Chapter II: , it follows that it is the female rather than the male that (2)

It is further probable that Pithecanthropus had free use of the arms, the legs having become specialized for progression. It is quite possible that he may have employed tools of wood or of stone, though there is no evidence to this effect. It is further possible that some rudimentary form of speech may have been employed. The motor centre for speech is found in a particular area of the brain known as Broca’s area. This area can be identified in the brain cast of Pithecanthropus, and it is stated to be twice as great as in the apes, but only half as large as in man. ‘The undeveloped forehead of Pithecanthropus and the diminutive frontal area of the brain indicate that the Trinil race had a limited faculty of profiting by experience and accumulated tradition, for in this prefrontal area of the brain are located the powers of attention and of control of the activities of all other parts of the brain. In the brain of the ape the sensory areas of touch, taste, and vision predominate, and these are well developed in Pithecanthropus. The central area of the brain, which is the storehouse of the memory of action and the feelings associated with them, is also well developed, but the prefrontal area, which is the seat of the faculty of profiting by experience or of recalling the consequences of previous responses to experience, is developed to a very limited degree.’[172]

Pithecanthropus is thus a form of the highest interest in the history of man. Provisionally, it may be put at the dawn of the Pleistocene. Uncertainty also surrounds the position of the next human remains to be mentioned, which consist of a lower jaw from the Mauer Sands near Heidelberg.[173] It is generally agreed that these sands were deposited in a genial epoch, and opinion now inclines to associate them with the second genial epoch. The jaw itself is very simian, scarcely showing any approach to human characters. The teeth, however, are remarkably human, and it is said that in some respects the teeth of existing primitive races approach the simian condition more nearly than do the teeth of the Heidelberg race. The relation of this form to Pithecanthropus and to those which follow may be left for consideration until we have completed our sketch of human fossil types.

There remains a third early form to be mentioned—Eoanthropus dawsoni from Piltdown near Lewis.[174] The gravel in which Eoanthropus was found was certainly deposited in a warm period. It probably dates from either the second or the third genial epoch, but great uncertainty attaches to the correlation of these gravels with the phases of the glacial period. Some implements found near the bones have been referred to the pre-Chellean culture period, which would indicate the third genial epoch. The mammalian fauna seems also to favour the reference of these strata to the same period.

The remains of Eoanthropus consist of the greater part of the brain case and part of the right mandible with the first and second molars _in situ_. The canine tooth was found later. The skull has been reconstructed from several fragments. There has been much controversy as to the correct method of performing this reconstruction. The first estimate of the cranial capacity put it at about 1,100 c.c. Woodward has later revised his estimate, and arrived at a figure approaching 1,300 c.c. Keith has suggested a higher figure. The bones of the skull are very thick, brow ridges are almost absent, and the forehead is very steep. The jaw, on the other hand, is even more ape-like than the jaw of Heidelberg man; it slopes away with scarcely any vestige of a chin, the pre-molar series of teeth is parallel, and the molars do not decrease in size backwards. It is owing to the simian features of the jaw that the authors felt justified in creating a new species for these remains. Although the absence of brow ridges and the presence of a steep forehead are characters which mark the higher human types, they are also found among all young apes. It is thus possible that Eoanthropus may represent in the general form of the skull the missing Miocene and Pliocene ancestor more nearly than Pithecanthropus. The brain, though very primitive, was decidedly human; there was a moderate development of those areas connected with speech.

6. It is a matter of doubt to what subdivisions of the Pleistocene the types hitherto mentioned should be assigned and with what cultures, if any, they should be connected. At this point we come to a region of less uncertainty. Associated with Mousterian implements and with the deposits of the fourth glacial period we find a distinct type of man whom we may call Mousterian or Neanderthal; for it was in the Neanderthal near Düsseldorf that the first specimen of this race was discovered in 1856.[175] Since that date several other examples of this type have been found. Some of the specimens have been preserved almost complete, and Professor Boule has been able to make a detailed study of the skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints.[176] In the course of his memoir he institutes a comparison between this and other examples of Neanderthal man, and shows that they all agree in the possession of certain features of importance. Neanderthal man was small but massive; the facial portion of the head was much developed in comparison with the cranial; the head was low and narrow, the forehead receding, the occiput protruding, the orbits large, and the brow ridges heavy. The lower jaw was strong, the chin rudimentary, and the hinder molar teeth primitive. The vertebral column indicates a less upright posture than that of modern man. With regard to one feature—the cranial capacity—there is great variability. The cranial capacity of the Gibraltar skull is only 1,296 c.c., whilst that of the Chapelle-aux-Saints specimen is 1,620 c.c. According to Boule, however, this variation is no greater than that found among modern European skulls. He makes out the average capacity of Neanderthal man as 1,400 c.c.; this estimate is far lower than that usually given; it is often said that the average capacity approaches 1,600 c.c.

The Neanderthal race forms a very distinct type. It is found only in the Middle Palaeolithic period.[177] Of its origin there will be something to be said later; it appears that it died out before the Upper Palaeolithic age began, for, as we shall see, apparently none of the types which occurs later descended from this race.

7. The Upper Palaeolithic culture is associated with the end of the fourth glacial epoch. In place of the remains of Neanderthal man we find the remains of several types, none of which shows any affinity to Neanderthal man. On the contrary they all approximate more or less closely to modern man. At one bound we seem, when looking at the fossil remains from this epoch in Europe, to have passed into the modern period so far as human bodily form is concerned. As we shall see later, it is probable that the various types entered Europe from the East, and probably originated somewhere in Western Asia. The most important of these types is known as Cro-Magnon man. It is found throughout the Late Palaeolithic period. The first specimen was found at Cro-Magnon in the valley of the Vézère. Other specimens have been found in the Grotte de Grimaldi and assigned to the beginning of the Aurignacian, the first subdivision of the Upper Palaeolithic, and others again at Obercassel, and assigned to the Magdalenian, or last subdivision of the Upper Palaeolithic. In modern France in the region of Périgueux there is existing at the present day a type which in so many features resembles Cro-Magnon man that it may be a survival from Upper Palaeolithic times.

The general features of the chief types of the Upper Palaeolithic may be very briefly indicated. The skull of Cro-Magnon man was narrow, the face low and broad; the brow ridges project slightly; the orbits are low and rectangular; the nose is long and narrow and the root broad. Cro-Magnon man was tall, approaching an average of 6 ft. in height; the cranial capacity was large, being somewhere about 1,600 c.c.[178]

In the Grotte de Grimaldi were also found two skeletons of what has been called the Grimaldi race. No other skeletons of this type have been found in Europe. There are two points to notice about this type; first it is not relatively speaking a low type; the cranial capacity was, for instance, 1,580 c.c.; secondly, it shows undoubted resemblance to the Negroid type. The skull is narrow, the face large and low, and prognathism is marked. The orbits are large and of low vertical height, the nose broad and flat.

The third type is that found at Brünn and again at Brux in connexion with Solutrian culture (middle of Upper Palaeolithic). The skull is very long and generally of a lower type than the Cro-Magnon skull. In certain respects there is a slight resemblance to the Neanderthal type. Finally from deposits at the close of the late Palaeolithic period at Offnet two further types are known. One of them is a long-headed race not unlike the Mediterranean type of European at the present day. The other is a broad-headed race, which is not unlike the Alpine type of modern European.

In a general sketch further details need not be added. There is no essential difference between the physical type existing in Neolithic times and that of modern man. Leaving the discussion of the interrelationship and origin of these types until after we have spoken of the evolution of culture, what we have found so far is that in the beginning of the Pleistocene and in the early Palaeolithic there are three primitive types of man known, and that in the Middle Palaeolithic there is a peculiar type with many primitive features, whereas in the Upper Palaeolithic we are in the presence of types which for the most part differ but little from modern races, and even show affinity to certain modern races in particular cases.[179]

8. We have now to give some account of the evolution of culture as shown by the implements and other remains left by primitive man. The story of the first identification of stone implements by Boucher de Perthes is well known. Gradually a succession of periods has been recognized, and the names given to them have already been introduced in the preceding pages. Of the two main periods—Palaeolithic and Neolithic—the first is distinguished by the facts that stone implements were not polished, agriculture was not practised, pottery was not made,[180] and animals were not domesticated. Within the Palaeolithic period several successive types of culture can be distinguished, but before we deal with them something must be said regarding the so-called Eolithic period.

There are found in many places stones supposed to exhibit a very primitive form of human workmanship. To them the name of eoliths has been given. They have been described from the

Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. Many archaeologists believe that they are the remains of a primitive form of culture which preceded the Palaeolithic form of culture. The matter is still under debate.

We may note that eoliths exhibit very little variation. The same types appear from the Oligocene onwards, and if there was an eolithic culture it must have lasted some millions of years and been accompanied by little or no progress in the fashioning of implements. An exception must be made in the case of the so-called ‘rostro-carinate’ implements described by Mr. Reid Moir, and attributed to the late Pliocene.[181] These stones are of a distinctive type, and apparently do not occur in the Oligocene and the Miocene.[182] There are several considerations which make it difficult to accept eoliths as genuine remains of an early culture; some of these considerations do not apply to the rostro-carinate type, and some apply with less force, (_a_) Breuil has pointed out that as good eoliths occur in the Eocene as in the later strata.[183] Apart from this, the occurrence of eoliths in the Oligocene, taken together with the immense length of the period during which no progress in skill was made, is almost incompatible with what we must suppose to have been the course of human evolution. The various classes of mammals were in rapid evolution at this time, and it is difficult to understand how, before this period of mammalian expansion, man alone could have evolved to something akin to the type of the early Pleistocene, and then for so long a period have failed to progress.[184] If indeed Propliopithecus, or any similar form in the Oligocene, is a type from or near the line of human ascent, then we cannot allow Oligocene eoliths to be genuine artefacts, and there is no reason why, if we reject Oligocene eoliths, we should consider Miocene or Pliocene eoliths to be genuine. (_b_) Numerous observations have been made showing that stones similar to eoliths are formed under natural conditions of pressure, wave action, and so on. It is of particular interest to note that even the rostro-carinate type can be thus formed.[185] (_c_) Upon the whole eoliths are only found where other stones of the same composition are found, whereas palaeoliths may be found anywhere—the deduction, of course, being that eoliths, inasmuch as they are formed under natural agencies, remain associated with other stones of the same composition whereas palaeoliths were widely distributed by those who used them. The question of eoliths is very far from being settled. Lest it be thought that the difficulties in the way of accepting eoliths as genuine have been exaggerated owing to some bias, it may be mentioned that the chief deduction we shall draw from human history as a whole would be considerably strengthened if eoliths could be regarded as genuine artefacts. If we cannot accept eoliths as without question genuine, it does not mean that before the Palaeolithic period man did not make and use stone implements. Undoubtedly he did so. But it may be from the nature of the case that it is impossible to recognize these instruments.[186]

9. In a warm period of the Pleistocene, now almost universally identified with the third genial epoch, occur the first implements of undoubted human workmanship. Within this early Palaeolithic epoch three phases of culture are distinguished, the pre-Chellean, Chellean, and Acheulean. It is worth while observing that M. Rutot, who is a foremost supporter of the eolithic theory, remarks, on arriving in a general review of the evidence at this pre-Chellean period, that there can be observed the ‘apparition subite d’objets nouveaux’.[187] It is precisely these ‘objets nouveaux’ which many authorities consider as the first genuine artefacts, and not as mere improvements of a more primitive type of implement.

The typical instrument of the Chellean period was the hand axe—a stone shaped to fit the hand, and used for striking blows.[188] Knives and scrapers were also common. In the Acheulean or latest period of the Palaeolithic there is seen a general improvement in workmanship. The hand axe is lighter and more carefully worked. There is a great variety of small implements, often showing a considerable degree of care and skill. For the first time there is in the Acheulean era evidence that man employed fire. It does not appear that bone was yet used for making implements. It can be shown that early Palaeolithic implements represent a steady and continual advance in skill with the improvement of old types and the development of new types.

During the late Acheulean period it was becoming colder, and the succeeding stage, or Middle Palaeolithic era, falls almost wholly within the fourth glacial period. Man began to make his home in caves, and we are well acquainted with the physical type under the name of Neanderthal man, described above. There are again traces of fire. Some kind of ceremonial burial was employed. A skeleton found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints showed that the body had been carefully disposed for burial; implements had been placed close to the body, one fine implement lying within reach of the left hand. There is a marked difference as regards the stone implements between this and the preceding period. A different method of shaping implements was employed. There is some inclination to regard the Mousterian stone industry as of a lower grade than the stage previously attained. With regard to this stage in general we may note that it is the first in which we have a detailed knowledge of the physical type and in which we have some indication of the stage of psychical development as shown by the employment of ceremonial burial.

This stage is sharply divided from that which follows it. So far as is known, Neanderthal man disappears at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, and Mousterian industry is replaced by the Aurignacian, a wholly new type of culture, presumably introduced by some new racial element. As we have seen, there are several racial types in the Upper Palaeolithic, and the Cro-Magnon type, which occurs from the beginning of this period, may have brought the new culture into Europe. The art of stone implement making reached a height during the Aurignacian never previously approached; knives and scrapers were especially finely shaped. In the Solutrian, or middle period of the Upper Palaeolithic, stone implement making reached the highest point to which it attained in the Palaeolithic period. The workmanship exhibited in the well-known willow and laurel leaf lance-heads is very fine. Bone tools are first found in the Upper Palaeolithic. It is clear from the disposition of the skeletons that burials were again employed, and indicate, if not a belief in a future life in our meaning of the phrase, at least the presence of a body of tradition regarding the state of the deceased. It is not certain whether man at this stage possessed the bow and arrow. Nothing can, of course, be known with certainty regarding the degree to which perishable substances were manufactured; it can only be said that in all probability skins and furs were used as clothing, that basketwork was understood, and nets constructed. The most remarkable remains which have been preserved from this period are the drawings and paintings on the walls of caverns. They are found throughout the Upper Palaeolithic period, and indicate a high degree of skill and taste.[189]

That the Solutrian Age shows an improvement upon the Aurignacian from the point of view of stone implement making has been indicated. It also shows a similar improvement as regards bone implements; bone needles with perforated eyes, for instance, occur for the first time. There is a distinct improvement in the drawings and paintings. In the next or Magdalenian period of the Upper Palaeolithic there is a loss of skill so far as stone implements are concerned; there is no general decadence, however, as the making of implements from bone, horn, and ivory shows a considerable advance. Further, drawing and painting reached their highest development. The remains from this era are very abundant and well known, and exhibit a vast number of types of implements giving a general impression of a considerable degree of material wealth relatively to the fact that agriculture was not practised.

At the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic the Magdalenian culture is succeeded by a rather obscure stage known as the Azilian-Tardenoisian. There is again a sudden and very distinct break in the evolution of culture. In nearly all respects there is a failure to reach the previous level of skill. Both flint and bone implements are of inferior workmanship. The artistic spirit vanishes. Little is known about this culture; possibly man at this period was not so unskilled, as at first sight seems to have been the case, for he had apparently domesticated the dog.[190]

10. Neolithic culture is marked by the practice of agriculture, the domestication of animals,[191] the polishing of stone implements, and the making of pottery.[192] Though it is strongly contrasted with the preceding culture, there is considerable evidence of a transition period. This evidence, however, is generally interpreted as indicating the infiltration of the new culture from the East, and not the evolution of the new culture in Europe. Even at this relatively recent period in history the chronology is vague. The Swiss Lake Dwellings (Robehausian period) represent the typical fully developed European Neolithic culture, and are dated about 8000 to 7000 B.C. Farther East there is evidence of a far greater antiquity. Montelius on the basis of De Morgan’s observations at Susa calculated that the Neolithic Age began there about 20,000 years ago.[193] Sir Arthur Evans estimates that at least 14,000 years have elapsed since the beginning of the Neolithic period at Cnossus.[194] All that can be said is that the Neolithic culture was flourishing in the eighth millennium B. C. in many parts of Europe, having been brought from farther East, where it had originated at a considerably earlier date. It has proved very difficult to subdivide the Neolithic epoch into successive periods. In the Palaeolithic period superimposed deposits containing relics of various cultures are not infrequently found, thus enabling the succession of culture periods to be made out. In the Neolithic period evidence of this kind is for the most part lacking. It is not proposed to enter upon the subject here beyond saying that three stages are recognized by French archaeologists, the Campignienne, the Chasséo-Robenhaussienne, and the Carnacéenne. The first of these stages is markedly more primitive than the succeeding stages. The second is that of the Swiss Lake Dwellings, and the third that of Megalithic monuments—Dolmens, Menhirs, Cromlechs, Allées Couvertes, stone circles, and so on.[195]

What has been said regarding culture periods in general—namely, that they are not definite periods in time in the history of mankind as a whole, but epochs through which different races have passed at different times—is well illustrated in the case of the Neolithic. The Neolithic culture had existed some thousands of years in Western Asia before it penetrated into Europe, and was practised in some parts of Europe, in Britain, for instance, up to about 2000 B. C. or later, for thousands of years after metals had been taken into use elsewhere. In general the Neolithic period has to be regarded as a period of great advance in material wealth. Relatively to Palaeolithic men, Neolithic men were rich, and often lived in villages of some size. Several animals were domesticated, several varieties of cereals cultivated, linen was manufactured, and the vine as well as a large number of fruit-trees known. It appears that many at least of the well-known trading routes used in the Bronze Age were open in the Neolithic Age. Some of these routes brought the Baltic into communication with the Mediterranean, one began at Venice, passed over the Brenner, and reached the Danube by means of the Inn; thence it traversed the Bohemian forest to the Moldau, and thus reached the Elbe, which was followed to its mouth. Another began at Trieste, and passing through Laibach and Grätz reached the Danube by means of the Leitha; thence it followed the March, traversed Moravia, passed through Silesia along the Oder, while the Vistula was reached by striking across Posen, the principal terminus being Danzig.[196]

11. Obscurity surrounds the location and date of the first use of metal.[197] Gold was probably the first metal known to man; it is found in the pure state in many countries, and would attract attention owing to its lustre. It was not, however, of economic importance until much later. In all probability man learnt the art of metal working from the accidental reduction of ore that formed one of the ring of stones round the camp fire. Copper may have been first used where it appears at the surface in a pure state, having been beaten into implements, as was done by the Indians near Lake Superior; the use of this metal is, however, until heat is employed, to be regarded merely as a variation of the art of stone implement making, and does not form the first step in the art of metal working for which knowledge of reduction by heat is required. It is frequently said that an age of copper preceded the age of bronze, and in many places copper implements were used before bronze implements. Probably the occurrence of a Copper Age in any one place was dependent upon the nature of the ore found there. Copper is frequently associated with tin and other metals in a state of nature. We may suppose that the first metal workers were simply trying to get metal—being aware that metal could be obtained by heating certain kinds of stone—and that in some places they got copper and in other places bronze. Later they learnt to add a definite percentage of tin or some other metal, and thus to produce an alloy of definite composition. Thus a true Bronze Age followed either a Copper Age or an accidental Bronze Age. It is somewhat curious that iron was not taken sooner into use, for less heat is required than in the case of copper for reduction—700° C. to 800° C. as against 1,100° C.

Whether there was more than one place of origin of the use of any metal in the Old World is not known. Copper was independently taken into use in the New World, and the use of copper may have originated independently in North and South America.[198] Bronze was known in Peru. Heat was certainly employed for hammering and annealing copper, and casting may have been employed. Iron was sometimes used in North America to make ornaments. With regard to the Old World a claim is made for many countries as the original home of metal working. Reisner found copper daggers, spear heads, harpoons, pins, needles, and bracelets in the graves of the middle pre-Dynastic period of Egypt; by the time of the first dynasty the Egyptians were ‘in possession of a full equipment of copper weapons’.[199] In the early pre-Dynastic period metallic pigments containing copper were in use, and it is possible that the reduction of copper may have been first suggested by some accidental fusion of these substances. It is further claimed that there is evidence of the local evolution of copper implements since the earliest forms imitate stone implements, and the later forms are merely improvements of pre-existing types.[200] Reisner concludes that there is no reason to assume that the invention came from beyond the frontiers of Egypt.[201] The Sumerians, on the other hand, when we first meet them at a very early date, must have been using copper for some considerable time. All that can be said with certainty is that the use of metals originated in the Orient, probably before 4000 B. C.—possibly some two or three thousand years earlier. Copper, it may be noticed, occurs in Armenia, in the upper basin of the Tigris and in Sinai amongst other places. The use of bronze gradually spread over Europe. It is found in Crete about 3000 B. C., in Southern Thessaly about 2500 B. C., and seems to have reached England about 2000 B. C. or somewhat later. Generally speaking, we can connect the taking into use of metals with the rise of the first civilizations. These civilizations reached their greatest development before the introduction of iron. The whole Minoan civilization, the Mycenean survival of Minoan civilization on the mainland,[202] the most glorious period of Egyptian history up to and including the greater part of the Second Empire, the Sumerian kingdom, the earlier periods of Babylonia and Assyria, all fall within the Bronze Age.

Though it is clear that a great advance took place in the Bronze Age, it is not evident how far this advance is attributable to the taking of metals into use and how far to other discoveries which were made about the same time. The first use of the wheel and of the plough, for instance, dates from this period, and very considerable importance without question is attributable to the plough. Still greater importance is in all probability to be attributed to writing, which again was first used about this time. At a far earlier period various methods of marking sticks had doubtless been employed as aids to memory, as they are still employed by the Australians, and some progress may have been made towards such a system as that of the use of knotted cords in Peru. But the invention of writing properly speaking came much later. By the time of the fourth dynasty Egyptian writing had reached its final form, and the Sumerians, when we first meet them, were using cuneiform writing. This invention of such great import, whether it arose independently or not in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China, was evidently roughly coincident with the first use of metals.

Estimates as to the date of the first use of iron in the Mesopotamian region vary considerably; 1500 B. C. to 1300 B. C. is the date most usually given. In Egypt the earliest known iron weapon dates from 1200 B. C. By 900 B. C. the use of iron had spread over most of Europe. It reached Scandinavia about 500 B. C. It was introduced into Greece by the Thresprotian invasion, which put an end to the Mycenean period, and inaugurated the Homeric Age. It is possible that the Etruscans brought the knowledge of iron to Italy where they arrived during the eleventh century B. C. Upon the whole, opinion inclines to the view that the use of iron originated in Western Asia. Claims have also been made for Europe (neighbourhood of Hallstatt) as the place of origin,[203] for Egypt, and for Africa south of Egypt.[204] With regard to Egyptian claims it may be noticed that iron does not become common until after 1200 B. C. But four examples of iron have been found in Egypt from periods before this date—some of them belonging to very early times. The finding of these pieces of iron presents a rather difficult problem, of which the solution seems to be that iron was very occasionally used, and probably only for ornamental purposes, long before 1200 B. C. in Egypt; it was not, however, brought into general use at this early date.

It is not necessary to carry this sketch of cultural evolution any farther. The Bronze Age marks a turning-point in history. The outline at least of the subsequent course of events is sufficiently familiar. One point may be noticed. We have found reason to place the centre of progress somewhere in the Orient. After metal has been taken into use the centre of progress begins to shift westwards. Once metals had been introduced into Crete, for instance, Minoan civilization was in any case largely an autochthonous growth. Speaking of Crete, Hall says: ‘We have nothing to show any intrusion of any other culture system which in any way suddenly modifies or alters the course of this development, which is that of the civilization of a single people raising itself on its own lines from Neolithic barbarism. Its first development from the static condition in which it had existed for many centuries in the Neolithic stage was sudden, and the dynamic influence which was given by the acquisition of metal speedily carried it to the great height of cultivation which we have seen.’[205] Hitherto—before, that is to say, the taking into use of metal—the centre of progress has been looked for in Central Asia.[206] There had been progress in Europe within the culture periods, but the great steps in progress were made in the East.

12. Let us now review what has so far been said in this chapter. Such indications as the evidence provides point to the origin of man in the eastern portion of the Old World, and probably in a warm climate. The principal facts in favour of this view are the distribution of the anthropoids, the occurrence of Pithecanthropus in Java, and the failure to find any evidence of the antiquity of man in the New World.[207] Unless Pithecanthropus is to be attributed to the Pliocene, we have no knowledge of man before the Pleistocene. It would seem that the pre-human ancestor of the Miocene and Pliocene was probably rather an obscure member of the primate stock retaining generalized features. Somehow without specialization he managed to survive—possibly in some very limited area. When the rapid evolution of bodily form among the mammals had slowed down, the only specialization in which the pre-human ancestor had indulged began to stand him in good stead. That it carried him as far as it did—to the dominion over all living things—was made possible by the fact that his bodily form was not specialized, but was capable of being turned into an instrument of the mind. The evidence seems to indicate the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene as the era when man began to develop along this path.

Just as the East was probably the place of man’s origin, so it remained the seat of both bodily and cultural evolution. There is no sign of the evolution of human physical form in Europe, nor is there any evidence of the evolution of the main stages of culture in Europe until after the taking of metals into use, though there is evidence both of progress and of decay within the culture periods. The evidence points to the conclusion that successive waves of immigrants brought with them new cultures from the East. Some may have entered Europe from Africa, as perhaps did the Cro-Magnons, bringing the Aurignacian culture. These waves of migration are not, however, to be regarded as comparable to migrations within the historical period—the Islamic migrations of the Arabs, for instance. These earlier movements were rather of the nature of slow driftings of peoples. They may have been connected with climatic changes and have occupied long periods of time. Quite possibly when we appear to see the extinction of one culture and the sudden replacement of it by another, what in fact happened was that, owing to climatic changes, those who practised the earlier culture had shifted elsewhere before the newcomers occupied the area in question.

With regard to the bodily evolution of man the first detailed knowledge we have is of the Neanderthal race. We know that Neanderthal man lived in the fourth glacial period. Before this epoch we know nothing of human bodily evolution except from three imperfect specimens which we cannot assign definitely to any period in the Pleistocene beyond placing them before the Middle Palaeolithic. No definite conclusions can be drawn as to the relation of these three forms one to another, or to the forms which follow.

Pithecanthropus may or may not be on the direct line leading to all the higher races. There is some probability that Heidelberg man is a forerunner of Neanderthal man, whereas Eoanthropus would seem to be related on the one hand to the hypothetical Pliocene ancestor, and on the other hand to the Late and not to the Middle Palaeolithic races. It is quite possible that, as Europe was not the scene of human evolution, Piltdown and Heidelberg men represent varieties which have died out, and not stages from the main line of human evolution. This is certainly the case with the Neanderthal race. In the Upper Palaeolithic we find races of as high a physical type as those of the present day, but we have no certain knowledge of their direct ancestors.

By far the most remarkable feature of the whole process has been the speeding up of the rate of progress of the evolution of culture. This speeding up would be very much emphasized if we could accept eoliths as genuine, as indicating, that is to say, the existence of an eolithic culture before the Palaeolithic culture extending over an immense period of time. As it is, the acceleration of the rate of progress is striking enough. The whole Palaeolithic period probably lasted at least 100,000 years. Regarding this period as a whole, we can observe a noteworthy speeding up of progress in the last part of the period. A few thousand years only separate the early from the late divisions of the Upper Palaeolithic and the progress exhibited is very considerable, whereas but relatively little progress is visible during the huge length of time which the Lower Palaeolithic must have occupied. The whole progress made, however, up to the opening of the Bronze Age is insignificant compared with that made since. Nevertheless, progress has not been uniform within the historical era. There have been periods of stagnation and even of decadence. Little progress in command over nature was made between the time of the later Egyptian civilization and the later Middle Ages as compared with the progress made in the last hundred years. Progress in skill gathered speed in the thirteenth century, and the speeding up became very marked in the eighteenth century. There has been a similar lack of uniformity in the evolution of culture where culture is judged by standards other than command over nature.

13. How far can we employ our knowledge of primitive races to fill in this framework? Some reference has been made in the fourth chapter to the position which these races occupy. It was pointed out that they represent ‘relicts’ of stages of culture through which the civilized races have passed, due allowance being made for the fact that they have developed to some degree on specialized lines of their own since their separation from the main stream of progress. In some few cases, as in the example of the Seri Indians, there may have been decadence.

Broadly speaking, these races fall into two groups. There are the hunting and fishing races, and there are those which practise a primitive form of agriculture. The former, it is to be presumed, ceased to be in any important manner influenced by, if they were not wholly cut off from, the main current of cultural evolution before the end of the Palaeolithic Age. The latter may have remained more or less in contact with the main stream of evolution until late Neolithic times, or they may have lost touch earlier and have acquired independently the art of agriculture, as was presumably the case with those American Indians who practise agriculture. The chief hunting and fishing races are the Tasmanians, Australians, Bushmen, Eskimos, and certain of the American Indians. Professor Sollas has drawn up a comparison between the culture of some of these races and that of certain epochs in the Palaeolithic era. He has shown that Tasmanian and Australian culture may be compared with early and late phases respectively of the Middle Palaeolithic. A very striking similarity indeed can be shown between the Aurignacian culture and that of the Bushmen on the one hand and between the Magdalenian culture and that of the Eskimo on the other. When we consider the osteological evidence, however, we do not find any striking similarity between Neanderthal man and Australians and Tasmanians. The existence of the negroid skeleton of Grimaldi is suggestive, but the likeness between it and the Bushmen type is not close. The skull found at Chancelade, however, and generally considered as an aberrant type of Cro-Magnon man does show a very curious resemblance to the Eskimo skull. Thus though we cannot think of the Tasmanians and Australians as actual relicts of the Neanderthal racial type, which we know in Europe, we may think of Australian culture in its broad general features as representative of the Middle Palaeolithic.[208]

As has been already indicated in the fourth chapter, it is not proposed to attempt to carry the method so far as to attribute to peoples of different Palaeolithic cultures peculiarities of certain primitive hunting and fishing races. All that it is proposed to do is to look into the general conditions which obtain among hunting and fishing races with the object of throwing light upon the conditions in the Palaeolithic era as a whole. Similarly it is proposed to throw light upon the Neolithic period by an inquiry into the conditions obtaining among primitive agricultural races. This method is clearly legitimate. It may nevertheless be said at once that as a matter of fact, so far as the most important conclusions are concerned, we shall find no reasons for thinking that hunting and fishing races differ from agricultural races. The legitimacy of the method is therefore not strictly relevant. It follows from this that the splitting up of the data and the consideration separately of hunting and of agricultural races is in reality only a matter of convenience.

14. Before we embark upon this attempt to throw light upon such general characteristics of prehistoric races as are relevant to our particular purpose, there is another point to be considered. One supposition regarding the mode of life of man in early days is that he lived in groups of polygamous families. As monogamy occurs among some of the lowest of existing primitive races, he may have been monogamous. In any case it seems that early man was not promiscuous in his sexual relations. Whatever his primitive mode of life may have been, man gradually rose to the recognition of common bonds and to the observation in common of certain rules and restrictions. Primitive social organization in fact gradually came into being, and this step, slowly and painfully achieved as it no doubt was, represents one of the most important steps ever achieved by man. Then for the first time he began to reap the benefits of co-operation. Clearly we must imagine a primitive form of social organization to have existed in the late Palaeolithic; the attainment to so relatively high a degree of skill and achievement is not otherwise comprehensible. The achievements of late Palaeolithic man indicate the presence of a considerable body of tradition, and the presence of tradition in any considerable amount indicates social organization. It is difficult to come to any conclusion with regard to early and Middle Palaeolithic times. The mode of life of Neanderthal man is perhaps apt to be considered as more primitive than was in fact the case, owing to the somewhat brutal form attributed to his bodily features. It has to be remembered that he practised ceremonial burial, and was acquainted with the use of fire—very significant facts which render it on the whole probable that social organization of a kind existed. Possibly we may have to suppose that social organization existed among lower Palaeolithic men. They too employed fire, and it may well be that their mode of life was not very different from that of the Tasmanians.

Among all primitive races we find a form of social organization, and unless it has been achieved more than once they are all ‘relicts’ of the periods succeeding that in which men wandered in family groups. In the first place, therefore, primitive races are only comparable with prehistoric races which have achieved this great step forward. They throw little or no light upon the conditions anterior to the taking of this step. Further, when we look into the life of these races, we find that the form of social organization is rigid. Men are bound hand and foot by custom.[209] It has been suggested that the peculiarly rigid nature of the social organization among these races—the fact that they are soaked in tradition—is due to their having been left out of the main stream of progress. It has been suggested in fact that, while other races have gone forward, they have more or less stagnated, and that—this is what is important—the relative stagnation has been the cause of the rigidness of the organization. It follows that, to the extent to which this is so, primitive races are not properly comparable with prehistoric races. But it may be doubted if the facts are altogether as sometimes alleged. Doubtless the earliest social organization was far less rigid than it afterwards became, and we must beware of attributing to those early races, which first became socially organized, the features characteristic of primitive races, at least in many aspects. But we must date back the origin of social organization in all probability nearer 100,000 than 50,000 years ago. In other words, later Palaeolithic races must have had some thousands of years of social organization behind them. Is then the peculiar rigidity of the organization of primitive races altogether to be regarded as an acquirement attained during the 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 years, or whatever the period may have been, since they have been out of the main stream of progress? It can scarcely be so. A hardening of the system may have taken place, but not to such an extent as to render it impossible to make comparisons between primitive races and prehistoric races, and, what concerns us, to render unacceptable the attribution to prehistoric races of those general conditions of life found among primitive races, which will form the subject-matter of the next two chapters.

VII
HUNTING AND FISHING RACES

1. We now pass to a consideration of the quantitative problem. In this chapter we deal with hunting and fishing races. We require information first regarding those factors which hinder the realization to the full of the power of fecundity, and secondly regarding those factors which cause elimination. Not until we have this information can we hope to determine how numbers are regulated among these races. This inquiry is not intended to be exhaustive; our aim is merely to gain an idea of the nature of the more important factors which are in operation. When we come to the interpretation of the evidence, there will be more to say both as to the incompleteness of the evidence as here presented and as to the inherent difficulties of ascertaining what the position was before European influence had made itself felt.

2. We may first consider sexual intercourse before maturity. It is perhaps more difficult to determine the prevalence of this custom than that of any other practice which we shall have to examine in the course of this chapter. The difficulty is due to the nature of the facts under discussion; first it is clearly not easy to ascertain them and comparatively few authors have the intimate knowledge necessary to enable definite statements to be made; secondly such veiled and guarded language is often used that the true state of the case remains uncertain. We shall see that marriage, or at any rate cohabitation, very soon after puberty is the universal rule among these races. Statements therefore concerning ‘very early’ marriage must, in the absence of more exact information, be taken to mean no more than that marriage follows at once after puberty. Of the Tasmanians there is no certain information. Statements exist to the effect that marriages are sometimes consummated in Australia before puberty;[210] these statements are seldom specific or on good authority. The more trustworthy accounts state definitely that, no matter at what age betrothal occurs, the husband does not claim his wife until she is mature.[211] The existence of early betrothal as a widespread habit has no doubt betrayed some authors into an error.[212] We know little of the customs of the Bushmen in this as in most other respects. Statements have been made, however, to the effect that marriage took place at so early an age that the girls could not have been mature.[213]

Passing to the Eskimos it would appear that pre-puberty intercourse is not uncommon. Of the Eskimos of Greenland we read as follows: ‘Often indeed he marries before there is any chance of the union being productive.’[214] Murdoch says of the Port Barrow Eskimos that ‘promiscuous sexual intercourse between married or unmarried people, or even among children, appears to be looked upon merely as a matter for amusement’;[215] similarly Turner says of the Eskimos of the Ungava district that ‘many of the females are taken before that period’ (i.e. before maturity).[216] There are some indications that similar habits occur among the Indian tribes of the far north and of the Pacific Coast. Ross reports of the Eastern Tinneh that ‘they marry sometimes, but not often at ten, and have their menses at thirteen’.[217] Bearing in mind the average age at which menstruation begins among American Indians, the following statement by Gibbs, referring to the tribes of Western Washington and North-western Oregon, points to the same conclusion. ‘Cohabitation of unmarried females among their own people brings no disgrace if unaccompanied by child-birth. ... This commences at a very early age, perhaps ten or twelve years.’[218] There does not seem to be any definite statement with regard to the Californians; nevertheless the common accounts of marriage at twelve or thereabouts, coupled with statements as to freedom before marriage, are suggestive. Speaking generally of the Californians, Powers says that ‘marriage frequently takes place at the age of twelve or fourteen’,[219] and that ‘there is scarcely an attribute known as virtue or chastity in either sex before marriage’.[220] Another observer speaks of very early marriage among the Comanches in such a manner as to suggest that it may be consummated before puberty.[221] Lastly, there is some information for certain other races which belong to this group. We are told that among the Fuegians sexual relations begin at about ten to twelve years of age,[222] whereas menstruation begins at about fourteen or fifteen years of age.[223] Of the Veddahs we read that ‘marriage takes place at an early age; it was said that marriage sometimes takes place before puberty, and as we have heard of this at Herrebedda, Barrdaraduwa, and Omuni, we see no reason to doubt the truth of the statement’.[224]

3. There is ample evidence to the effect that the period of lactation is always prolonged among these races. Speaking of the Tasmanians, Ling Roth mentions two years[225] and Bonwick three to four[226] as the length of this period. Of the central Australians Eyre says that ‘infants are not often weaned until between two and three years old’.[227] Of the Western Australians Grey says that ‘the native women suckle their children until they are past the age of two or three years’.[228] For the Southern Australians, Eylmann mentions four years,[229] for the Narrinyeri, Taplin two years,[230] for the aborigines of Encounter Bay, Meyer ‘a considerable time, sometimes to the age of five or six years’,[231] for the aborigines of Victoria, Curr three years,[232] and for the natives of King George’s Sound, Brown four to five years.[233]

From America the evidence is similar. Among the Port Barrow Eskimos the children are nursed until about three or four years of age.[234] Nansen states that ‘Greenland mothers are very slow to wean their children. They often give suck until the child is three or four, and I have even heard of cases in which children of ten or over continue to take the breast.’[235] Crantz, speaking of the same country, corroborates this evidence,[236] and Bessels mentions a case from Smith Sound in which a child was suckled up to seven years of age.[237] Heriot, speaking generally of the Indian tribes of the North, mentions ‘the length of time employed by the women in nursing their children, whom they nourish for three or four years’,[238] and Long gives four, five, and even six years.[239] For the Ingaliks Dall mentions three years,[240] for the Eastern Tinneh Ross three or four,[241] for the Thlinkeet Krause four years,[242] and Lord for the Indians of Puget Sound two or three years.[243] Speaking of the Ahts of Vancouver Island, Sproat says he has seen ‘a boy of four following his mother for her milk’,[244] and of the tribes of California Schoolcraft that ‘children are sometimes not weaned until five years of age’.[245] Similarly the Nootkas suckle their children until they are three or four years old,[246] and Chinooks their children ‘until three, four, or five years old’.[247] The facts are similar for the inland Salish and Shushwap[248] as well as for the tribes of Oregon and Washington[249] and the Chepewayans.[250] So also in South America the Puelches[251] and the Abipones[252] suckle their children for three years, and the same is reported of the Fuegians[253] and of the Andaman Islanders who ‘never wean their babies so long as they are able to suckle them’.[254] Among the Ghiliaks suckling is continued up to the age of three years.[255]

4. Initiation ceremonies at the period of maturity are of common occurrence among primitive races. These ceremonies are sometimes accompanied by mutilation of the genital organs; but there is apparently no reason to believe that this mutilation has any effect upon fecundity, except possibly among the Australians.[256] It is unnecessary to describe the exact nature of the operations performed upon Australian boys and girls. The operations are severe and it seems very possible at first sight that they might affect the reproductive power. The opinion of authorities is divided on this point. Spencer and Gillen think that the operations may have an injurious effect;[257] others, such as Roth[258] and Mathews,[259] hold the contrary view. Upon the whole, opinion inclines to the latter side.

Less doubt exists with regard to the assertion sometimes made that these ceremonies are practised with the intention of producing sterility, or in any case relative sterility.[260] For this there is no good evidence and the best authorities definitely assert that it is not so.[261] Another assertion has been made for which there is even less foundation; it is said, for instance, that ‘in some tribes we find it a custom that every man submits to this operation after the birth of his second or third child’.[262] It would appear that as a matter of fact the operation is performed at puberty and at no other time.