Chapter I: The Aryan Races

It is proved by similarities in the languages of the European peoples and the Hindus and the Persians that they had in some sense a common origin. It is not indeed probable that they are sprung from the same parents: but their ancestors once formed a group of closely associated peoples who lived beside one another as neighbours and used either the same language or dialects of the same language. The peoples which had in this sense a common origin comprise all those that belong to the stocks of the Hindus, the Persians, the Celts, the Greeks, the Italians, the Teutons and the Slavs, and are known collectively as the Aryans or as the Indo-European peoples.

The evidence of language not only proves that the Aryans lived together as neighbours, but also tells us something about their pursuits and habits. From the languages of the Greeks, the Romans, the Germans and the ancient Hindus we learn that the forefathers of these peoples before they left their common dwelling-place were acquainted with the most important domestic animals and had a name for each of them: for the words _cow_, German _Kuh_, Sanskrit _gâus_, Greek βοῦς, Latin _bos_, are mere variations from an Aryan word whose meaning they retain unaltered: the same is true of the word _ewe_, Sanskrit _avis_, Greek ὄϊς, Latin _ovis_; of _goose_, German _Gans_, Sanskrit _hansas_, Greek χήν, Latin _anser_; of _sow_, German _Sau_, Sanskrit _sû_, Greek σύς or ὕς, Latin _sus_; of _hound_, German _Hund_, Sanskrit _çvan_, Greek κύων, Latin _canis_; and of Sanskrit _açvas_, Greek ἵππος, Latin _equus_, Saxon _eoh_ or _ehu_.

In like manner the words _door_, German _Thüre_, Sanskrit _dvaras_, Greek θύρα, Latin _fores_, prove that the Aryans used a word bearing the same meaning and therefore their dwellings were something more than mere tents or moveable huts. _Yoke_, German _Joch_, Sanskrit _jugam_, Greek ξυγόν, Latin _jugum_, prove that they employed cattle for draught; ἄξων, Latin _axis_, Sanskrit _akshas_ (axle and cart), Old High German _ahsa_ (axle) indicate the use of carts; the Sanskrit _nâus_, Greek ναῦς, Latin _navis_, German _Nachen_, show that they could make boats: the Sanskrit _aritram_ (an oar or paddle[1]), Greek ἐρετμός, Latin _remus_ (_resmus_), prove that they propelled them by rowing or paddling. The absence however of common words for a mast, a sail, the sea, indicate that the waters that they knew were rivers or small lakes and that they did not possess the art of getting propulsion from the wind[2].

[1] See Curtius, _Grundzüge der Griechischen Etymologie_, under the
word ἀρόω.

[2] The evidence derived from comparison of the Greek, Latin
and Sanskrit is taken from Mommsen, _History of Rome_, English
translation, vol. I. p. 15: the additional evidence from German
languages from Max Müller, _Chips from a German Workshop_, vol. II.
pp. 22, 44. Curtius, _Grundzüge der Griechischen Etymologie_, has been
used for verification.

The Aryans were not entirely ignorant of plants that produce corn: for there was an Aryan word from which are descended the Sanskrit _yavas_ (barley), the Greek ζειά (spelt, a kind of grain) and _jáva_ in Zend (or Old Persian), Slavic and Lithuanian. Mommsen, noticing only the Sanskrit and the Greek, and observing the difference of meaning, thinks that the Aryans while they were all together merely gathered and ate the grains of barley and spelt that grew wild. A recent English writer points out the wide diffusion of the words descended from the Aryan word, and thinks it could not have left traces of its existence in so many languages unless corn had been cultivated by the Aryans and had thus become well known to them[3]. This inference seems to be fair: but the absence of traces of other original Aryan words for agricultural products or instruments shows clearly that agriculture played only a subordinate part in their economy. It is probable that they sowed some kind of grain in little plots of ground that scarcely needed tillage.

[3] Mommsen, _Hist. Rome_, vol. I. p. 16. Rendall, _The Cradle of the
Aryans_, p. 11.

The results of the evidence which has been adduced may be summed up by saying that the forefathers of the Greeks, Romans, Germans and Hindus, while they still occupied their common Aryan home, lived not in tents but in houses with doors, and were therefore not mere wanderers but had more or less permanent abodes: they were not savages dependent on wild animals and wild fruits for subsistence, but had sheep and cattle to supply them with flesh and milk: they had carts on wheels and knew how to yoke their oxen and horses: they made boats and propelled them on their rivers or lakes with oars or paddles: and they were acquainted with some kinds of grain, but were either ignorant of agriculture or cared little for it.

From the condition in which the Aryans lived we may safely infer that they were not totally devoid of political institutions. All men live under government except a few to whom government is either impossible or useless. The multitude of uncivilised races who inhabit or have inhabited the earth may be divided into two great classes; the first and lower class consisting of those who depend for subsistence solely on wild plants and wild animals, the second and upper class comprising all those who, in addition to the wild fruits that they may gather and the wild animals that they may kill, also have tame cattle to supply them with flesh and milk or cultivated plants that produce grain. The lower class are known either as savages or as hunting peoples: the upper, for want of a better name, may be designated as barbarians. In the lower class, the savages and hunting peoples, a very small number of peoples are found who have been prevented by specially adverse circumstances from having any governments: but in the rest of the lower class and in all the upper class of uncivilised peoples the existence of some kind of government is universal.

In illustration and proof of these statements some facts may be cited. The Bushmen of South Africa were at the beginning of the present century a race of savages who wandered over an arid sloping plain that lies to the South of the Orange River. They just contrived to maintain a miserable existence on the roots that they could grub up and on the flesh of animals that they shot with poisoned arrows or entrapped in pitfalls: but, as every family was compelled to keep itself isolated from all neighbours in order to have enough to eat, government was impossible. Other races resembling the Bushmen in the isolation of their families and in having no government are the Rock Veddahs in Ceylon and the Digger Indians in California. A slightly different case occurs in the regions near the North Pole. The Esquimaux, who live by catching seals and other marine animals, are not precluded from grouping their huts in small clusters: but nature offers so little reward to any combined effort of a large number of men that they have never cared to form political communities: and they afford perhaps the only example of human beings living as neighbours but without government. Leaving these very exceptional cases, we next observe a group of hunting peoples with whom nature dealt less unkindly. Some forty years ago, almost the only inhabitants of the western part of British North America, now known as Manitoba, were a number of Red Indian tribes who supported themselves entirely by the chase, killing buffalo for food and other animals for their furs, which they passed on to traders in return for such commodities as the traders brought them. During the greater part of the year each Red Indian family wandered almost as much apart from communication with mankind as did the Bushmen, for so the wild animals could most advantageously be pursued: and of course while they remained in dispersion had no government. But at certain seasons in every year a whole tribe came together for a great buffalo hunt: at other times they assembled to organize a war against some neighbouring tribe: and whenever they met for either purpose they subjected themselves to an efficient government, which included even a system of police. Apart from the groups of peoples whom I have mentioned, no great number of savage peoples seems to have been observed in recent times: the New Zealanders when first the Europeans went among them were savages and cannibals, and yet they lived under well established kingly governments.

With regard to the upper class of uncivilised peoples, the barbarians, who either keep cattle or grow corn or do both, it will suffice to say that observation of all of them (and they are extremely numerous) proves that all of them have governments. Nor is the fact hard to understand: for in their case it is never necessary for single families to live in isolation: they do as a matter of fact live collected together in groups of families, and each group gains numberless advantages by living together and acting together: and, where men live together and act together, government naturally comes into existence. Those of the barbarian peoples who, like the Aryans, have more or less fixed abodes, always group themselves in small independent tribes and adopt such simple forms of government as are suited to their circumstances. There are many different kinds of tribal governments. In nearly all of them a small number of men distinguished for prowess daring or intelligence have some authority over the rest: sometimes above these chiefs there is a higher chief or king: and sometimes the whole body of warriors may be called together to hear what the chiefs have to say to them. Among the ancient Aryans all the governments were no doubt tribal governments: but it is impossible to say that any one of the various kinds of tribal governments prevailed to the exclusion of the rest[4].

[4] The classification of uncivilised peoples as hunting peoples
and peoples with cattle forms part of the classification used by
John Stuart Mill at the beginning of his _Political Economy_: and it
is adopted and fully worked out by Mr Lewis Morgan in his _Ancient
Society_.

All the statements of a general kind which I have made about
uncivilised peoples have been verified by reference to _Descriptive
Sociology, Division I._, an encyclopædia of facts relating to such
peoples, which was designed by Mr Herbert Spencer and compiled by
Professor Duncan. The advantages which uncivilised men gain from
living and acting together and from having a government are explained
by Mr Herbert Spencer in his _Political Institutions_, §§ 440-442.

My authorities for the individual peoples which have been noticed are
these: for the Bushmen, Burchell, _Travels_ (1822), and Thompson,
_Travels_ (1827): for the Esquimaux, C. F. Hall, _Life with the
Esquimaux_ (1864): for the Red Indians, H. Y. Hind, _The Canadian
Red River Exploring Expedition_ (1860). All these books are cited in
_Descriptive Sociology_.

When the Aryans had made such progress as I have described they divided into two groups: one group contained the forefathers of the Europeans, the other the forefathers of the Hindus and Persians. Whether the separation arose through a migration of only the Europeans or of only the Asiatics or from migrations of both Europeans and Asiatics cannot be determined. It is certain however that after the division of the stocks took place the Europeans still remained together long enough to acquire in common the art of ploughing. The English word to _ear_, Anglo-Saxon _erian_, Gothic _erjan_, Old High German _eren_, Latin _arare_, Greek ἀρόειν, Irish _araim_ (I plough) are mere variations of a single word and show that when ploughing was introduced the European stocks were still in close neighbourhood with one another and all adopted dialectic varieties of the same sound to indicate the new method of breaking up the soil[5].

[5] It may be objected that the Goths from about 250 A.D. were living
close to the Greeks, and the Old Germans from about 50 B.C. had the
Romans as their neighbours, and possibly learned the art of ploughing
from these neighbours and borrowed a name for it. It seems enough,
however, to answer that if the Goths had taken a word from ἀρόειν they
would have chosen something more like the pattern word than _erjan_:
in like manner if the Germans had borrowed from _arare_ they would
hardly have formed _eren_.

The region in which the forefathers of the Europeans lived together cannot be precisely ascertained: the hypothesis that it was in central Europe seems to fit in best with the geographical distribution of their descendants and the relationships between their languages.

The invention of the art of ploughing opened new possibilities for the European peoples: for an agricultural people has far better chances than a people of herdsmen of accumulating wealth and making progress in the useful arts. But not all of them cared to make use of the new art and to become tillers of the soil. Those who took their homes amid the forests of central Europe still continued the life of hunters and herdsmen which had once been common to all the Aryans. Others devoted themselves to agricultural pursuits with delight and success: and among them were those who settled in the peninsulas of Greece and Italy, where, favoured by many circumstances, they made comparatively rapid progress in arts, knowledge and political development.