odd, but they would impair and confuse the basic single-track functioning of the human brain. Admittedly, there are times when one feels it would be a distinct advantage to possess several eyes, arms, hands, legs or feet. Even though it would on occasions be advantageous to have extra members, yet for the over-all functioning of the human body, we would neither look as comely as we do, nor would it be an over-all advantage to possess such added members. One could go on indefinitely to describe the functioning of the human body, and then show from reason that there is no way the basic design of the human body could ever be improved! Now consider the marvellous designs which one finds in the plant kingdom — such infinite variety of design and beauty! Did all this arise by mere blind chance, through "spontaneous generation," "use and disuse," or through any theoretical process of Evolution? (7) The Evolutionist believes life developed gradually through the various life forms — beginning with a primitive, one-celled type all the way up to man. He then hopes to prove his theory from archaeological data as found in the fossil layers of this earth. According to this theory, the most simple life forms should be found in the earliest fossil layer of the earth, the more complex life forms appearing as one proceeds upwards through the various strata. Evolution teaches that life forms as found in this layer should be: simple, few in number, and should develop step by step. But here are the facts: (a) In the first fossil layer (the Cambrian stratum) 455 different species of life are found instead of a "few forms of life" which we are supposed to find in this layer. (b) Complex life forms are found in this stratum instead of simple life forms. (c) Giant forms of life are found instead of more diminutive specimens. (d) Instead of very early or "primitive" types of life, large numbers of the life forms are found in this "Cambrian" stratum which are identical (or in other instances almost identical) with living representatives. (e) Instead of finding natural deposits of life forms such as one would find today along beaches or deltas, in the "Cambrian" stratum there is evidence of life forms having been buried alive by a sudden, great catastrophe! These archaeological findings prove that life forms did not evolve — from the simple one-celled amoeba to the more complex types! The facts as recorded in the fossil layers all over the earth disprove Evolution — disprove the theory that life developed gradually from simple to complex types. (8) God, through the Bible, has given many prophecies, explaining in great detail what would happen to mighty nations and cities. The fulfillment of these prophecies continues, and there is no valid human explanation how these prophecies could have been written thousands of years ago, and yet are being fulfilled precisely to this very day. (9) The Evolutionist has denied one further proof of the Creator since he does not believe in prayer — for answered prayer is but one more proof to the BELIEVER in God that there is a living, prayer-answering Creator, sitting at the controls of this Universe, who hears and answers prayer. Now let us consider some of the laws governing life and all living creatures! Remember, according to the Law of Biogenesis, life can only come from life. Dead matter can by no process known to Science give rise to either plant or animal life. The theory of "spontaneous generation" is not supported by any facts of Science. Thus all PHYSICAL life has come from God — the great Life-giver.
MUTATIONS — BUT NO TRANSMUTATIONS
Next, let us notice Lamarck's childish theory. He formulated the theory that acquired characteristics are transmitted to the offspring of plants and animals. But what are the facts? If one acquires a tan, is it ever transmitted to one's offspring? Never! Though Jewish males have been circumcised for about four thousand years, yet Jewish boy babies are always born uncircumcised. Science is so replete in furnishing irrefutable and overwhelming proof verifying the fact that acquired characteristics are never transmitted to one's offspring that it is unnecessary to give further proof of this fact in this thesis. Another very important law governing all life on this earth is that all life-forms can only reproduce "after their own kind" — "Like always begets like!" (Gen.1). There are many different forms of plant and animal life on this earth today. Though there are infinite varieties found among every "GENESIS KIND" of plants and animals, yet two different "genesis kinds" can never interbreed. Though sudden changes or MUTATIONS are commonly found among all different "genesis kinds" of both plants and animals, yet such mutations are always contained within the "genesis kind." Such mutants always reproduce (if at all) after the same kind as their own parent kind. In nature, there are many mutations (changes), but there are no transmutations! Examples of mutations are: tailless dogs and cats, a black sheep suddenly cropping up in a herd of white sheep where there has not been any "dark blood" for many hundreds of generations; short-legged sheep (Ancon sheep) descended from a long-legged ram by mutation; hornless calves being born from livestock whose forebearers have always possessed horns. We are surely all familiar with examples of men (or even animals) developing (through mutations) extra fingers or toes, or two heads, etc. It is also well to point out that mutations are nearly always harmful or undesirable! Though many mutations occur according to the natural laws existing in "nature," yet man has also learned to produce mutations through the use of radiation, heat or chemicals. But man must always work in conformity with certain definite laws of nature, in order to produce such mutations. One of the most firmly established and best known laws of nature pertains to the "fixity of the kind" or "fixity of the species (meaning kind)." This simply means that a particular "kind" or "species" of plant or animal can never reproduce except within its own kind. As an example, the bovine (ox) family or "kind" could never reproduce or interbreed with the equine (horse) family. Likewise, the canine (dog) family could never interbreed with the feline (cat) kind. Also, the perverted mind of man has learned that mankind (homo sapiens) cannot be crossed with any other animal. Almighty God set the laws of nature in such a way that within any one "kind" infinite variety is possible. No two human beings have ever been alike. Human variation ranges all the way from giants to pygmies. Also in the human family we see the black, yellow and white "races" with straight, wavy, curly, kinky, frisly or peppercorn type of hair. There are many other ways in which an infinite variety of differences are found in the human family. This is true of all types of animal life. Through natural reproductive processes, infinite "species" or "varieties" within the "genesis kind" are possible, yet each kind can only reproduce "after its kind." Like always begets like. This is one of the firm laws of genetics. There are many other laws governing genetics and heredity, but space does not permit a thorough examination of these in this thesis. Through experimentation, man has developed many thousands of generations of FLIES, but even though mutations appeared and different varieties developed, the end product was always a fly! Likewise, man has developed infinite varieties of species of GARDEN PEAS, but the offspring of these garden peas was always simply more garden peas. Botanists have developed thousands of different species of ROSES (and other types of flowers). But the end product is always a rose. The rose cannot be crossed with a water lily, any more than garden peas can be crossed with potatoes. One of the firm laws that God has set in nature is that like can only beget like. This is another proof that there is no crossing between any of the various "kinds" or "families" in either the plant or the animal kingdom. There are many varieties within each "kind," and occasional MUTATIONS which cause further varieties within the kinds, but SCIENCE HAS NEVER YET RECORDED ONE TRANSMUTATION — such as the cross-breeding of the bovine and the equine families or the crossing of the oak tree with the cedar. We have seen that life can only come from life. We have also observed that like always begets like. Furthermore, we have seen clearly demonstrated that though there are mutations in all varieties of plant and animal life, Science has yet failed to produce one TRANSMUTATION. Therefore the theories of "spontaneous generation," "natural selection" (as explained by Evolutionists), "inheritance of acquired characteristics" and all of the basic theories of Evolution are scientifically unproven, unprovable and unscientific! Let us also observe some of the basic laws governing all life (plant and animal) on this terra firma. (1) The Creator God Almighty, created all of the various "kinds" of plant and animal life upon the earth. (2) All present-day varieties or species of plant and animal life are the descendants of the same "genesis kind" of plants and animals which God originally created. (3) In each of these "kinds," God put within their reproductive processes the ability to produce infinite varieties or species (through mutations, etc.) — but through such mutations new "kinds" would never evolve. (4) Such physical changes (or mutations) which have appeared since the creation of the original "genesis kinds" of plants and animals have always occurred in accordance with the principles of the laws in nature which God ordained from creation. (5) All of the natural or physical laws governing life and the whole physical Universe were set in motion to sustain the physical Universe and life upon this We have now seen from Science and from the Bible that Evolution is not only an uproven and unprovable theory, but it is totally unscientific. One could never prove that life evolved through "spontaneous generation," "natural selection," "inheritance of acquired characteristics," or through any of the fancied theories of Evolution.
EVOLUTION — IS IT REASONABLE?
Now let us observe from reason, as well as from God's Word, why it is more scientifically reasonable to believe in Special Creation, rather than Evolution. (1) Evolutionists and Special Creationists alike agree that the material Universe exists. Evolutionists say it always existed; those who believe in Special Creation say that the invisible God (who is Himself composed of Spirit) brought the visible Universe into existence out of the invisible substance of the unseen world — out of spirit essence. Exactly how God did this, the human mind cannot fully fathom, any more than the human mind can fully grasp how a black cow can eat green grass and produce white milk and yellow butter! Neither can the human mind fully understand exactly what light, or electricity really are, though we know a great deal about them. (2) The Evolutionist and the Christian (with few exceptions) likewise agree that life exists! The Evolutionist says life evolved by "spontaneous generation," the Christian believes God created all life. Remember, one of the laws of nature (the Law of Biogenesis) is that life can only come from life! All life came from God! (3) The fact that there are myriads of laws in this earth and throughout the Universe proves that there had to be something or someone to set these laws in motion. In order for there to be laws, there must have been a Law-maker or a Law-giver — God. Furthermore, we see those laws are continually operated, kept in motion, made to function. This functioning or upholding of all existing laws proves there must be a great Lawsustainer — one who sustains, operates, upholds His laws! (4) Throughout the Universe (and especially on this earth) are infinite DESIGNS that stagger the imagination. Such designs must have had a Designer — they couldn't just have happened! (5) The world about us contains infinite varieties of animals possessing varying degrees of INTELLIGENCE. This intelligence could not have come from dead matter. Intelligence can only come from intelligence. (6) God Almighty is able to foretell the future and then to bring such predictions to pass. Fulfilled prophecy is a further proof of God. (7) Answered prayer is a further proof of God to those who believe in prayer, and who have consequently had their prayers answered. The atheist is usually ignorant of this proof of God's existence. The author was recently asked by an atheist why he believed in God. One example which baffled this young atheist will now be given. The writer took off his watch, handed it to the young atheist, asking him if he believed it was possible for the watch to have designed, made and wound itself up! The young atheist promptly replied that he didn't believe it was possible, and that anyone who would hold such a belief would be a little off in the head! He was then asked which was greater — the watch or this Universe. Of course, the young man had to acknowledge that the Universe was infinitely greater than the watch. Then the writer pointed out to him the error of his own reasoning: If the watch could not design, make and wind itself up, neither could the Universe design, build and "wind itself up." No creature existing in the whole earth was able to (1) create or make itself, (2) give itself intelligence or (3) bestow upon itself life! The Evolutionist is right in believing that something has always existed! God Almighty reveals, through the Bible, that something has always existed. But He reveals that that "Something" is God Himself — the Self-Existent or Eternal One. The Evolutionist believes that the material Universe has always existed, but God shows that the physical world or Universe has not always existed. Rather, it is the unseen world of spirit which has always existed.
ONE CANNOT PRODUCE ANYTHING GREATER THAN ONESELF
Another law or "truism" is that though a creature or being can make or build something INFERIOR to itself, yet no creature in all the Universe can create or make anything SUPERIOR to itself! According to the Christian concept of God, even the Creator cannot create a being greater than Himself — with more intelligence, power, or glory. Yes, life can only come from life, and like always begets like. It is true that those who believe in Special Creation can no more fathom how God has always existed, than the atheist can explain how matter could always have existed. The answer to this is very simple. In Deuteronomy 29:29 we read, "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." So Moses knew that there were certain secret things which only God could understand, but man could not. King Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, was inspired to write, "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man CANNOT FIND OUT the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it" (Eccl. 8:17). David, King of Israel, was also inspired to reveal that certain knowledge is so "high" that he could not "attain unto it" (Psa. 139:7-17). Those who accept the concept of Special Creation have the humility to realize their limitations — to see that their minds are finite; and that they are not able to fathom everything.
GOD INFINITE — MAN FINITE
Notice Psalm 147:4,5 "He (God) telleth (counts) the number of the stars; He calls them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is INFINITE." Yes, God's understanding is unlimited, but man's understanding is very finite — very limited! Also read Isaiah 40:12-31. Man's puny little mind is so finite in comparison with the mind of God that there really is no true comparison. One might compare man unto an ant, and God unto the man. God's intelligence is infinitely greater than man's, even more so than man's intelligence is infinitely greater than the intelligence of an ant. If someone had the power to give immortality to an ant and cause that ant to sit upon the face of a watch, listening to the ticking of the watch, observing the movement of its hands — for a billion years — then that little ant's mind could not comprehend any more about the watch at the end of that period than when it began its observation a billion years earlier. In other words, the ant's mind is so finite that it could never comprehend who designed and made the watch, why it was made, what kept it going, or from what it was made. So there are a number of questions which man cannot yet fully fathom and will never be able to completely understand in this life. Let us be humble and honest enough to admit our limitations!
BIBLE AND TRUE SCIENCE AGREE
Before concluding this section, let us observe a few Scriptures which clearly show that the Bible and true Science always agree! One so-called stumbling block to Science has been that many Christians have maintained the Bible says God created the Universe six thousand years ago (Gen. 1:1). Careful study of this verse (by checking the original Hebrew) reveals the following: "In the BEGINNING God created the heaven and the earth." But this does not say how long ago that "beginning" actually was. It may have been billions of years ago! Genesis 1:2 says, "The earth became without form and void (Hebrew 'tohu' and 'bohu' — waste and void)." The Hebrew word translated in this verse as "was" is the same verb which is used in Genesis 19:26, where it says that Lot's wife looked back and "became" a pillar of salt. Also, read carefully Isaiah 45:18. Here it says that God did not create the earth "waste and void" (Hebrew "tohu" and "bohu" — meaning waste and chaotic). Thus we see that Genesis 1:2 shows the earth became "tohu" and "bohu", but Isaiah 45:18 shows that God did not create it this way. The earth became chaotic and waste as the result of a cataclysmic destruction which Almighty God brought upon the earth because of the sin of angelic beings who had originally been placed on this earth. (For scriptural proof of this, study Isa. 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:12-17; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:4,10; Jude 6 and II Peter 2:4). These scriptural references show conclusively that God brought a great physical devastation upon the earth as a result of the sin of the angels, just as He later brought a great physical catastrophe upon the earth as a result of the sins of the ante-Deluvians in the time of Noah; and just as He later brought a physical destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah in consequence of their loathsome, degraded sexual deviations. So no atheist or Evolutionist can truthfully accuse God or the Bible of saying the earth was created six thousand years ago. The Bible does not say that, but rather implies Creation of the earth occurred in the far distant past (aeons ago)! The Bible and Science agree on this point. But the creation of man occurred about 6,000 years ago. The Bible, in three different places, shows that the earth is a sphere (see Isa. 40:22; Prov. 8:27 and Luke 17:24-36). Also notice Job 26:7 which says that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing." Yes, the earth is literally suspended in space — held in orbit by the gravitational pull of the sun. The Bible is truly scientific though it was not intended to be a scientific textbook. None the less, every statement made in the Bible is completely accurate from a scientific standpoint.
EVOLUTIONISTS BELIEVE IN MIRACLES
Most Evolutionists are atheists. They claim they do not believe in a God, but we have seen that they, too, have a religion — that of Evolution! But do they believe in miracles? Absolutely! (1) They believe in the existence of the physical world — of this created Universe. To have a creation without a Creator (something made without a Maker) is certainly a miracle! (2) We have seen that Evolutionists believe in life without a Life-giver. They set aside the Law of Biogenesis — that life can only come from life. (3) They believe in Laws without a Law-giver! (4) They believe those laws are sustained, upheld and kept in motion without a Sustainer. Another miracle! (5) They believe in the myriads of designs without a Designer — still another miracle! (6) They believe in intelligence coming from non-intelligence. Yet another miracle! The Apostle Paul was inspired to write: "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they (the atheists) are without excuse" (Rom. 1:21). Paul then showed that these infidels by "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (v.22). Yes, truly God's physical creation reveals that there had to be a Designer, Creator and Sustainer of this vast Universe! What does God's Word thunder at today's atheists — the modern Evolutionists? "The FOOL has said in his heart, There is no God..." (Psa. 14:1). The wise know there is an All-wise, All-powerful Creator-Sustainer God whose marvelous works are truly awe-inspiring! "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out" (Rom. 11:33). Because the anthropologists have built their theories upon the shifting sands of EVOLUTION, they are going more and more into hopeless confusion! No books on anthropology or ethnology can have much real truth in them if they base their conclusions on Evolution — which has already been exposed to be simply a cult pretending to explain the origin of things on the basis of mere conjectures. If one will count such expressions as "apparently," "perhaps," "possibly," and similar words found in the books based on Evolution, he will be amazed to see how many assumptions there are masquerading under the name of "Science." Does one dare base his beliefs on such a shaky foundation? The Bible is the only reliable foundation upon which one can reconstruct history!
THE THREE PRIMARY BRANCHES OF MANKIND
God inspired Moses to write: "These (the progeny of Shem, Ham and Japheth — v.1) are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood" (Gen. 10:32). Note carefully that the three main branches of mankind have descended from Noah through his three sons — Shem, Ham and Japheth. Many modern ethnologists do not agree with God on this point; but they have gone into hopeless confusion as a result of their rejection of this simple truth! The Apostle Paul was inspired to affirm: "And God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26). The following statement is a verification of this Biblical fact: "Most physical anthropologists accept modern man as one genus, and one species" (Ency. Amer., 1960 ed., Vol. II, p.20d).
Dr. Wylie explains this point very well: When Noah comes forth from the Ark we see him accompanied by three sons — Shem, Ham and Japhet. These are the three fountain-heads of the world's population. "These are the three sons of Noah, and of them was the whole earth overspread." ...and after four thousand years ... the population of the world at this day ... is still resolvable into three grand groups, [or four groups — if we include the brown people as a separate race], corresponding [roughly] to the three patriarchs of the race, Shem, Ham and Japheth." (History of the Scottish Nation, Vol. I, P. 10).
Let us have the courage to deny the theories of atheism, agnosticism and so-called "higher criticism" which exalts itself above God, and makes gods out of its own pet theories. Let us believe the truth (which until a few years ago was commonly believed and taught) that mankind has been scattered over the face of the earth since the Flood; and that the nations of this earth have descended from Noah's three sons. There are many historical proofs which substantiate this three-fold source or division of mankind. Let us now examine a few quotations which will verify the above statements from secular sources. In the very latest edition of the Encyclopedia Americana, we find the following statements:
Most physical anthropologists accept modern man as one genus, and one species; Reginald R. Gates, alone, suggests that there are five species. The majority viewpoint recognizes THREE MAJOR "DIVISIONS" or "stocks" which taxonomically occupy the level of sub-races. These groups are CAUCASOID or "white," MONGOLOID or "yellow," and NEGROID or "black." (1960 ed., Vol. II, P. 20d).
Then the Encyclopedia Americana proceeds to group the various people of the earth under the afore-mentioned divisions. Keane also divides the races into (1) "Negroes," (2) "Mongols" and (3) "The Caucasic Peoples." (Man Past and Present). "The Living Races of Mankind," by Johnston and Harry, likewise divide humanity into three chief stocks or types.
It is essential, however, to a right understanding of the subject that a few paragraphs should be devoted to a consideration of the THREE leading types, or stocks, into which the human race is obviously divisible. These THREE primary types, which have been in existence throughout the historic period and are probably of much greater antiquity, are familiar to all of us under the respective designations of the white man, the yellow or red man, and the Negro or black man." (Vol. I, p. 1, Introduction).
Not everyone, however, classifies the human race into this three-fold division. The Encyclopedia Britannica illustrates these three "divisions" or "stocks" of humanity (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) and also adds a fourth — Australoid. But the Australoid type is clearly just a branch of (or sub-division of) the Negroid "race" of mankind! (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1960 ed., Vol. II, Anthropology). Hammerton, in his Peoples of all Nations, likewise uses the same four stocks as does the Encyclopedia Britannica — except that he says the Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid races have all descended from the AUSTRALOID "race." Both Scripture and secular history show that he is merely guessing when he says the three main divisions of mankind have descended from the "Australoid" stock! (J.A. Hammerton, Peoples of all Nations, Vol. I, p. XI). Ripley divides the human species into "four groups" so far as skin colour is concerned: (1) "Jet or coal black colour," (2) "Brownish colour," (3) "Yellow," (4) "White." There are many shades or gradations of the "dark" branch of humanity. But if we include the "brown" people as a sub-division of the "black" stock of mankind then there are just three branches of the human family. There is nothing in the Scriptures or in Science to prove that man just evolved (perhaps 1,000,000 or more years ago) and has roamed around in primitive infancy virtually ever since. The Scriptures tell us that HAM (Heb. "burnt" or "hot") is the father, generally speaking, of the "Black" or burnt-appearing (Negroid or African-type) dark races. We are further told by the inspired writers that JAPHETH (Heb. "enlarging" or "stretching out") is the father of the prolific Mongoloid, the so-called "Yellow" Asiatic races. (Japheth is also the father of some fair-skinned people). SHEM (Heb. "name" or "renowned") is the father of most of the "White" Caucasian "races." Every race or nation of this earth will fall into one of these three major divisions of mankind (Shem, Ham and Japheth), or else can be proven to be a cross-breed between two or more of these three main branches of the human family. This does not mean that all of the races were fully developed immediately after the Deluge. It took some time before the three primary branches of mankind (White, Yellow and Dark) were fully developed (probably through mutations) as we know them today. Remember, some classify humanity into four groups or branches: (1) White, (2) Yellow, (3) Brown, and (4) Black. Since, however, most of the brown people have descended from Ham, it simplifies things if we class them with the "dark" races. They are a sub-division of the "dark" or "Negroid" branch of Ham's descendants. The peoples of each of the three great branches of man must have intermarried with members of their own "racial type" in order to produce a true type of race. Such interbreeding would, over a period of several generations, tend to produce a distinct racial type. The Hebrew word for Ham ("burnt") shows that he was a dark or burnt-appearing person. Secular history is also very clear in showing that Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, was certainly a dark man. Shortly after the Deluge, Nimrod, a grandson of Ham, organized the first man-ruled dictatorship in defiance of God, and in defiance of Shem, who was successor to Noah in teaching mankind the ways of God (Gen. 10:6-11). Nimrod and his harlot wife, Semiramis, started the old mystery religion of Babylonia which has permeated the whole world today — even including modern "Christianity." Because of Nimrod's idolatry and also because of his despotic rule over his fellow man, Shem finally organized enough God-fearing men to destroy Nimrod and his power. History shows that Nimrod had fled to Egypt, and it was there that Shem and his followers finally put an end to the life of that wretched man. Even at that early date, the Egyptians were an idolatrous people, and had been easily swayed by Nimrod. They had looked upon him as a great benefactor — a Saviour. After the death of Nimrod, his followers began to deify him. They looked upon Shem (and all who were sympathetic with him) as tyrants! According to Alexander Hyslop's The Two Babylons, one of the names by which the Egyptians knew Shem was "TYPHO" or "TYPHON" — meaning the Desolator or Destroyer. In other words, since Shem had killed Nimrod, their leader, they spoke of Shem as "Typhon" meaning Devil. (The Two Babylons, pp. 65, 276, 277).
We have seen that Shem was the actual slayer of Tammuz [another name for Nimrod]. As the grand adversary of the Pagan Messiah, those who hated him for his deed called him for that very deed by the name of the Grand Adversary of all, Typhon, or the devil" (ibid., pp. 276,277).
Hyslop illustrates (in The Two Babylons) a picture or likeness of Nimrod (ibid., p. 44) and the features are very clearly those of a black man — thick lips, etc. "Now Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was black, in other words, was a Negro" (ibid., p. 34). The prophet Jeremiah was inspired to write "Can the Ethiopian (Cushite) change (the color of) his skin....?" (Jer. 13:23). The Hebrew word for "Ethiopian" is Cushite. So this verse should read "CAN THE CUSHITE CHANGE HIS SKIN....?" There can be no question that the present day Ethiopians (who are the descendants of Cush) are very dark skinned. Nimrod (son of Cush) was certainly a dark-skinned person! Now let us notice some quotations from Plutarch which show that not only was Nimrod a black man, but Shem (the father of the majority of the Caucasians) was a fair person with a red complexion. "TYPHON HAD RED HAIR." (ibid., p. 73). "Osiris, on the other hand, according to their legendary tradition, was dark...." (ibid., p. 81). (Only fair-skinned people are truly "red in complexion"). Yes, Nimrod was a dark or black man, but Shem (Typhon — a derogatory name applied to him by the Egyptians) "was red in complexion" and "had red hair." For a further account of Nimrod's death at the hands of Shem (Typhon) see Diodorus of Sicily, Vol. I, Book 1, para. 21, and para. 88. Notice the following interesting quote: "RED oxen, however, may be sacrificed, because it is thought that this was the colour of TYPHON (Shem), who plotted against Osiris [another name for Nimrod] and was then punished by Isis [Semiramis] for the death of her husband. Men also, if they were of the same colour as Typhon, were sacrificed, they say, in ancient times by the kings at the tomb of Osiris; however, only a few Egyptians are now found RED in colour, but the majority of such are non-Eqyptians...." (Diodorus of Sicily, Book I, para. 88). Thus we can clearly see that secular history shows Nimrod was a black man, and Shem (Typhon) was a person with a ruddy complexion, having red hair! These historical accounts show that Ham's descendants were "dark" (not all necessarily black) and that Shem's descendants were fair with "red" or ruddy complexions! Some of the brown race and other sub-races are directly descended from Ham; while others developed as a result of intermarriage between members of the three primary "divisions" or "stocks" of mankind. Two examples of sub-races are the Arabs and the Philippinos. Both of these "races" are a mixture of two or three of the primary divisions of mankind.
HISTORY ATTESTS TO THE THREE RACES
Here is a very enlightening quotation from Myers: The Races of Mankind in the Historic Period. — Distinctions in bodily characteristics, such as form, color, and features, divide the human species into THREE chief types or races, known as the Black or Ethiopian Race, the Yellow or Mongolian Race, and the White or Caucasian Race. But we must not suppose each of these three types to be sharply marked off from the other; they shade into one another by insensible gradations (Myers, The Eastern Nations and Greece, p. 14).
The BLACK "RACE" inhabits primarily Africa south of the Sahara, parts of India and many of the islands. The YELLOW (Mongoloid) "RACE" lives mainly in Eastern, Northern and South-eastern Asia. Myers says the "ARYAN or INDO-EUROPEAN" and also the "SEMITIC" peoples belong to the so-called WHITE "RACE" which inhabits Europe, Western Asia, North America, South Africa and Australia (ibid., pp. 15,16). Of course, members of these three branches of humanity are scattered in many other areas of the world. It should be pointed out here that the "Semitic" (Shemitic) peoples constitute, in the main, the White Race. Today the term "Semitic" is generally misunderstood and is consequently misused. Most people think that the Jews and Arabs comprise about all of the true Semitic peoples. The Anglo-Saxon-Keltic peoples who today inhabit North-western Europe are definitely Semitic and will later in this work be proven to be Shem's descendants. The Germans and other Europeans are also descendants of Shem. Some of the descendants of Japheth, however, have light skins, but many of these Japhetic light-skinned peoples have a yellowish or olive tint to their skins. This can be witnessed in the Mongoloid peoples as well as in the original-type Greeks, and some of the Italians and Spaniards — who are descendants of Japheth through his son, Javan. Also, Japheth is the father of bronze- or red-skinned Indians inhabiting North, South and Central Americas. After the Patriarch Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives came forth from the Ark, they descended from the Mountains of Ararat — in present day Armenia. Their progeny settled in the regions of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. They were still in this area at the time of the Confusion of Tongues when all of the families of mankind were scattered abroad on the face of the whole earth (Gen. 11:1-9).
HOW TO DETERMINE RACE
Before we can trace the racial origins of the peoples under consideration in this thesis, we must clarify certain words and terms which are commonly used by ethnologists and anthropologists. Let us first define the word "race."
The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed to belong to the same stock ... Ethnology. A division of mankind possessing constant traits, transmissible by descent, sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Art. Race, p. 696). Let us next see how this word "race" is defined by Myers: Distinctions in bodily characteristics, such as form, color, and features, divide the human species into three chief types or races, known as the Black or Ethiopian Race, the Yellow or Mongolian Race, and the White or Caucasian Race (Myers, The Eastern Nations and Greece, p. 14).
Beside the three (four — if the Brown "race" included) chief types or "races" just mentioned there are many other "races" or sub-races, with which most people are at least vaguely familiar.
The simplest division of the human family is into the three races, the Yellow Man, the White Man, and the Black Man .... (Anderson, Extinct Civilizations of the East, p. 14).
In recent years, ethnologists have tended to invent more and more names for all sorts of races and sub-races until the average student finds himself quite confused by such a labyrinth of names. One would need to possess a prodigious memory in order to remember all the names for the various races and sub-races as defined by some modern ethnologists.
CEPHALIC INDEX — HELPFUL IN DETERMINING
The CEPHALIC INDEX is the main key, used universally by most, if not all, present day ethnologists, to ascertain racial affinities FROM SKELETAL REMAINS! One can readily determine "race" on the living populations by such tests as: Skin color, stature, nasal indices, general build, color of hair and eyes, head shape, and by mental and personality traits.
But such tools elude the anthropologist who must determine the racial connections of a by-gone people from skeletal remains alone. With these silent men of yesteryear one can only judge their racial type by such measurements as general height, bodily proportions (from bone measurements), and the cephalic index. Since the C.I. (cephalic index) is of utmost importance in determining the racial affinities of people from their skeletal remains, we shall examine this subject thoroughly, explaining the C.I. directly from the works of well-known ethnologists. We shall have reason to rely heavily upon the cephalic index on numerous occasions to assist us in determining which racial type a particular people belonged to. Professor Ripley, who was considered one of the world's foremost authorities on "race", has some interesting remarks on this subject:
The shape of the human head — by which we mean the general proportions of length, breadth, and height, irrespective of the "bumps of the phrenologist — is ONE of the best available tests of race known" (The Races of Europe, Chap. III, p. 37).
Ripley then shows that the best way to measure the head form is by using the "cephalic index." He says:
This is simply the breadth of the head above the ears expressed in percentage of its length from forehead to back. Assuming that this length is 100, the width is expressed as a fraction of it. As the head becomes proportionately broader — that is, more fully rounded, viewed from the top down — this cephalic index increases. When it rises above 80, the head is called brachycephalic; when it falls below 75, the term dolichocephalic is applied to it. Indexes between 75 and 80 are characterized as mesocephalic. (ibid, p. 37).
See The Passing of the Great Race, page 19, for the same view, as expressed by Grant. Ripley points out that a broad head is usually accompanied by a rounded face, and that a long head usually has an oval face (The Races of Europe, Chap. III, p. 39). The cephalic index measurements are all "dependant upon the boney structure of the head," and he says that the C.I. (cephalic index) must be accurately taken, not including the "superficial fleshy parts" (ibid., p. 39). Ripley shows that the general shape of the head seems to bear no direct relation to the intellectual power or to the intelligence of any particular individual (ibid., p. 40). He mentions that the absolute size of the head of the individual is very unimportant to the anthropologist. ". . . popularly, a large head with beetling eyebrows suffices to establish a man's intellectual credit; but, like all other credit, it is entirely dependant upon what lies on deposit elsewhere. Neither size nor weight of the brain seems to be of importance" (ibid., p. 43). The reader will observe that Ripley places a great deal of importance upon, not the size, but the general shape of the skull as the chief factor in determining the racial connections of a people from their skeletal remains. He shows the color of the hair, the eyes and the stature are open to modification by local circumstances (ibid., p. 52).
"On the other hand the general proportions of the head seem to be uninfluenced either by climate, by food supply or economic status, or by habits of life; so that they stand as the clearest exponents which we possess of the permanent hereditary difference within the human species [from skeletal remains]" (ibid., p. 52).
CRANIOMETRY VERSES PHRENOLOGY
It should be pointed out here that craniometry, which includes the study of THE CEPHALIC INDEX, is an accurate science, and HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SO-CALLED "SCIENCE" OF PHRENOLOGY, which contains much error and a little truth. Nearly all modern anthropologists and ethnologists utilize the cephalic index. Most of them agree that it is one of the most important single factors in determining "race" or racial affinities. The value of the cephalic index can, therefore, hardly be overstressed. As we have already observed, the C.I. is of especial value when classifying skeletal remains. When trying to determine the racial type to which an individual belongs, one is at a distinct disadvantage when working with skeletal remains. In such cases, he cannot judge the color of the hair, eyes, or the shape of the nose or lips. Here is where the C.I. is of utmost assistance. By this means one can classify skeletal remains to a fairly accurate degree.
MEANS OF DETERMINING RACE — ACCORDING TO HADDON
Let us notice how Haddon, another well-known ethnologist defines "race." "The term 'race' is employed in various senses, but usually to connote a group of people who have certain well-marked characters in common" (The Races of Man and Their Distribution, p. 1). Haddon indicates that the main physical characters which he employs to determine race are: hair, skin-color, form of the head, stature, the characters of face, nose, and eyes (ibid., p. 5). He then proceeds to mention the various kinds of hair — straight, smooth, wavy, frizzly, curly, and woolly. The hair varies in shades from black, and dark browns, to red and different shades of blond. This author proceeds to show the different skin colors — white, yellow, brown, and black. He shows clearly that the pigmentation of the skin has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment! In other words, the dark races are not dark-skinned because of their having lived for many years in the hot, tropical regions; neither are the light-skinned people fair complexioned because of having lived many years farther north in the colder, cloudier and more temperate zones (ibid., p. 8). Haddon next mentions a number of points relative to stature, showing that some races are naturally taller than others, but that environmental factors can definitely increase or retard the height of the members of any race (ibid., pp. 8,9).
In regard to the form of head, Haddon says: A very valuable character is the general form of the head. When looked at from above some heads are seen to be long and others short, the former are also generally narrow and the latter broad. This distinction is illustrated by the cephalic index (C.I.), which is the ratio of the breadth of the skull or of the head to its length, the latter being taken as 100 (ibid., p. 9).
Haddon shows that a skull with a C.I. of "below 75" is dolichocephalic; but if it is "between 75 and 80," it is termed as mesocephalic; if "it exceeds 80" it is brachycephalic (ibid., p. 9). Then Haddon proceeds to describe such characters as the face, nose and eyes. Faces may be classified as long and narrow, broad, square, round, oval or "disharmonic." There are many different classifications of faces and noses, and a lengthy discussion is not necessary. Let it suffice to say that some noses are long and narrow, others are broad and thick, some are hooked or aquiline, others are up-turned, while still other types are straight. Eye colors range from black through brown, steel blue, light blue, grey and green. There are other differences in the eyes. There is the horizontal and more-or-less wide-open eyes of the Europeans and the North Asiatics, the almond-shaped eye of South Europe, South Africa and Near East, and the "Mongolian eye" which is called the slant-eye, sliteye, or the oblique-eye. Haddon also mentions the epicanthic fold or the Mongolian fold, as it is sometimes called, which covers the inner angle of the eye of Mongoloid peoples and of some Negroes (ibid., pp. 10,11). There is one more very important point which must be stressed regarding the C.I. It must be understood that some ethnologists use only two cephalic indexes — dolichocephalic (long-headed) and brachycephalic (broad-headed). With such ethnologists all cephalic indexes below 80 are classed as dolichocephalic, and all over 80 as brachycephalic. This method of classifying all head forms as either dolichocephalic or brachycephalic is clearly explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Cephalic Index ... if the shorter or transverse diameter falls below 80 the skull may be classed as long (dolichocephalic), while if it exceeds 80 the skull is broad (brachycephalic) (Ency. Brit., 11 ed., Vol. V, Art. Cephalic Index, p. 684).
Note carefully that "if it exceeds 80" the skull is considered brachycephalic, but if the C.I. "falls below 80" the skull is considered long. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary uses the same method of measurements for classifying brachycephals ("80 or above") and dolichocephals ("less than 80"). Most ethnologists use the term "dolichocephalic" for a C.I. of less than 80, and "brachycephalic" for a C.I. of 80 or more. Haddon uses only two — dolichocephalic and brachycephalic (The Races of Man and Their Distribution, p. 9). Later, we shall see abundant evidence proving that North-west Europeans are overwhelmingly a dolichocephalic (C.I. 80 and under) people. It can further be proved beyond question that the long-headed Scythian (or Sacae) skulls which were formerly found on the Steppes all across South Russia and Northern Europe from the Danube to the Don River (and even farther east) are today found in type only among North-west Europeans. These long-headed folk who formerly inhabited South Russia have been succeeded by a round- or broad-headed "Slavic" or "Alpine" type of people. The long-heads were pushed further west by successive waves of Eastern invaders, until today they are only found in appreciable numbers in North-west Europe and, of course, in the countries colonised by these peoples. There are Negroid and Latin type long-heads, but other factors such as general bone proportions make it very difficult to confuse the Nordic long-heads with the Latin and African type of long-heads. Grant shows that the use of the cephalic index is "the best method" of determining the particular type of race of the European populations:
In dealing with European populations the best method of determining race has been found to lie in a comparison of proportions of the skull, the socalled cephalic index. (Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, p. 19).
From the standpoint of the C.I., Europe is divided into two types — dolichocephals and brachycephals. The broad-headed people are, with few exceptions, found in the inland and mountainous districts. The long-heads are almost invariably located on the coastlands and islands of Europe. The dolichocephals (long-heads) are further divided into two main groups: (1) The Nordics who inhabit North-west Europe, and (2) The Mediterraneans who inhabit the southern regions of Europe, and are mainly found in the countries contiguous to the Mediterranean Sea. The Scythians (or Sacae), who formerly lived in South Russia, were of the Nordic branch of the dolichocephals. The foremost authorities on the Scythian question are generally agreed on this point. Other characters enable a trained ethnologist to clearly differentiate between the skeletal remains of Nordics and Mediterraneans. The Nordics are longer-limbed, have typically larger skulls, and are generally larger-bodied than are the Mediterraneans. The difference between Nordic and Mediterranean skeletal remains is as easily discernable as is such difference readily noticeable between the living North-west European Nordics and the South or South-east European Mediterraneans. We have seen from a number of foremost authorities on the "race" question that the cephalic index is of utmost importance to the ethnologist when sorting out and classifying skeletal remains. The general shape of the skull remains more constant than any other tangible racial character. Height, weight and other minor characters are sometimes altered by environment. However, there is as yet no scientific proof that the basic shape of the skull of any race has ever yet altered noticeably except by intermarriage with a race having a different skull type, or by deformations. The skulls of ancient Egyptians are identical with those of the unmixed modern Coptic Egyptians. Some, however, fail to distinguish and rightly interpret skeletal findings. To illustrate this point, it is well to show that in some countries the skulls found in the ancient cemeteries indicate that the population at one time was that of a long-headed type. Skulls from modern cemeteries or skulls from the living population, however, may generally be of the broad-headed type. Some anthropologists hastily jump to the conclusion that the general shape of the skull of this particular population has changed from that of a longheaded race to that of a broad-headed people. But the truth is that a long-headed people at one time lived in that country and were buried in the older cemeteries. Subsequent invasions by round- or broad-heads supplanted the older population so that the modern population, and consequently those interred in the later cemeteries, are those of a broad-headed type of people. There are instances where this has been reversed — where a broad-headed people had formally inhabited a certain territory, and were later driven out by a long-headed race. Our final remarks in this chapter regarding the C.I. are from Professor Sayce. He adds enough points to help completely clarify this subject.
One of the most important characteristics that distinguish races one from another is the shape of the skull. Certain races are what is called dolichocephalic or long-headed, while others are brachycephalic or roundheaded. These terms relate to the proportion of the length of the skull to its breadth ... Stature often corresponds to the form of the skull, a tall stature accompanying a long skull, and a short stature a round skull. (The Races of the Old Testament, Chap. I, pp. 26-28).
Sayce says that a skull with a C.I. between 70-80 is dolichocephalic, and one which is between 80-90 is brachycephalic. He points out, however, that stature is largely dependant on food and nourishment, and is, therefore, not a sure test of race.
Stature by itself cannot be regarded as one of those physiological traits which separate race from race. It may be a racial characteristic, and is so in some instances; but in other cases it is dependant on the nourishment given to the growing child (ibid., pp. 26,27).
One should bear in mind that craniology is not always a safe guide. Skulls are sometimes artificially distorted from their natural form. In fact, there have been tribes in which distortions have been customary. When dealing with ancient skulls, therefore, the craniologist must be on his guard against any such deformations. One must be sure he has enough specimens to give a true representation of the subjects he is studying. It is nearly always unsafe to argue from a "single instance." (ibid., p. 27).
Here is a most important statement which bears remembering. Apart from artificial distortions, however, the shape of the skull is one of the most marked and permanent characteristics of race. It is startling to see how unchangeable the same type of skull is reproduced, generation after generation, in the same race. (ibid., p. 28).
Did you notice that Sayce is very specific in showing that apart from "artificial distortions" the general skull type of a particular race is reproduced unchanged in generation after generation. Sayce then shows that the shape of the skull is due to "physiological causes" which act from the moment one is born. (ibid., p. 28).
WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR TYPE?
Which is the superior racial type — the dolichocephals (long-heads), or the brachycephals (broad-heads)? According to Isaac Taylor, the superior type is that of the brachycephalic races. He says:
Virchow, Broca, and Calori agree that the brachycephalic or (Turanian) skull is a higher form than the dolichocephalic. The most degraded of existing races, such as the Australians [aborigines], Tasmanians, Papuas, Veddahs, Negroes, Hottentots and Bosjemen, as well as the aboriginal forest tribes of India, are typically dolichocephalic; while the Burmese, the Chinese, the Japanese and the natives of Central Europe are typically brachycephalic (The Origin of the Aryans, p. 241).
Most books written in the English language point out that the long-headed people are the superior type of human being. They reason that it has been the long-headed Nordics of North-western Europe who have been the ones to "make history."
Madison Grant expresses this view very well in the following words: "The English, Flemings, Dutch, North Germans and Scandinavians are descendants of the Nordic race while the dominant class in Europe is everywhere of that blood." (The Passing of the Great Race, pp. 61,62).
Grant explains that the Nordics all over the world are a race of adventurers and explorers, soldiers and sailors, "but above all, of rulers, organizers and aristocrats in sharp contrast to the essential peasant and democratic character of the broad-headed Alpines." (ibid., p. 228). "The English," says Ripley, "are distinctly long-headed." (The Races of Europe, p. 41). Which is the superior type? The answer to this question seems to depend more upon the shape of the head of the particular writer, or upon his personal fancy or prejudice than anything else. The fact that the North-west Europeans (who are generally classed as long-headed Nordics) have been the dominant peoples of Europe, and of the world, is undoubtedly more dependant upon the blessings of the God of Israel than upon the particular shape of their heads. The fact, as mentioned earlier, that the aboriginal Australians, the native Africans and other backward peoples are decidedly long-headed should prove that long-headedness alone is not synonymous with greatness. The North-west, "Nordic," dolichocephalic Europeans have become great because of the blessings they received from Almighty God.
ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS — NOT INHERITED
There is another misunderstanding which should be cleared up at this point. Some ethnologists, who, unfortunately, believe in the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, believe that the light races are light-skinned because of their having resided in the cold, cloudy regions of the earth for a long period. Likewise they foolishly assume that the darker races are darker in skin color and pigmentation as a result of having lived in or near the tropical zones for many thousands of years. A more absurd and unscientific theory is hardly conceivable! One of the best known and most inexorably binding laws of science shows that "acquired characteristics are never inherited!" Such a theory is quite unscientific, to say the least. Haddon (according to Sayce) completely refutes any such ideas! "The dark colour," says Haddon, "which is characteristic of race has nothing to do with climatic influences" (Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, Chap. I, p. 37). Sayce then goes on to show that the fair-skinned Kabyle and swarthy Bedouin who live side by side and in the same manner and under the same general conditions, in the same climate, eating the same food — these two contrasted peoples who live in North Africa are totally different in skin pigmentation. The Egyptians and the Nubians, as another example, have lived in the Nile River valley for several thousands of years. Though they have lived side by side under the same general conditions, there is still a vast difference between the Egyptian and his darker neighbor the Nubian — except, of course, where there has been intermarriage.
The dark colour of the black races is due to a pigment which is spread under the true skin immediately beneath the epidermis or scarf-skin (Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, Chap. I, p. 37).
Professor Sayce discusses the subject of the sun-tan. He points out that:
Such tanning, however, is never permanent and cannot be inherited. It is wholly distinct from the dark tint which distinguishes the skin of the Italian or Spaniard, and still more from the brown hue of the Mali or Polynesian (ibid., p. 38).
With the points which have been mentioned in this chapter regarding "race" firmly in mind, we shall now be able to discuss with comprehension terms commonly employed in the describing "race" such as the cephalic index. With these various means of determining racial affinities, we are now able to trace the racial origins of the peoples of North-west Europe through both history and archaeology.