:: wikimiki.org ::
| 人种地理学 |
人种地理学人种地理学（Racial Geography）是一门研究人类各人种的形成、地域分布、迁移及其与地理环境关系的学科，是人文地理学的一个分支。
概述
- 1775年－德国格丁根大学教授J.F.布卢门巴赫发表《人种的自然起源》,把人类划分为5个人种：高加索人种、蒙古人种、埃塞俄比亚人种、亚美利加人种、马来人种。
- 1800年－法国G.居维叶把人类划分为3个人种：高加索人种、蒙古人种和尼格罗人种。
- 1870年－英国T.H.赫胥黎把人类划分为4个人种:高加索人种、蒙古人种、尼格罗人种和澳大利亚人种。
- 1927年－澳大利亚地理学家美国芝加哥大学教授G.泰勒发表著作《环境与人种》（曾译为《人种地理学》）。
- 1929年－德国B.伦什倡议用“地理人种”和次一级的“地域人种”两个词。
- 1961年－美国S.M.加恩提出更低一级的“小人种”一词,并首次采用上述3级系统，把全世界人类划分为9大地理人种,32个地域人种。
分类
- 地理人种
- 地域人种
- 小人种
参考
- G.泰勒著，葛绥成译：《人种地理学》，商务印书馆，上海,1937。(G.Taylor,Environment and Race,Oxford Univ.Press,London,1927.)
- S.M.Garn,Human Races,2nd ed.,Charles C.Thomas,Springfield,Ill.,1965.
- J. Buettner－Janusch, Physical Anthropolo□y:A Perspective,John Wiley & Sons,New York,1973.
category:地理
Category:种族
人种
种族，又称做人种，是在体质形态上具有某些共同遗传特征的人群。“种族”这一概念以及种族的具体划分都是具有相当争议性的课题，其在不同的时代和不同的文化中都有差异，种族的概念也牵涉到诸如社会认同感以及民族主义等其他范畴。
20世纪以前，科学家普遍认为，人类分为若干个本质主义方式划分的（即以不可缺的特征来划分的）种族，如尼格罗人种、蒙古人种、高加索人种等。但自1940年代起，进化论科学家开始淘汰这种理论。长期以来，种族是以科学分类的角度所理解的，即将种族视为一个分类的层次，如将种族等同于亚种；但1960年代起，群体遗传学研究中新出现的数据以及模型也使一些科学家开始质疑这种理解，而转而以群体、特征线等其他概念来研究人类内部的差别。1990年代以来，基因体学以及分支系统学研究中新出现的数据和模型也使科学界对人类起源有了新的认识，使一些科学家转而用世系而非特征来定义种族的划分，并且认为种族应该理解为模糊集合，统计群体，或广义的家族。
有许多进化学以及社会学家认为，基于近年来的生物学研究结果，任何对于人类种族的定义，都缺乏科学分类的严谨性和正确性；“种族”的定义是不准确的，随意性的，约定俗成的，随文化视角的差异而变化，种族应该视为一种社会建构。但也有其他科学家认为，这个观点转变的动机，主要为政治原因而非科学。
目前，各个学科对于“种族”是什么，是否存在，到底有几个，应该如何定义，如何理解，如何分析等问题，尚无定论或共识。
“种族”概念的起源
社会建构以前收集的各地“土著群体”的肤色分布。]]
由于人类擅长识别他人外观，其群体关系又极其复杂，因此自史前时代以来，人类可能一直对“种族”的概念有一定的认知和理解，但各个文化对于“种族”的理解又不尽相同。最早记载种族的文学作品，为古埃及的《地狱之书》，其中将人类分为“埃及人”、“亚洲人”、“利比亚人”和“努比亚人”四类，可看出这个分类融合了“种族”、“民族”、“国家”等概念。后来的中国、罗马等文化比较注重于氏族，对于以外观划分的“民族”的认知则较少（Dikötter 1992；Goldenberg 2003）。但希腊、罗马、中国等文化对外观不同的“种族”也有一定的认识，同时也导致其古代文献中（如中国的《山海经》）出现许多在遥远地方所存在的奇异种族的描写。同时也有一些罗马作家认为种族的特征是由居住环境决定的（Isaac 2004）。但在许多古代文明中，外表不同的人仍然可以通过采纳所在社会的文化标准而成为该社会完全的一员（Snowden 1983；Lewis 1990）。欧洲中世纪时期将古典时代的理论和《圣经》中的描写相结合，认为人类是挪亚三子闪、含以及雅弗的后代，其中闪族为亚洲人，含族为非洲人，雅弗族为欧洲人。
近现代对于种族的理解是欧洲地理大发现时代的产物（Smedley 1999）。欧洲人在探索世界的过程中，接触到了世界各地的许多民族，对于这些民族之间外表上的、行为上的、以及文化上的差异产生了许多猜想。同时由于非洲奴隶贸易使欧洲人的奴隶来源渐渐地由欧洲、中东转变成非洲，欧洲也因此产生了将人类分类的动力，以作为奴役并虐待非洲人的理由（Meltzer 1993）。
通过借鉴希腊罗马的文献以及当时欧洲内部的关系（如英格兰人与爱尔兰人之间的不和 -- Takaki 1993），欧洲人开始将自己以及其他民族划分为外表、行为、能力皆有分别的群体，并把可以遗传的外表特征和内在的智力、行为、甚至道德水平互相联系（Banton 1977）。虽然其他文化也有相似的观点（Lewis 1990；Dikötter 1992），但是这种观点开始影响社会的构造，主要是在欧洲及其殖民地开始的。
传统的种族划分
对种族划分的最早的科学性尝试发生于17世纪，那正值欧洲帝国主义和殖民主义蓬勃发展的时期。最早出版的脱离罗马希腊传统的人类划分法是François Bernier所著的 Nouvelle division de la terre par les différents espèces ou races qui l'habitent （《基于地球上居住的不同的物种或种族的新的地球划分法》），于1684年出版。
Bernier共区分4个种族：
- 欧洲人，包括南亚人，但不包括拉普族
- 远东人和美洲原住民
- 撒哈拉以南非洲人
- 拉普族
18世纪时，人类群体之间的区别成为科学研究的重点（Todorov 1993）。早期的学者注重于总结及描述“人类的自然类别”，这即是Johann Friedrich Blumenbach于1775年出版的人类五分法的文章的标题。但随着19世纪时人类学的形成，欧美学者开始试图解释各个群体在行为上和文化上的不同特征（Stanton 1960）。他们开始测量颅骨的大小及形状，试图解释智力或者其他方面的不同特征（Lieberman 2001）。与达尔文于1859年出版《物种起源》同时，欧洲人对于不同种族到底起源相同，还是各自进化，或各自被上帝创造，展开了激烈的争论（Wolpoff and Caspari 1997）。
17世纪至19世纪期间，民间对于民族之间的区别的普遍认知，和科学家对于这些区别的解释结合在一起，形成了后来一名学者所说的“种族的意识形态”（Smedley 1999）。这种意识形态的基本要旨是：种族是远古的，自然的，一成不变的，各不相同的。虽然一些群体是多个群体的混合体，但是通过调查和研究，仍然可以辨别形成该混合群体的祖先民族。
19世纪时，有多位自然科学家在种族的问题上发表了自己的观点，如Georges Cuvier、James Cowles Pritchard、Louis Agassiz、Charles Pickering、Johann Friedrich Blumenbach。其中Cuvier将人类三分，Pritchard七分，Agassiz八分，Pickering十一分。Blumenbach的五分法则是19世纪时比较常见的：
- 高加索人种，即白色人种，主要分布在欧洲、西亚等地
- 蒙古人种，即黄色人种，主要分布在中亚、东亚等地
- 埃塞俄比亚人种，即黑色人种，主要分布在非洲、大洋洲等地
- 美洲人种，即红色人种，主要分布在美洲
- 马来人种，即棕色人种，主要分布在东南亚（注意：和20世纪的棕色人种不同）
在Blumenbach之后的几十年里，研究人员渐渐将美洲、马来两个人种归并于蒙古人种，结果进入20世纪初剩下三个主要的人种：
- 尼格罗人种，即黑色人种
- 高加索人种，即白色人种
- 蒙古人种，即黄色人种
20世纪最常见的分法是由美国人类学家Carleton S. Coon提出的：
- 刚果人种，即黑色人种
- 高加索人种，即白色人种
- 蒙古人种，即黄色人种
- 澳大利亚人种，即棕色人种
- 开普人种（居于非洲南部，因在特征上和传统的“黑色人种”有别，而分列出来）
传统种族和其他人类现象之间的联系
19世纪的自然科学家对于种族的认识可以归纳为三点：一、种族是客观存在的，自然发生的人类分类；二、种族和其他人类现象（如行为、文化、智力、道德水平）等有很深的联系，因此也造成了不同文化之间物质文明丰富与否的区别；三、种族因此是一个有效的科学分类，可以用来解释以及预测个人或群体的行为。
人种以肤色、眼色、眼型、髮色、髮質、鼻型、嘴唇的厚薄、头型、脸型等特征划分，而这些生理特征却和其他文化特征，甚至智力、道德水平联系了起来。如：当时认为，高加索人种的浅肤色和高眉骨显示了高加索人种高深的智力水平以及仁厚的心灵；蒙古人种的浅黄肤色和内眦赘皮显示了其狡猾，并且有些死板教条的性格；尼格罗人种的深肤色、低眉骨、厚嘴唇则显示他们比较接近于猿类动物。（但值得一提的是：大猩猩和黑猩猩的皮肤其实非常白，嘴唇也很细。）
进入20世纪以后，这种种族主义的观念，乃至“种族”的概念本身，都已经开始面临越来越多的挑战。
20世纪、21世纪时围绕“种族”概念展开的争论
种族研究的范围
由于对于种族的研究在至少两个范围（国家范围以及国际范围）进行，同时各种研究的目的也不同，因此对于种族的讨论也非常复杂。一般来说，进化论科学家将人类作为一个整体对待，他们对全球人类多样性的研究过程中，有层次的科学分类帮助有限，或者根本不适用。但是在国家层面运作的政府、执法人员、医药事业等则比较注重于在国家或者地区内所出现的基因多样性，对他们来说，有层次的科学分类的确颇有实用价值。
研究范围和目的的不同，从近年来发表的三篇研究论文中就可以看出：Rosenberg等（2002年）、Serre & Pääbo（2004年）、以及Tang等（2005年）。Rosenberg等以及Serre & Pääbo所研究的都是全球人类基因的多样性，但是他们的结论却完全不同，Serre & Pääbo将此不同归于实验设计。Rosenberg等从全球各地取样，他们没有把地理因素考虑在内，而Serre & Pääbo则是根据地理而取样。通过从各洲主要群体取样，Rosenberg等认为有证据表明统计群体的存在（即种族）。但Serre & Pääbo认为，从地理的角度来考虑，人类基因多样性是渐变式的，特征线式的。Rosenberg等的研究方向是医学（即流行病学），而Serre & Pääbo的则是人类进化。Tang等研究的是美国国内的基因多样性，主要方向是研究种族和地理位置之间哪一个对于流行病学研究影响更深。与Serre & Pääbo不同，Tang等认为种族更为重要。[http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v77n3/42406/brief/42406.abstract.html 最近的研究]也将种族和[http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/software/structure2_1.html 群体基因结构]相联系，和Tang等同出一辙。但国际范围和国内范围的研究为何会得出的不同结论，Serre & Pääbo所推测的原因是：
:It is worth noting that the colonization history of the United States has resulted in a "sampling" of the human population made up largely of people from western Europe, western Africa, and Southeast Asia. Thus, studies in which individuals from Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia are used... might be an adequate description of the major components of the U.S. population.
:（我们应该注意到，美国殖民史导致了全球人类的“抽样”，使得美国人口主要来自西欧、西非、以及东南亚。因此，以欧洲、撒哈拉以南的非洲、以及东南亚为对象的研究……可能足够描述美国人口的主要组成部分。）
“种族”和亚种
随着20世纪初现代综合论的兴起，生物学家发展出了新的，更严谨的，将种族等同于亚种的定义。对于这些生物学家来说，种族是一个种中，组成其全部或一部分的，可辨认的群体。一个“单型”的种就没有种族（或者可以说是只有一个种族包含了整个种）。以下情况的种都可视为单型种：
- 该种所有成员都非常相似，没有有意义的方法将其分类。
- 该种的成员有相当的多样性，但是有很高的随机性，从遗传角度来讲毫无意义。（许多植物物种就属于此类，因此许多园艺学家假如要保留某种特征（如花瓣颜色）的话，会避免利用种子繁殖，而会使用插枝等不改变原有基因的途径。）
- 该种的成员有相当的多样性，且多样性有一定的规律可循，但是各个群体之间没有明确的界限，而是渐变式地互相融合。这种特征线式的多样性，一般上表示各个看似分开的群体之间其实存在相当的基因流。假如一个物种的各群体之间有相当的基因流，该物种很有可能仍然是单型种。
一个多型种就是有两个或以上种族的物种。这种物种通常有多个明显的亚种，一般上不会杂交（但可能有较窄的杂交区域），但在有机会的情况下会进行杂交。（但注意：假如两个群体在有机会的情况下仍然不可杂交的话，那么这两个群体就属于两个不同的种，而非一种之内的两个种族。）
虽然这个以概念精确性为目的的尝试得到了许多生物学家的支持（尤其是动物学家），但是进化论科学家却从多个方面对其进行批评。
“种族”概念的摒弃以及“群体”和“特征线”概念的兴起
20世纪初，人类学家对于种族是有截然分别的语言、文化、社会群体的理论开始质疑，摒弃。之后，群体遗传学的兴起使一些在人类学和生物学等学科的主流进化论科学家开始质疑种族作为一个客观存在的科学概念的正确性。那些摒弃种族概念的正确性的科学家主要从四个角度分析：实证、定义、其他理论、道德伦理。（Lieberman and Byrne 1993）
首先从实证角度挑战种族概念的是两位人类学家：Franz Boas展示了环境因素造成的表现型的可塑性（Boas 1912），Ashley Montagu则依靠基因学证据。（1941, 1942）动物学家Edward O. Wilson和W. Brown则从一般动物系统学的角度挑战该概念，同时否认了“种族”等同于“亚种”的理论。（Wilson and Brown 1953）
特征线概念的提出，是对人类表现型和基因型重新理解过程中最重要的发展之一。该概念源自人类学家C. Loring Brace所描述的现象：自然选择、迁徙以及基因漂变在塑造人类基因多样性的同时，其多样性主要呈渐变分布，而这些渐变中出现的“等高曲线”可称为特征线。（Brace 1964）这个现象突显出了以表现型（如肤色、髮質）来描述的种族忽略了许多其他的，和种族划分重合较少的特征（如血型）。因此，人类学家Frank Livingstone得出的结论是：因为特征线和种族界限互相交叉，因此根本没有所谓的“种族”，只有特征线。（Livingstone 1962: 279）1964年，生物学家Paul Ehrlich及Holm指出了一些两个或以上条特征线以不协调地分布的特例：如黑色素的分布取决于离赤道的距离，越远就越少；但是beta-S血色素的单基因型却是以位于非洲的特定的地理位置为中心，呈放射性分布。（Ehrlich and Holm 1964）以人类学家Leonard Lieberman和Fatimah Linda Jackson的原话来说：
:Discordant patterns of heterogeneity falsify any description of a population as if it were genotypically or even phenotypically homogeneous" (Lieverman and Jackson 1995).
:（[人类基因]异质性的不协调分布，也反证了任何把[人类的]群体描述成在基因型或甚至表现型方面同质性[的描述]。）
最后，基因学家Richard Lewontin鉴于人类多样性的85%皆出现于群体内而非群体之间的现象，提出论点，认为“种族”和“亚种”都不是正确的或有用的描述人类群体的方法。（Lewontin 1973）（该论点后来被其反对者称为Lewontin的谬误。）有研究人员报告说，（以Sewall Wright之群体结构统计FST来测量的）种族之间的区别仅有人类基因多样性的5%。2但由于FST的技术局限性，许多基因学家认为很低的FST值并不反证人类种族存在的理论。（Edwards, 2003）同时，还有如David Harvey（1982, 1984, 1992）的新马克思主义者认为，种族是一个用来巩固阶级之间不平等的社会构造的手段，实际上并不存在。
这些从实证角度提出的对“种族”概念的挑战，迫使进化科学重新考虑“种族”的定义。20世纪中叶，人类学家William Boyd将种族定义为：
:A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant "constellation" (Boyd 1950).
:（一个在其拥有的一个或多的基因的频率上，和其他群体有显著差别的群体。我们选择哪些基因位点，选择多少个，作为显著的“星座”，是完全随意性的。）
Lieberman和Jackson（1994）指出：这个论点的弱点在于：假如一个基因就能区别种族，那么种族的数量就和进行交配的人类配偶数量一样多。同时，人类学家Stephen Molnar提出，特征线的不协调性不可避免地导致种族数量的大幅增加，最终使这个概念失去意义（Molnar 1992）。
在种种实证方面和概念方面的问题出现的同时，第二次世界大战之后，进化科学家和社会科学家很清楚地认识到，和种族有关的理念被屡次用来给种族歧视、种族隔离、奴隶制以及种族清洗提供理由。1960年代期间美国民权运动以及世界各地反殖民主义运动兴起期间，这个从伦理道德角度提出的质疑也日益激烈。
在这些论点的轮番攻击下，一些进化科学家完全摒弃了“种族”概念，转而使用“群体”。群体和种族的不同在于，群体所指的是一个繁殖群体（在进行遗传算法时必不可少的概念），而不是一个生物学上的分类。其他的进化科学家则采用了特征线的概念（即某个特征的频率相对于地理的变化速度）。“群体”和“特征线”的概念并不矛盾，许多进化科学家两者并用。
进化科学家摒弃“种族”概念的同时，许多社会科学家则把“种族”改换成“民族”，其中民族是指在国籍、宗教、种族等方面自我认同的群体。这些科学家完全承认，这些国籍、宗教、种族等方面的自我认同全部都是社会构造，和自然或超自然领域的客观事实可以完全无关。（Gordon 1964）（另见：美国人类学协会在种族问题上的声明[http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm]）
人类基因多样性的起源、模式以及外在体现
人类的起源
社会构造
任何人类种族的模型都必须能解释人类进化过程中种族差异的形成。但在20世纪末以前，人类学家只能依靠相当不完整的化石记录来推断人类进化的过程。而他们的模型也无法作为我们就种族起源问题提出推论的有效基础。然而，近年来分子生物学领域的发展已经开始给进化学家提供更新、更全面的数据，也充实了我们对于人类起源的认识。
人类学家对于智人（homo sapiens；现代人）的起源，一向争论不休。大约一百万年前，直立人（Homo erectus）从非洲迁徙到欧洲和亚洲。而争论的中心就是：直立人是否是在非、欧、亚三洲各自同时进化为智人，还是智人在非洲进化之后，离开非洲并取代了欧亚二洲的直立人。两种模型的不同，也导致了各自对种族起源问题的解释上的不同。
多地起源说
支持多地起源说的学者（见Frayer et al. 1993）指出了中南欧洲（Smith 1982）以及东亚、澳洲（Wolpoff 1993）等地化学纪录中的解剖延续性，认为解剖延续性证明了基因亲和性。他们认为，人类内部显著的基因相似性并不表示他们有共同的祖先，二是反映了世界各地人类群体之间，互相联系所造成的不间断的基因流。（Thorne and Wolpoff 1992）他们同时认为这个模型和特征线的理论并不矛盾。(Wolpoff 1993)
这个模型在种族问题上最重要的元素就是：既然智人在世界各地已经进化繁衍了一百万年，这个物种完全有时间进化成多个种族。然而，Leiberman and Jackson（1995年）却指出，这个模型取决于以下和种族有关的条件是否成立：一、人属（Homo）在其分布地中心和边缘地的成员之间须在更新世中期就有显著的构成学区别； 二、许多特征须先在人属的分布地域的边缘处发展；三、这些特征随时间推移并不消失。这种地域性的多样化即可成为人属内部长期以来即存在差别，以及这些差别是现今人类内部差别的前身的证据。
非洲起源说
构成学推断出的早期人类迁徙路线。（图例中的数目表示距今年代，单位为千年）]]
Information about the history of our species comes from two main sources: the paleoanthropological record and historical inferences based on current genetic differences observed in humans. Although both sources of information are fragmentary, they have been converging in recent years on the same general story.
Since the 1990s, it has become common to use multilocus genotypes to distinguish different human groups and to allocate individuals to groups (Bamshad et al. 2004). These data have led to an examination of the biological validity of races as evolutionary lineages and the description of races in cladistic terms. The technique of multilocus genotyping has been used to determine patterns of human demographic history. Thus, the concept of "race" afforded by these techniques is synonymous with ancestry, broadly understood.
Studies of human genetic variation imply that Africa was the ancestral source of all modern humans, and that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and displaced Homo erectus between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago (Cann et al. 1987). Indigenous Australians are believed to be an early out-group that remained isolated. Most other groups, including Europeans, Asians, and Native Americans, were found to be a single related (monophyletic) group resulting from a later out-migration from Africa, which could reasonably be divided into West and East Eurasian groups.
The existing fossil evidence suggests that anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, within the last ∼200,000 years, from a pre-existing population of humans (Klein 1999). Although it is not easy to define "anatomically modern" in a way that encompasses all living humans and excludes all archaic humans (Lieberman et al. 2002), the generally agreed-upon physical characteristics of anatomical modernity include a high rounded skull, facial retraction, and a light and gracile, as opposed to heavy and robust, skeleton (Lahr 1996). Early fossils with these characteristics have been found in eastern Africa and have been dated to ∼160,000–200,000 years ago (White et al. 2003; McDougall et al. 2005). At that time, the population of anatomically modern humans appears to have been small and localized (Harpending et al. 1998). Much larger populations of archaic humans lived elsewhere in the Old World, including the Neandertals in Europe and an earlier species of humans, Homo erectus, in Asia (Swisher et al. 1994).
Fossils of the earliest anatomically modern humans found outside Africa are from two sites in the Middle East and date to a period of relative global warmth, ∼100,000 years ago, though this region was reinhabited by Neandertals in later millennia as the climate in the northern hemisphere again cooled (Lahr and Foley 1998). Groups of anatomically modern humans appear to have moved outside Africa permanently sometime >60,000 years ago. One of the earliest modern skeletons found outside Africa is Mungo Man, from Australia, and has been dated to ∼42,000 years ago (Bowler et al. 2003), although studies of environmental changes in Australia argue for the presence of modern humans in Australia >55,000 years ago (Miller et al. 1999). To date, the earliest anatomically modern skeleton discovered from Europe comes from the Carpathian Mountains of Romania and is dated to 34,000–36,000 years ago (Trinkaus et al. 2003).
Existing data on human genetic variation support and extend conclusions based on the fossil evidence. African populations exhibit greater genetic diversity than do populations in the rest of the world, implying that humans appeared first in Africa and later colonized Eurasia and the Americas (Tishkoff and Williams 2002; Yu et al. 2002; Tishkoff and Verrelli 2003). The genetic variation seen outside Africa is generally a subset of the variation within Africa, a pattern that would be produced if the migrants from Africa were limited in number and carried just part of African genetic variability with them (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003). Patterns of genetic variation suggest an earlier population expansion in Africa followed by a subsequent expansion in non-African populations, and the dates calculated for the expansions generally coincide with the archaeological record (Jorde et al. 1998).
Aspects of the relationship between anatomically modern and archaic humans remain contentious. Studies of mtDNA (Ingman et al. 2000), the Y chromosome (Underhill et al. 2000), portions of the X chromosome (Kaessmann et al. 1999), and many (though not all) autosomal regions (Harpending and Rogers 2000) support the "Out of Africa" account of human history, in which anatomically modern humans appeared first in eastern Africa and then migrated throughout Africa and into the rest of the world, with little or no interbreeding between modern humans and the archaic populations they gradually replaced (Tishkoff et al. 2000; Stringer 2002). However, several groups of researchers cite fossil and genetic evidence to argue for a more complex account. They contend that humans bearing modern traits emerged several times from Africa, over an extended period, and mixed with archaic humans in various parts of the world (Hawks et al. 2000; Eswaran 2002; Templeton 2002; Ziętkiewicz et al. 2003). As a result, they say, autosomal DNA from archaic human populations living outside Africa persists in modern populations, and modern populations in various parts of the world still bear some physical resemblance to the archaic populations that inhabited those regions (Wolpoff et al. 2001).
However, distinguishing possible contributions to the gene pool of modern humans from archaic humans outside Africa is difficult, especially since many autosomal loci coalesce at times preceding the separation of archaic human populations (Pääbo 2003). In addition, studies of mtDNA from archaic and modern humans and extant Y chromosomes suggest that any surviving genetic contributions of archaic humans outside Africa must be small, if they exist at all (Krings et al. 1997; Nordborg 1998; Takahata et al. 2001; Serre et al. 2004). The observation that most genes studied to date coalesce in African populations points toward the importance of Africa as the source of most modern genetic variation, perhaps with some subdivision in the ancestral African population (Satta and Takahata 2002). Sequence data for hundreds of loci from widely distributed worldwide populations eventually may clarify the population processes associated with the appearance of anatomically modern humans (Wall 2000), as well as the amount of gene flow among modern humans since then.
分支系统学
Mungo Man
A phylogenetic tree like the one shown above is usually derived from DNA or protein sequences from populations. Often mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosome sequences are used to study ancient human demographics. These single-locus sources of DNA do not recombine and are inherited from a single parent. Individuals from the various continental groups tend to be more similar to one another than to people from other continents. The tree is rooted in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans, which is believed to have originated in Africa. Horizontal distance corresponds to two things:
#Genetic distance. Given below the diagram, the genetic difference between humans and chimps is roughly 2%, or 20 times larger than the variation among modern humans.
#Temporal remoteness of the most recent common ancestor. Rough estimates are given above the diagram, in millions of years. The mitochondrial most recent common ancestor of modern humans lived roughly 200,000 years ago, latest common ancestors of humans and chimps between four and seven million years ago.
Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in red. Formation of species and subspecies is also indicated, and the formation of "races" is indicated in the green rectangle to the right (note that only a very rough representation of human phylogeny is given). Note that vertical distances are not meaningful in this representation.
不同特征的分布
A thorough description of the differences in patterns of genetic variation between humans and other species awaits additional genetic studies of human populations and nonhuman species. But the data gathered to date suggest that human variation exhibits several distinctive characteristics. First, compared with many other mammalian species, humans are genetically less diverse—a counterintuitive finding, given our large population and worldwide distribution (Li and Sadler 1991; Kaessmann et al. 2001). For example, the chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of diversity than do humans (Ebersberger et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2003; Fischer et al. 2004).
Two random humans are expected to differ at approximately 1 in 1000 nucleotide pairs, whereas two random chimpanzees differ at 1 in 500 nucleotide pairs. However, with a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Most of these single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are neutral, but some are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans. It is estimated that about 10 million SNPs exist in human populations, where the rarer SNP allele has a frequency of at least 1% (see International HapMap Project).
The distribution of variants within and among human populations also differs from that of many other species. The details of this distribution are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population," the clinal nature of variation, and heterogeneity across the genome (Long and Kittles 2003). In general, however, 5%–15% of genetic variation occurs between large groups living on different continents, with the remaining majority of the variation occurring within such groups (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005). This distribution of genetic variation differs from the pattern seen in many other mammalian species, for which existing data suggest greater differentiation between groups (Templeton 1998; Kittles and Weiss 2003).
In the field of population genetics, it is believed that the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans reflects human demographic history.
Our history as a species also has left genetic signals in regional populations. For example, in addition to having higher levels of genetic diversity, populations in Africa tend to have lower amounts of linkage disequilibrium than do populations outside Africa, partly because of the larger size of human populations in Africa over the course of human history and partly because the number of modern humans who left Africa to colonize the rest of the world appears to have been relatively low (Gabriel et al. 2002). In contrast, populations that have undergone dramatic size reductions or rapid expansions in the past and populations formed by the mixture of previously separate ancestral groups can have unusually high levels of linkage disequilibrium (Nordborg and Tavare 2002).
In the field of population genetics, it is believed that the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans reflects human demographic history. It is believed that humans passed through a population bottleneck before a rapid expansion coinciding with migrations out of Africa leading to an African-Eurasian divergence around 100,000 years ago (ca. 5,000 generations), followed by a European-Asian divergence about 40,000 years ago (ca. 2,000 generations).
The rapid expansion of a previously small population has two important effects on the distribution of genetic variation. First, the so-called founder effect occurs when founder populations bring only a subset of the genetic variation from their ancestral population. Second, as founders become more geographically separated, the probability that two individuals from different founder populations will mate becomes smaller. The effect of this assortative mating is to reduce gene flow between geographical groups, and to increase the genetic distance between groups. The expansion of humans from Africa affected the distribution of genetic variation in two other ways. First, smaller (founder) populations experience greater genetic drift because of increased fluctuations in neutral polymorphisms. Second, new polymorphisms that arose in one group were less likely to be transmitted to other groups as gene flow was restricted.
Many other geographic, climatic, and historical factors have contributed to the patterns of human genetic variation seen in the world today. For example, population processes associated with colonization, periods of geographic isolation, socially reinforced endogamy, and natural selection all have affected allele frequencies in certain populations (Jorde et al. 2000b; Bamshad and Wooding 2003). In general, however, the recency of our common ancestry and continual gene flow among human groups have limited genetic differentiation in our species.
人类群体的亚结构
genetic drift
New data on human genetic variation has reignited the debate surrounding race. Most of the controversy surrounds the question of how to interpret these new data, and whether conclusions based on existing data are sound (see validity of human races). A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies. However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described race is often used as an indicator of ancestry (see race in biomedicine below).
Although the genetic differences among human groups are relatively small, these differences nevertheless can be used to situate many individuals within broad, geographically based groupings. For example, computer analyses of hundreds of polymorphic loci sampled in globally distributed populations have revealed the existence of genetic clustering that roughly is associated with groups that historically have occupied large continental and subcontinental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002; Bamshad et al. 2003).
Some commentators have argued that these patterns of variation provide a biological justification for the use of traditional racial categories. They argue that the continental clusterings correspond roughly with the division of human beings into sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans, western Asians, and northern Africans; eastern Asians; Polynesians and other inhabitants of Oceania; and Native Americans (Risch et al. 2002). Other observers disagree, saying that the same data undercut traditional notions of racial groups (King and Motulsky 2002; Calafell 2003; Tishkoff and Kidd 2004). They point out, for example, that major populations considered races or subgroups within races do not necessarily form their own clusters. Thus, samples taken from India and Pakistan affiliate with Europeans or eastern Asians rather than separating into a distinct cluster. However, samples from the Kalash, a small population living in northwestern Pakistan, form their own cluster on a level comparable with those of the major continental regions (Rosenberg et al. 2002).
Sampling design can have a critical influence on the results of such studies. Studies of genetic clustering often have relied on samples taken from widely separated and socially defined populations. When samples were analyzed from individuals who were more evenly distributed geographically, clustering was far less evident (Serre and Pääbo 2004). Furthermore, because human genetic variation is clinal, many individuals affiliate with two or more continental groups. Thus, the genetically based "biogeographical ancestry" assigned to any given person generally will be broadly distributed and will be accompanied by sizable uncertainties (Pfaff et al. 2004).
In many parts of the world, groups have mixed in such a way that many individuals have relatively recent ancestors from widely separated regions. Although genetic analyses of large numbers of loci can produce estimates of the percentage of a person's ancestors coming from various continental populations (Shriver et al. 2003; Bamshad et al. 2004), these estimates may assume a false distinctiveness of the parental populations, since human groups have exchanged mates from local to continental scales throughout history (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Hoerder 2002). Even with large numbers of markers, information for estimating admixture proportions of individuals or groups is limited, and estimates typically will have wide CIs (Pfaff et al. 2004).
人类内部的生理多样性
The distribution of many physical traits resembles the distribution of genetic variation within and between human populations (American Association of Physical Anthropologists 1996; Keita and Kittles 1997). For example, ∼90% of the variation in human head shapes occurs within every human group, and ∼10% separates groups, with a greater variability of head shape among individuals with recent African ancestors (Relethford 2002).
A prominent exception to the common distribution of physical characteristics within and among groups is skin color. Approximately 10% of the variance in skin color occurs within groups, and ~90% occurs between groups (Relethford 2002). This distribution of skin color and its geographic patterning—with people whose ancestors lived predominantly near the equator having darker skin than those with ancestors who lived predominantly in higher latitudes—indicate that this attribute has been under strong selective pressure. Darker skin appears to be strongly selected for in equatorial regions to prevent sunburn, skin cancer, the photolysis of folate, and damage to sweat glands (Sturm et al. 2001; Rees 2003). A leading hypothesis for the selection of lighter skin in higher latitudes is that it enables the body to form greater amounts of vitamin D, which helps prevent rickets (Jablonski 2004). However, the vitamin D hypothesis is not universally accepted (Aoki 2002), and lighter skin in high latitudes may correspond simply to an absence of selection for dark skin (Harding et al. 2000).
Because skin color has been under strong selective pressure, similar skin colors can result from convergent adaptation rather than from genetic relatedness. Sub-Saharan Africans, tribal populations from southern India, and Indigenous Australians have similar skin pigmentation, but genetically they are no more similar than are other widely separated groups. Furthermore, in some parts of the world in which people from different regions have mixed extensively, the connection between skin color and ancestry has been substantially weakened (Parra et al. 2004). In Brazil, for example, skin color is not closely associated with the percentage of recent African ancestors a person has, as estimated from an analysis of genetic variants differing in frequency among continent groups (Parra et al. 2003).
Considerable speculation has surrounded the possible adaptive value of other physical features characteristic of groups, such as the constellation of facial features observed in many eastern and northeastern Asians (Guthrie 1996). However, any given physical characteristic generally is found in multiple groups (Lahr 1996), and demonstrating that environmental selective pressures shaped specific physical features will be difficult, since such features may have resulted from sexual selection for individuals with certain appearances or from genetic drift (Roseman 2004).
社会对人类生理多样性的理解
人种划分中出现的各种难点
Even as the idea of "race" was becoming a powerful organizing principle in many societies, the shortcomings of the concept were apparent. In the Old World, the gradual transition in appearances from one group to adjacent groups emphasized that "one variety of mankind does so sensibly pass into the other, that you cannot mark out the limits between them," as Blumenbach observed in his writings on human variation (Marks 1995, p. 54). In parts of the Americas, the situation was somewhat different. The immigrants to the New World came largely from widely separated regions of the Old World—western and northern Europe, western Africa, and, later, eastern Asia and southern Europe. In the Americas, the immigrant populations began to mix among themselves and with the indigenous inhabitants of the continent. In the United States, for example, most people who self-identify as African American have some European ancestors—in one analysis of genetic markers that have differing frequencies between continents, European ancestry ranged from an estimated 7% for a sample of Jamaicans to ∼23% for a sample of African Americans from New Orleans (Parra et al. 1998). Similarly, many people who identify as European American have some African or Native American ancestors, either through openly interracial marriages or through the gradual inclusion of people with mixed ancestry into the majority population. In a survey of college students who self-identified as "white" in a northeastern U.S. university, ∼30% were estimated to have <90% European ancestry (Shriver et al. 2003).
In the United States, social and legal conventions developed over time that forced individuals of mixed ancestry into simplified racial categories (Gossett 1997). An example is the "one-drop rule" implemented in some state laws that treated anyone with a single known African American ancestor as black (Davis 2001). The decennial censuses conducted since 1790 in the United States also created an incentive to establish racial categories and fit people into those categories (Nobles 2000). In other countries in the Americas where mixing among groups was more extensive, social categories have tended to be more numerous and fluid, with people moving into or out of categories on the basis of a combination of socioeconomic status, social class, ancestry, and appearance (Mörner 1967).
Efforts to sort the increasingly mixed population of the United States into discrete categories generated many difficulties (Spickard 1992). By the standards used in past censuses, many millions of children born in the United States have belonged to a different race than have one of their biological parents. Efforts to track mixing between groups led to a proliferation of categories (such as "mulatto" and "octoroon") and "blood quantum" distinctions that became increasingly untethered from self-reported ancestry. A person's racial identity can change over time, and self-ascribed race can differ from assigned race (Kressin et al. 2003). Until the 2000 census, Latinos were required to identify with a single race despite the long history of mixing in Latin America; partly as a result of the confusion generated by the distinction, 42% of Latino respondents in the 2000 census ignored the specified racial categories and checked "some other race" (Mays et al. 2003).
以“族群”而非“种族”区分人群
As the problems surrounding the word "race" became increasingly apparent during the 20th century, the word "ethnicity" was promoted as a way of characterizing the differences between groups (Huxley and Haddon 1936; Hutchinson and Smith 1996). Ethnicity typically emphasizes the cultural, socioeconomic, religious, and political qualities of human groups rather than their genetic ancestry. It may encompass language, diet, religion, dress, customs, kinship systems, or historical or territorial identity (Cornell and Hartmann 1998).
However, as a way of understanding human groups, ethnicity also suffers from several shortcomings. First, ascribing an ethnic identity to a group can imply a much greater degree of uniformity than is actually the case. In the United States, the ethnic group "Hispanic or Latino" contains such subgroups as Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans, and recent immigrants from Central America (Hayes-Bautista and Chapa 1987). Combining these groups into a single category may serve useful bureaucratic or political ends but does not necessarily result in a better understanding of these groups.
Also, ethnicity, like race, is a malleable concept that can change dramatically in different times or circumstances (Waters 1990; Smelser et al. 2001). Ethnic groups may come into existence and then dissipate as a result of broad historical or social trends. Individuals might change ethnic groups over the course of their lives or identify with more than one group. A researcher, clinician, or government official might assign an ethnicity to an individual quite different from the one that person would acknowledge (Kressin et al. 2003).
Finally, despite attempts to distinguish "ethnicity" from "race," the two terms often are used interchangeably (Oppenheimer 2001). Ethnic groups can share a belief in a common ancestral origin (Cornell and Hartmann 1998), which also can be a defining characteristic of a racial group. Furthermore, ethnic groups tend to promote marriage within the group, which creates an expectation of biological cohesion regardless of whether that cohesion existed in the past.
以祖籍区分人群
An alternative to the use of racial or ethnic categories is to categorize individuals in terms of ancestry. Ancestry may be defined geographically (e.g., Asian, sub-Saharan African, or northern European), geopolitically (e.g., Vietnamese, Zambian, or Norwegian), or culturally (e.g., Brahmin, Lemba, or Apache). The definition of ancestry may recognize a single predominant source or multiple sources. Ancestry can be ascribed to an individual by an observer, as was the case with the U.S. census prior to 1960; it can be identified by an individual from a list of possibilities or with use of terms drawn from that person's experience; or it can be calculated from genetic data by use of loci with allele frequencies that differ geographically, as described above. At least among those individuals who participate in biomedical research, genetic estimates of biogeographical ancestry generally agree with self-assessed ancestry (Tang et al. 2005), but in an unknown percentage of cases, they do not (Brodwin 2002; Kaplan 2003).
race in biomedicine
Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry.
The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity a priori. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned a posteriori using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 377 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2002) were able to assign 1,056 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, of which five correspond to major geographic regions.
However, in analyses that assign individuals to group it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially Hispanic groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% Afric
地理环境地理环境指是生物（特别是人类）赖以生存和发展的地球表层的情况。其内容包括：所处的地理位置和这一位置上的地形、地貌、土壤、气候、水系、矿藏、动植物以及其生态条件等。
地理环境由自然地理环境、经济地理环境和社会文化环境构成。
category:地理
category:環境
1775年
----
大事记
- 美国独立战争爆发
出生
-
逝世
-
Category:18世纪
ko:1775년
ms:1775
1800年
----
大事记
-
出生
-
逝世
-
Category:19世纪
ko:1800년
ms:1800
1927年
----
大事记
- 电子衍射被发现。
- BBC成立。
- 3月7日—3月17日——国民党二届三中全会在汉口召开。
- 4月12日——四一二事变，国共合作破裂。
- 4月12日——大不列颠和北爱尔兰联合王国建立。
- 4月18日——国民政府在南京建立。
- 5月20日——沙特阿拉伯独立
- 5月21日——许克祥在长沙发动马日事变
- 5月21日——美国航行家查尔斯·林白独自驾驶单翼机“圣路易精神”号首次完成从纽约到巴黎的不着陆飞过大西洋，历时33小时39分。
- 6月——韦纳·海森堡发现不确定性。
- 7月22日——平江起义。
- 8月1日——南昌起义。
- 8月7日——八七会议，中共中央在汉口召开的紧急会议。
- 8月15日——第二次东方会议。
- 9月9日——秋收起义。
- 10月27日——井冈山革命根据地建立。
- 11月12日——里昂·托洛茨基被革除苏联共产党籍。
- 11月13日——黄麻起义。
- 12月1日——蒋介石与宋美龄在上海结婚。
- 12月11日——中国共产党在广州起义。
出生
- 净空法师，中国现代佛教高僧
- 3月5日——王又曾，台灣企業家
- 3月21日——汉斯－迪特里希·根舍，德国政治家
- 5月5日——曼弗雷德·艾根，德国生物物理学家
- 7月18日——库特·马舒尔，德国指挥家
- 10月16日——君特·格拉斯，德国作家
- 12月4日——金泳三，韩国前总统
- 12月5日——普密蓬·阿杜德，拉玛九世王，泰国国王
- 12月8日——尼克拉斯·卢曼，德国社会学家（逝世1998年）
逝世
- 4月28日 —— 李大钊，中国革命家，在北京被處決（1889年出生）
- 6月2日 —— 王国维，国学大师，自沉于北京颐和园昆明湖
- 7月23日 —— 芥川龙之介，日本小说家（1892年出生）
- 9月27日 —— 威廉·爱因托芬（荷兰病理学家）：他发明了心电图描记器于1924年获诺贝尔生理学及医学奖
诺贝尔奖
- 物理：阿瑟·霍利·康普顿和查尔斯·汤姆逊·里斯·威尔逊
- 化学：海因里希·奥托·魏兰德
- 生理和医学： 朱利斯·华格纳－约雷格
- 文学：亨利·柏格森
- 和平：费迪南·爱德华·比松和路德维希·克魏德
- 奥斯卡最佳影片奖——
- 奥斯卡最佳导演奖——
- 奥斯卡最佳男主角奖——
- 奥斯卡最佳女主角奖——
- 奥斯卡最佳男配角奖——
- 奥斯卡最佳女配角奖——
（其他奖项参见奥斯卡金像奖获奖名单）
请参看：
- 1927年电影
- 1927年文学
- 1927年音乐
- 1927年体育
- 1927年电视
- 逝世公告
Category:1927年
Category:1920年代
ja:1927年
ko:1927년
simple:1927
th:พ.ศ. 2470
1961年
----
大事记
- 第一个类星体被发现。
- 中国自己设计并定型生产的312-1V型明线12路载波机投产使用。扩大了长途电话的使用容量,大大提高了中国长途电话水平
- 1月3日——美国和古巴断交。
- 1月20日——约翰·肯尼迪上任美国总统。
- 2月14日——第一个合成制造的化学元素：铹。
- 3月15日——南非退出英联邦。
- 4月12日——尤里·加加林成为世界上第一个太空人。
- 4月17日——猪湾事件。
- 4月18日——《维也纳外交关系公约》被签署。
- 4月25日——罗勃特·诺伊斯获得集成电路的专利。
- 4月27日——塞拉利昂独立。
- 5月14日——美国100名特种作战部队进入南越。
- 5月19日——金星1号飞船飞过金星。这是人类第一个飞过一个行星的飞船。
- 5月25日——约翰·肯尼迪总统宣布要完成阿波罗工程。
- 5月31日——美国批准使用口服避孕药。
- 5月31日——南非退出“英联邦”，成立南非共和国。
- 6月3日——肯尼迪与赫鲁晓夫在维也纳聚会。
- 8月8日——日本“松川事件”的全体被告在重审时被宣告无罪。
- 8月13日——柏林墙开建。
- 9月19日——台灣發生主張台灣獨立的蘇東啟案。
- 10月27日——蒙古人民共和国加入联合国。
- 10月31日——斯大林的尸体被移出列宁墓。
出生
- 3月21日——洛塔尔·马特乌斯（Lothar Matthäus），德国足球运动员
- 4月3日——艾迪·墨菲（Eddie Murphy），美国电影演员
- 5月6日——乔治·克鲁尼（George Clooney），美国电影演员
- 5月17日——恩雅（Enya），爱尔兰歌星
- 6月9日——迈克尔·福克斯（Michael J. Fox），美国电影演员
- 7月1日——戴安娜王妃（1997年逝世）
- 9月4日——黄日华，香港演员。
- 9月27日——刘德华，香港演员
- 11月19日——梅格·瑞安（Meg Ryan），美国电影演员
- 12月3日——李开复（Kai-fu Lee），Microsoft --> Google
逝世
- 逝世公告
- 1月4日——埃尔温·薛定谔（Erwin Schrödinger），奥地利物理学家（出生1887年）
- 7月2日——歐内斯特·海明威（Ernest Hemingway），美国作家（出生1899年）
- 7月17日——泰·柯布（Ty Cobb），美國棒球選手（出生1886年）
- 8月8日——梅兰芳，中国京剧演员（1894年出生）
- 9月18日——达格·哈马舍尔德（Dag Hammarskjöld），联合国第一位总书记（出生1905年）
诺贝尔奖
- 物理：罗伯特·霍夫史达特（Robert Hofstadter）和鲁道尔夫·缪斯保尔（Rudolf Mössbauer）
- 化学：梅尔文·卡尔文（Melvin Calvin）
- 生理和医学：乔治·冯·贝凯希（Georg von Békésy）
- 文学：伊沃·安德里奇（Ivo Andric）
- 和平：达格·哈马舍尔德
（第34届，1962年颁发）
- 奥斯卡最佳影片奖——《西城故事》（West Side Story）
- 奥斯卡最佳导演奖——罗伯特·怀斯（Robert Wise）杰洛姆·罗宾斯（Jerome Robbins）《西城故事》
- 奥斯卡最佳男主角奖——麦克西米伦·谢尔（Maximilian Schell） 《纽伦堡审判》
- 奥斯卡最佳女主角奖——索菲娅·罗兰（Sophia Loren） 《两个女人》
- 奥斯卡最佳男配角奖——乔治·蔡克利斯（George Chakiris） 《西城故事》
- 奥斯卡最佳女配角奖——丽塔·莫蕾诺（Rita Moreno） 《西城故事》
（其他奖项参见奥斯卡金像奖获奖名单）
Category:1961年
ja:1961年
ko:1961년
nb:1961
simple:1961
th:พ.ศ. 2504
Category:种族
category:人类学 Karaliacius: For other uses, see Kaliningrad (disambiguation) and Königsberg (disambiguation).
Königsberg (disambiguation)
Kaliningrad (Russian: Калининград,
German: Königsberg,
Polish: Królewiec,
Lithuanian: Karaliaučius, Latin: Regiomontium) is a seaport city, capital and main city of the Kaliningrad Oblast, the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea. As Königsberg it was the capital of the German province of East Prussia, the earlier Polish fief of Ducal Prussia, and before that of the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights.
Kaliningrad stands upon the navigable Pregolya river. At Kaliningrad it empties into the Vistula Lagoon, an inlet of the Baltic Sea. Until circa 1900 ships drawing more than seven feet of water could not pass the bar and come into town, so that larger vessels had to anchor at Baltiysk, for long the port of Kaliningrad, where merchandise was moved onto smaller vessels. In 1901 a ship canal between Kaliningrad and Baltiysk was completed at a cost of 13 million marks, which enables vessels of a 21 foot draught to moor alongside the town.
marks
History
Teutonic Order
marks]
Around 300 BCE an Old Prussian settlement called Pregnore was founded near the site of modern Kaliningrad. This settlement was conquered and destroyed during the conquest of Prussia by the Teutonic Order. In its place Königsberg ("King's Mountain" in German) was founded in 1255 by the Otakar II of Bohemia and named in his honor due to his involvement in the Northern Crusades. Over a long period, the Teutonic Knights, assisted by various knights from Western Europe, conquered the Baltic Old Prussians. This marked the beginning of the extermination of pagan Baltic culture and German colonisation of the area. The small remaining population of Old Prussians eventually became Germanised. However, the Old Prussian language did not become extinct until the 18th century.
Königsberg was originally the capital(s) of Sambia, or Samland, one of the four dioceses into which Prussia had been divided in 1243 by the papal legate William of Modena. Saint Adalbert of Prague became the main patron saint of the Königsberg Cathedral, one of the main landmarks of the city.
Königsberg eventually became a member of the Hanseatic League and an important port for the southeastern Baltic region, trading goods for Prussia, Poland, and Lithuania.
As a result of the Thirteen Years' War between the Teutonic Order and Poland, the Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights was reduced by the Peace of Thorn 1466 to the area of later Ducal Prussia, held by the Teutonic Order under the feudal overlordship of the Polish crown. The Order saw the actions of Poland as a betrayal of their original mission, despite the fact that Konrad I had granted the crusaders only the small Chełmno Land as a fief for the duration of their mission to Christianize the pagan tribes.
Ducal Prussia
Christianize Christianize superimposed on present-day national borders]]
With the secularisation of the Order's territories in 1525, Albert of Prussia of the Hohenzollern dynasty paid his obligatory feudal homage to Sigismund I of Poland and was granted Ducal Prussia as a fief with its capital in Königsberg, Polonised as Królewiec. It became one of the biggest cities and ports of the Province of Prussia, having considerable autonomy, a separate parliament and currency, and with German as its dominant language.
Anna, daughter of Duke Albert Frederick, married Elector John Sigismund of Brandenburg, who was granted the right of succession to Ducal Prussia on Albert Frederick's death in 1618. From this time the Duchy of Prussia and Königsberg were ruled by the Electors of Brandenburg.
Brandenburg-Prussia and German Empire
In 1660 the Hohenzollern dynasty negotiated the release of Prussia from Polish sovereignty for the duration of their line, after the expiration of which the territory would revert back to Poland. By the act of coronation in Königsberg in 1701, Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg became King Frederick I of Prussia, independent in Prussia of both Poland and the Holy Roman Empire. After the Partitions of Poland, Königsberg became the capital of the newly-created province of East Prussia within the Kingdom of Prussia.
Königsberg became a centre of education when the Albertina University was founded by Albert of Prussia in 1544. The university was situated opposite the north and east side of the Königsberg cathedral. In 1900 it contained the Municipal Library. In 1862 a new university in the Renaissance style, was completed. The facade was adorned by an equestrian figure in relief of Albert of Prussia, the founder. Below it were niches containing statues of Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon. Inside was a handsome staircase, borne by marble columns. The Senate Hall contained a portrait of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, and a bust of Immanuel Kant, by Friedrich Hagemann. The adjacent hall ("Aula") was adorned with frescoes painted in 1870. The university library was situated in Dritte Fliess Straße and contained over 230,000 volumes. There were 900 students in 1900.
Koenigsberg as well was the place where the first printed books in Lithuanian language were published and it for long remained the center of the publishing in Lithuanian because here there were educated Lithuanians (from Lithuania Minor, which was as well part of East Prussia; in Lithuania Minor sermons after the protestant reformation were held in Lithuanian, and thus Lithuanian prayer books were needed). Protestantism and policies of Prussia promoted education and this helped as well. First non-religious Lithuanian books were published later as well.
Lithuania Minor
It was the birthplace (1690) of the mathematician Christian Goldbach and the home of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. In 1736, the mathematician Leonhard Euler used the arrangement of bridges and islands at Königsberg as the basis for the Seven Bridges of Königsberg Problem which led to the mathematical branches of topology and graph theory.
Also in the Dritte Fliess Straße was the Palaestra Albertina, established in 1898 for the encouragement of the higher forms of sport among the students and citizens. Nearby were the government offices, adorned with mural paintings by Knorr and Schmidt.
In the König Straße stood the Academy of Art with a good collection of over 400 pictures. About 50 works were by old Italian Masters; and some early Dutch paintings were also to be found there. (A summary list of some of the paintings can be found in Baedeker's Northern Germany, London, 1904.) At the Königs Tor (King's Gate) stood statues of Otakar I of Bohemia, Albert of Prussia and Frederick I of Prussia. Königsberg had a magnificent Exchange (completed in 1875) with fine views of the harbour from the staircase. In Bahnhof Strasse (Railway Street) were the offices of the famous Royal Amber Works – this district was celebrated as the "Amber Coast". There was also an Observatory fitted up by the astronomer Friedrich Bessel, a Botanical Garden and Zoological Museum. The "Physikalisch", near the Heumarkt, contained botanic and anthropological collections and prehistoric antiquities.
Of Königsberg's notable structures, the 1815 Encylopaedia Britannica refers to "the magnificent palace in which is a hall 274 feet long and 59 broad without pillars to support it, and a handsome library. The gothic tower of the castle is very high (330 feet) and has 284 steps to the top, from where a great distance can be seen". This extensive building, enclosed in a large quadrangle and situated almost in the centre of the city, was formerly a seat of the Teutonic Order. It was altered and enlarged in the 16th - 18th centuries. The west wing contained the Schloss Kirche, where Frederick I of Prussia was crowned in 1701, and Wilhelm I of Germany in 1861. The arms emblazoned upon the walls and columns were those of the Knights of the Order of the Black Eagle. Above the church was the spacious Moscowiter-Saal, one of the largest halls in Germany. Until the latter part of World War II the apartments of the Royal Family and the Prussia Museum (north wing) were open to the public daily. An extensive collection of provincial archives was also housed there.
By 1800 the city was approximately five miles in circumference and had 60,000 inhabitants (including a military garrison of 7,000). After the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Königsberg remained the capital of East Prussia, which was outside the formal borders of the German Confederation of 1815-66. it was incorporated into the German Empire in 1871.
Königsberg flourished as the capital of East Prussia. An extensive local railway network was established linking the city to Breslau, Thorn, Insterburg, Eydtkuhnen, Tilsit, and Pillau. In 1860 the railroad connecting Berlin with St. Petersburg was completed and made Königsberg an even more important commercial centre. Extensive electric tramways were in operation by 1900; and regular steamers plied to Memel, Tapiau and Labiau, Cranz, Tilsit, and Danzig. Two large theatres were built during this time: the Stadt (City) Theatre and the Appollo. By 1900 the city's population had grown to 188,000, with a 9,000-strong military garrison.
Weimar Republic
After World War I, the creation of the Polish Corridor cut off the East Prussian land connection from the rest of Weimar Germany. The Ostmesse (East European Fair) at the Königsberg Tiergarten was organized every year since 1920, it was intended as a compensation for the geographical distance that handicapped the economic development of East Prussia and its capital Königsberg. In 1922 the first permanent airport and commercial terminal solely for commercial aviation was built at Königsberg-Devau. In 1929, Königsberg amalgamated with some surrounding suburbs.
Third Reich
In 1932, Prussia's legal (Social Democratic) government under Otto Braun was ousted by the Reich Government, and Gauleiter Erich Koch replaced the elected local government during Nazi rule from 1933 to 1945.
In 1935, the Wehrmacht designated Königsberg as the Headquarters for Wehrkreis I, which originally took in all of East Prussia. Wehrkreis I was extended in March of 1939 to include the Memel area. In October of 1939, it was extended again to include the Zichenau/Ciechanòw and Sudauen/Suwalki areas. In 1942, the Wehrkreis was again expanded to include the Białystok district. Army units that called Königsberg home inculded the I Infantry Corps, which was part of the pre-Nazi era Standing Army; the 61st Infanterie Division, which was formed upon mobilization from Reservists from East Prussia. It took part in the invasion of Belgium, and Russia.
Winston Churchill [WWII, Book XII] referred to Königsberg as "a modernised heavily defended fortress". The entire centre of Königsberg was subsequently destroyed by the British Royal Air Force in August 1944 during World War II [refer: "Prussia" by Giles MacDonogh, London, 1994, p.380], during the RAF's controversial 'terror raids' on German cities.
Many people fled Königsberg in the wake of the Red Army's advance after October < | | |
