I: 1889

Races . . . Types

1. Boschimane (Koi-Koin partim)
Boschiman 1

2. Nigritique
Nègre (du Soudan) 2
Bantou (Zoulou) 3
Akka 4

3. Mélanésienne
Mélanésien (Papou) 5

4. Négrito
Négrito 6

5. Australienne
Australien 7

6. Ethiopienne (Kouchite, Chamitique part.)
Bédja (Galla, Foulbe ou Peul, Nubien) 8
Dravida 9

7. Mélanochroïde
Indo-Atlantique ou Aryen (Indo-Européen, Médit. part.) 10
Arabe (Araméen) 11
Berber (Kabyle, Fellah, d'Egypte part.) 12
Assyroïde (Sémito-Iranien) 13
Rhétien ou Celto-Ligure (Méditerr., partim) 14

8. Xanthochroïde
Nordique ou Kymri (Scandinave) 15
Karélien 16

9. Ouralo-Altaique (Turco-Finnoise)
Lapon 18
Ougrien (Ostiak-Samoyède, Finnois orient., Touba) 19
Turc (Turco-Tatar, Touranien) 20

10. Aïno
Aïno 21

11. Indonésienne (Maléo-Polynésienne)
Polynésien 22
Maléo-Indonésien (Moi, Thai, Naga, Dayak, Miao-tsé) 23

12. Mongoloïde
Mongol 24
Toungouz 25
Esquimau 26
Peau-Rouge 27

13. Américaine
Indiens du Sud 28
Patagon 29
Paléo-Américain (Fuégien-Botocudo) 30

II: 1897 (1900, 1926)

Races et Sous-Races

1. Bochimane (s.-r. Hottent. et Bochim.)

2. Négrito (sous-races Négrille et Négrito)

3. Nègre (s.-r. Nigritienne et Bantou)

4. Mélanésienne (s.-r. Papou et Mélanés.)

5. Ethiopienne

6. Australienne

7. Dravidienne (s.-r. Platyrh. et Leptorhin)

8. Assyroïde

9. Indo-Afghane

10. Arabe ou Sémite

11. Berbère (4 s.-r.)

12. Européenne Littorale

13. Ibéro-insulaire

14. Européenne Occid.

15. Adriatique ou Dinarique

16. Européenne Nord.

17. Européenne Orient.

18. Aïno

19. Polynésienne

20. Indonésienne

21. Sud-américaine (s.-r. Paléam. et Sudam.)

22. Nord-américaine (s.-r. Atlant. et Pacif.)

23. Centraméricaine

24. Patagonne

25. Esquimau

26. Lapone

27. Ougrienne (s.-r. Ougr. et Iénisséenne ou paléasiatique)

28. Turque ou Turcotatar

29. Mongole (s.-r. Septentr. et Mérid.)

Deniker, J.: Essai d'une classification des races humaines, basée uniquement sur les caractères physiques. Bull. Soc. d'A., III. Serie, XII, 320-336, 1889.
--: Les races européennes. Bull. Soc. d'A., Ser. IV, VIII, 189-208, 1897.
--: Les races de l'Europe. Note préliminaire. L'A. IX, 113-133, 1889.
--: Les races et les peuples de la terre, 692 pp., Paris 1900. - II. ed., 750 pp., Paris 1926.

A comment of v. Eickstedt on that:

In 1889, Joseph Deniker steps forth for the first time with his effort to get on the basis of a great number of characteristics nearer to the natural whole of race. This system is improved in 1899 and repeated in 1900 and 1926. With this he connects - of course unconsciously - to the tradition of classical anthropology of the turn of the century. The applause is almost general, since the anthropologists of this period of decline feel that the right thing happens here to let anthropology rise again. But they also all believe that something new happened. Furthermore, Deniker emphasizes with all desirable clarity, what already Steffens, Ritter and others emphasized once, that is that somatic characteristics and also, if tangible, physiological and psychological traits, but never languages characterize races, and that races (zoological-systematic form-races) must not be equalized with peoples (genealogical-cultural "nation-races"). And according to this, he acts: combining hair, skin, height and form of head and nose (a concession to the statistical atomicism of this old period), however considering morphological details like details of the nose, facial relief, steatopygy, Mongolian fold and others (and showing with this the striving for the natural whole). This way Deniker becomes in method and aim characteristical of the turn of time and beginning of a new recovery.

But unfortunately, in spite of all severity with which race as zoological accumulation of characteristics is seperated from people as cultural descent group, the chosen racial names are largely of ethnological content. The two opposite tables show that. To compare them is not without scientific interest. One can recognize that the changes in the intervene period and thus also the increase of knowledge concern above all the Europids. For example, the place of the rather unclear forms I 10 and 14 is taken by the clearer II 9, 12, 13 and the totally new 15. Though, the later use in anthropology contracted again II 12 and 13 (as Mediterranean race), what was settled relating to I 16 and 17 already by Deniker himself correctly with II 17. The Indo-Afghans are split off not before with II 9 from I 10 and go over immediately to the subdivision of India by Risley, appearing soon afterwards. Conversely, Deniker self adopts the Indian researches of Schmidt, but unfortunately only partly, so that some of the old confusion on a Dravidian race is kept. But it is nomenclatorically important that Schmidt's narrow-nasal Black Indians, the Melanids, appear for the first time as "race Dravidienne ou Mélano-Indienne sous-race leptorhinienne". Unfortunately, Deniker believes despite of Schmidt still half in the Dravidian "race" and, as he says expressly, here also - especially here - in a coincidence of language with race, what seduces him to including the light Indid Naïr to the narrow-nasal Black Indians.

The Akka I 4 and Negrito I 6 are later contracted in II 2 as Negrito with the subraces of the Negrilles and Negrito, what thus means a shortening only apparently. So in reality the second system is considerably more extensive than the first. A not much favorable effect do the fusions have for the Mongolids. Did the Sinids, this fifth part of mankind, miss already as an independent group the first time, is then in II even a part of the Palämongolids taken into the complex group 29 and the summarizing of the continental and insular Palämongolids not dared. The strange phenomenon that there appear at both systems no names for the main groups is explained with the atomistic subdivision of characteristics and the overrating of one single characteristic of the hair form. Since there are overlappings between the natural greater race circles in view of the natural and to a certain degree from the accumulation as such, thus the race, independent variability, while on the other side single similarities in characteristics lead to mergers where the living wholes are far seperated. Purely statistic systems show this even clearer (...)

In spite of these and more possible objections, Deniker stood for a progress which cannot be valuated high enough. And his European system soon became basis of almost all later European subdivisions. Alone because of this it is justified to count Deniker to the newer classic authors of anthropology.