EARLY SOCIAL LIFE.
[Sidenote: Formation of settlements.]
We have seen, so far, that the early traces of man’s existence point to
a gradual improvement in the state of his civilization, to the
acquirement of fresh knowledge, and the practice of fresh arts. The rude
stone implements of the early drift-period are replaced by the more
carefully manufactured ones of the polished-stone age, and these again
are succeeded by implements of bronze and of iron. By degrees also the
arts of domesticating animals and of tilling the land are learnt; and by
steps, which we shall hereafter describe, the art of writing is
developed from the early pictorial rock-sculptures. Now, in order that
each step in this process of civilization should be preserved for the
benefit of the next generation, and that the people of each period
should start from the vantage-ground obtained by their predecessors,
there must have been frequent intercommunication between the different
individuals who lived at the same time; so that the discovery or
improvement of each one should be made known to others, and become part
of the common stock of human knowledge. In the very earliest times,
then, men probably lived collected together in societies of greater or
less extent. We know that this is the case now with all savage tribes;
and as in many respects the early races of the drift-beds seem to have
resembled some now existing savage tribes in their mode of life,
employing, to a certain extent, the same implements, and living on the
same sort of food, this adds to the probability of their gregariousness.
The fact, too, that the stone implements of the first stone period have
generally been found collected near together in particular places,
indicates these places as the sites of early settlements. Beyond this,
however, we can say very little of the social state of these early
stone-age people. Small traces of any burial-ground or tomb of so great
an antiquity have yet been found, and all that we can say of them with
any certainty is, that their life must have been very rude and
primitive. Although they were collected together in groups, these groups
could not have been large, and each must have been generally situated at
a considerable distance from the next, for the only means of support for
the men of that time was derived from hunting and fishing. Now it
requires a very large space of land to support a man who lives entirely
by hunting; and this must have been more particularly the case in those
times when the weapons used by the huntsman were so rude, that it is
difficult for us now to understand how he could ever have succeeded in
obtaining an adequate supply of food by such means. Supposing that the
same extent of territory were required for the support of a man in those
times as was required in Australia by the native population, the whole
of Europe could only have supported about seventy-six thousand
inhabitants, or about one person to every four thousand now in
existence.
Next to the cave-dwellings the earliest traces of anything like fixed
settlements which have been found are the ‘kitchen-middens.’ The extent
of some of these clearly shows that they mark the dwelling-place of
considerable numbers of people collected together. But here only the
rudest sort of civilization could have existed, and the bonds of society
must have been as primitive and simple as they are among those savage
tribes at the present time, who support existence in much the same way
as the shell-mound people did. In order that social customs should
attain any development, the means of existence must be sufficiently
abundant and easily procurable to permit some time to be devoted to the
accumulation of superfluities, or of supplies not immediately required
for use. The life of the primitive hunter and fisher is so precarious
and arduous, that he has rarely either the opportunity or the will for
any other employment than the supply of his immediate wants. The very
uncertainty of that supply seems rather to create recklessness than
providence, and the successful chase is generally followed by a period
of idleness and gluttony, till exhaustion of supplies once more compels
men to activity. That the shell-mound people were subject to such
fluctuations of supply we may gather from the fact that bones of foxes
and other carnivorous animals are frequently found in those mounds; and
as these animals are rarely eaten by human beings, except under the
pressure of necessity, we may conclude that the shell-mound people were
driven to support existence by this means, through their ill-success in
fishing and hunting, and their want of any accumulation of stores to
supply deficiencies.
The next token of social improvement that is observable is in the
tumuli, or grave-mounds, which may be referred to a period somewhat
later than that of the shell-mounds. These contain indications that the
people who constructed them possessed some important elements necessary
to their social progress. They had a certain amount of time to spare
after providing for their daily wants, and they did not spend that time
exclusively in idleness. The erection of these mounds must have been a
work of considerable labour, and they often contain highly finished
implements and ornaments, which must have been put there for the use of
the dead. They are evidences that no little honour was sometimes shown
to the dead; so that some sort of religion must have existed amongst the
people who constructed the ancient grave-mounds. The importance of this
element in early society is evident if we inquire further for whom and
by whom these mounds were erected. Now, they are not sufficiently
numerous, and are far too laborious in their construction, to have been
the ordinary tombs of the common people. They were probably tombs
erected for chiefs or captains of tribes to whom the tribes were anxious
to pay especial honour. We do not know at all how these separate tribes
or clans came into existence, and what bonds united their members
together; but so soon as we find a tribe erecting monuments in honour of
its chiefs, we conclude that it has attained a certain amount of
compactness and solidity in its internal relations. Amongst an
uneducated people there is probably no stronger tie than that of a
common faith, or a common subject of reverence. It is impossible not to
believe, then, that the people who made these great, and in some cases
elaborately constructed tombs, would continue ever after to regard them
as in some sort consecrated to the great chiefs who were buried under
them. Each tribe would have its own specially sacred tombs, and perhaps
we may here see a germ of that ancestor-worship which may be traced in
every variety of religious belief.
It has been supposed by some that a certain amount of
[Sidenote: Barter.]
commerce or barter existed in the later stone age. The reason for this
opinion is that implements of stone are frequently found in localities
where the stone of which they are made is not native. At Presigny le
Grand, in France, there exists a great quantity of a particular kind of
flint which seems to have been very convenient for the manufacture of
implements; for the fields there are covered with flint-flakes and chips
which have been evidently knocked off in the process of chipping out the
knives, and arrow-heads, and hatchets which the stone-age men were so
fond of. Now, implements made of this particular kind of flint are found
in various localities, some of which are at a great distance from
Presigny; and it has therefore been supposed that Presigny was a sort of
manufactory for flint weapons which were bartered to neighbouring
tribes, and by them again perhaps to others further off; and so these
weapons gradually got dispersed. But it is also possible that the tribes
of the interior, who would subsist almost exclusively by hunting, and
would therefore be of a more wandering disposition than those on the
sea-coast, may have paid occasional visits to this flint reservoir for
the purpose of supplying themselves with weapons of a superior quality,
just as the American Indians are said to go to the quarry of Coteau des
Prairies on account of the particular kind of stone which is found
there.
In any case, whatever system of barter was carried on at that time was
of a very primitive kind, and not of frequent enough occurrence to
produce any important effects on the social condition of the people.
That that condition had already advanced to some extent beyond its
original rudeness, shows us that there existed, at all events, some
capacity for improvement among the tribes which then inhabited Europe;
but, when we compare them with modern tribes of savages, whose apparent
condition is much the same as theirs was, and who do not seem to have
made any advance for a long period, or, so far as we can judge, to be
capable of making any advance by their own unassisted efforts, we cannot
but conclude that the stone-age people, if left to themselves, would
only have emerged out of barbarism by very slow degrees. Now we know
that, about the time when bronze implements first began to be used, some
very important changes also occurred in the manners and customs of the
inhabitants of Europe. A custom of burning the dead superseded then the
older one of burial; domestic animals of various sorts seem to have been
introduced, and the bronze implements themselves show, both in the
elaborateness of their workmanship and the variety of their designs,
that a great change had come over European civilization. The greatness
and completeness of this change, the fact that there are no traces of
those intermediate steps which we should naturally expect to find in the
development of the arts, denote that this change was due to some
invading population which brought with it the arts that had been
perfected in its earlier home; and other circumstances point to the East
as the home from which this wave of civilization proceeded. Language has
taught us that at various times there have been large influxes of Aryan
populations into Europe. To the first of these Aryan invaders probably
was due the introduction of bronze into Europe, together with the
various social changes which appear to have accompanied its earliest
use. To trace then the rise and progress of the social system which the
Aryans had adopted previous to their appearance in Europe, we must go to
their old Asiatic home, and see if any of the steps by which this system
had sprung up, or any indications of its nature, may be extracted from
the records of antiquity.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: The patriarchal family.]
Hitherto scarcely any attempt has been made to discover or investigate
pre-historic monuments in the East. We can no longer therefore appeal to
the records of early tombs or temples, to indications taken from early
seats of population; but though as yet this key to Aryan history has not
been made available, we have another guide ready to take us by the hand,
and show us what sort of lives our ancestors used to lead in their
far-off Eastern home. That guide is the science of Language, which can
teach us a great deal about this if we will listen to its lessons: a
rich mine of knowledge which has as yet been only partially explored,
but one from which every day new information is being obtained about the
habits and customs of the men of pre-historic times.
All that we know at present of the Aryan race indicates that its social
organization originated in a group which is usually called the
Patriarchal Family, the members of which were all related to each other
either by blood or marriage. At the head of the family was the
patriarch, the eldest male descendant of its founder; its other members
consisted of all the remaining males descended on the father’s side from
the original ancestor, their wives, and such of the women, also
descended on the father’s side from the same ancestor, as remained still
unmarried. To show more exactly what people were members of the ancient
patriarchal family, we will trace such a family for a couple of
generations from the original founder. Suppose, then, the original
founder married, and with several children, both sons and daughters. All
the sons would continue members of this family. The daughters would only
continue members until they married, when they would cease to be
members of the family of their birth, and become members of their
respective husbands’ families. So when the sons of the founder married,
their wives would become members of the family; and such of their
children as were sons would be members, and such as were daughters would
be members only until they married; and so on through succeeding
generations. On the founder’s death he would be succeeded as patriarch
by his eldest son. On the eldest son’s death, he would be succeeded by
_his_ eldest son, if he had a son; and if not, then by his next brother.
The patriarchal family also included in its circle, in later times at
all events, slaves and other people, who, although perhaps not really
relations at all, were _adopted_ into the household, assumed the family
name, and were looked upon for all purposes as if its actual members.
This little group of individuals seems originally to have existed
entirely independent of any external authority. It supported itself by
its own industry, and recognized no other law or authority than its own.
The one source of authority within this little state was the patriarch,
who was originally regarded, not only as the owner of all the property
of which the family was possessed, but also as having unlimited power
over the different individuals of which it was composed. All the members
lived together under the same roof, or within the same enclosure. No
member could say that any single thing was his own property. Everything
belonged to the family, and every member was responsible to the
patriarch for his actions.
[Sidenote: Custom and law.]
Originally the power of the patriarch may have been almost absolute over
the other members of the family, but it must very early have become
modified and controlled by the growth of various customs. Indeed, in
trying to picture to ourselves these early times, when as yet no
regular notions of law had arisen, it is important to remember how great
a force is possessed by custom. Even now, when we distinguish pretty
clearly between law and custom, we still feel the great coercive and
restraining powers of the latter in all the affairs of life. But when no
exact notions of law had been formed, it seemed an almost irresistible
argument in favour of a particular action that it had always been
performed before. There would thus spring up in a household certain
rules of conduct for the different members, certain fixed limits to
their respective family duties. Before any individual would be commanded
by the patriarch to do any particular duty, it would come to be inquired
whether it was customary for such a duty to be assigned to such an
individual. Before the patriarch inflicted any punishment on a member of
the family, it would come to be inquired whether and in what manner it
had been customary to punish the particular act complained of. Many
things would tend to increase this regard for custom. The obvious
advantages resulting from regularity and certainty in the ordering of
the family life would soon be felt, and thus a public opinion in favour
of custom would be created. Ancestor-worship, too, which plays so
conspicuous a part in early Aryan civilization, acted, no doubt, as a
powerful strengthener of the force of custom, as is indicated by the
fact that in many nations the traditionary originator of their laws is
some powerful ancestor to whom the nation is accustomed to pay an
especial reverence.
Resulting from this development of custom into law in the early family
life of the Aryans, we find that special duties soon became assigned to
persons occupying particular positions. To the young men of the
household were assigned the more active outdoor employments; to the
maidens the milking of the cows; to the elder women other household
duties. And the importance of knowing what the customs were also gave
rise to the family council, or ‘sabhâ,’ as it is called in Sanskrit,
which consisted of the elders of the family, the ‘sabhocita,’ presided
over by the ‘sabhapati,’ or president of the assembly. The importance
attached to the decisions of this council was so great, that the
‘sabyâ,’ or decrees of the ‘sabhâ,’ came to be used simply to express
law or custom. It is probable therefore that this assembly regulated to
a great extent the customs and laws of the family in its internal
management, and also superintended any negotiations carried on with
other families.
[Sidenote: The house-fire.]
To complete our picture of the patriarchal family, we have the
traditions of three distinct customs or rites affecting its internal
economy. Two of these rites, the maintenance of the sacred house-fire,
and the marriage ceremony, probably date back to a very remote period;
and the third, the custom of adoption, though of later development, may
be regarded, in its origin at least, as primitive. Fire is itself so
wonderful in its appearance and effects, so good a servant, so terrible
a master, that we cannot feel any surprise at its having attracted a
great deal of attention in early times. The traces of fire-worship are
so widely spread over the earth that there is scarcely a single race
whose traditions are entirely devoid of them. But the sacred house-fire
of the Aryans is interesting to us chiefly in its connection with other
family rites in which it played an important part. This fire, which was
perpetually kept burning on the family hearth, seems to have been
regarded in some sort, as a living family deity, who watched over and
assisted the particular family to which it belonged. It was by its aid
that the food of the family was cooked, and from it was ignited the
sacrifice or the funeral pyre. It was the centre of the family life; the
hearth on which it burned was in the midst of the dwelling, and no
stranger was admitted into its presence. That hearth was to each member
of the household as it were an _umbilicus orbis_, or navel of the
earth--_hearth_, only another form of _earth_.[53] When the members of
the family met together to partake of their meals, a part was always
first offered to the fire by whose aid the meal was prepared; the
patriarch acted as officiating priest in this as in every other family
ceremony; and to the patriarch’s wife was confided the especial charge
of keeping the fire supplied with fuel.
[Sidenote: Marriage.]
By _marriage_, as we have seen, a woman became a member of her husband’s
family. She ceased to be any longer a member of the household in which
she was born, for the life of each family was so isolated that it would
have been impossible to belong to two different families at once. So we
find that the marriage ceremony chiefly consisted in an expression of
this change of family by the wife. In general it was preceded by a
treaty between the two families, a formal offer of marriage made by the
intending husband’s family on his behalf, together with a gift to the
bride’s family, which was regarded as the price paid for the bride. If
all preliminary matters went forward favourably, then, on the day fixed
for the marriage, the different members of the bridegroom’s family went
to the household of the bride and demanded her. After some orthodox
delay, in which the bride was expected to express unwillingness to go,
she was formally given up to those who demanded her, the patriarch of
her household solemnly dismissing her from it and giving up all
authority over her. She was then borne in triumph to the bridegroom’s
house; and, on entering it, was carried over the threshold, so as not to
touch it with her feet; thus expressing that her entry within the house
was not that of a mere guest or stranger. She was finally, before the
house-fire, solemnly admitted into her husband’s family, and as a
worshipper at the family altar.
[Sidenote: Adoption.]
This ceremony was subject to a great many variations amongst the
different Aryan races; but in every one of them some trace of it is to
be found, and this always apparently intended to express the same idea,
the change of the bride’s family. _Adoption_, which in later times
became extremely common among the Romans--the race which seems in Europe
to have preserved most faithfully the old Aryan family type--originated
in a sort of extension of the same theory that admitted of the wife’s
entry into her husband’s family, as almost all the details of the
ceremony of adoption are copied from that of marriage. Cases must have
occurred pretty often where a man might be placed in such a position as
to be without a family. He may have become alienated from his own
kindred by the commission of some crime, or all his relatives may have
died from natural causes or been killed in war. In the condition in
which society was then, such a man would be in a peculiarly unenviable
position. There would be no one in whom he could trust, no one who would
be the least interested in him or bound to protect him. Thus wandering
as an outlaw, without means of defence from enemies, and unable to
protect his possessions if he chanced to have any, or to obtain means of
subsistence if he had none, he would be very desirous of becoming a
member of some other family, in order that he might find in it the
assistance and support necessary for his own welfare. It might also
sometimes happen, that owing to a want of male descendants some house
might be in danger of extinction. Now the extinction of a family was a
matter of peculiar dread to its members. Connected with the worship of
the hearth was the worship of the ancestors of the family. It was the
duty of each patriarch to offer sacrifices on stated occasions to the
departed spirits of his ancestors; and it was considered as a matter of
the utmost importance that these sacrifices should be kept up, in order
to insure the happiness of those departed spirits after death. So
important indeed was this rite held to be, that it was reckoned as one
of the chief duties which each patriarch had to perform, and the family
property was regarded as dedicated to this object in priority to every
other. It would therefore be the chief care of each head of a household
to leave male descendants, in order that the offerings for his own and
his ancestors’ benefit might be continued after his death. The only
person, however, capable of performing these rites was a member of the
same family, one who joined in the same worship by the same household
fire: so if all the males of a family were to die out, these rights must
of necessity cease.
The marriage ceremony had already supplied a precedent for introducing
members into a house who were not born in it. It was very natural, then,
that this principle should be extended to the introduction of males when
there was any danger of the male line becoming extinct. This was done by
the ceremony of adoption, which was in many respects similar to that of
marriage, being a formal renunciation of the person adopted by the
patriarch of his original family, in case he was a member of one, and a
formal acceptance and admission into the new family of his adoption, of
which he was thenceforward regarded as a regular member. This ceremony
exhibits in a very marked manner the leading peculiarity of the
patriarchal household. We see how completely isolated, in theory, such
a group was from the rest of the world; having its own distinct worship,
in which no one but its own members were permitted to share, reverencing
its own ancestors only, who might receive worship from none but their
descendants. So jealously was this separation of families guarded, that
it was impossible for a man or woman at the same time to worship at two
family shrines. While displaying its isolation in the strongest light,
adoption is nevertheless a mark of decay in the patriarchal family. It
is an artificial grafting on the original simple stock; and however
carefully men may have shut their eyes at first to its artificial
nature, it must have had a gradual tendency to undermine the reverence
paid to the principle of blood relationship.
Before we consider, however, the causes of decay of this form of
society, which we shall do in the next chapter, there are some other
indications of their manner of livelihood which will help us to
understand the social condition of these Aryan patriarchal families. We
have seen that, with the introduction of bronze into Europe, various
changes took place in the manner of men’s lives. One of these is the
regular domestication of animals. It is true that domestic animals were
by no means unknown before the bronze age in Europe: but until that time
this custom had not attained any great extension. In remains of
settlements whose age is supposed to be before the introduction of
bronze, by far the larger number of animals’ bones found are those
belonging to wild species, while those belonging to tame species are
comparatively rare. This shows that the principal part of the food of
those people who lived before the bronze age was obtained by hunting.
After the introduction of bronze, however, exactly the reverse is the
case. In these later remains the bones of domestic animals become much
more common, while those of wild animals are comparatively rare, which
shows what an important revolution had taken place in men’s habits.
[Sidenote: Introduction of the pastoral life.]
It must also be remembered that many remains supposed to belong to the
later stone age may, in fact, belong to societies that existed during
the bronze age, but who had not yet adopted the use of bronze, or else
from their situation were unable to obtain any. As yet so little is
known of how this metal was obtained at that time, that it is impossible
to say what situations would be least favourable for obtaining it; but
considering that tin, of which bronze is partly composed, is only found
in a very few places, the wonder is rather that bronze weapons are so
frequent amongst the different remains scattered over Europe, than that
they should be absent from some of them. Moreover, the races that
inhabited Europe before the Aryans came there would afterwards remain
collected together in settlements, surrounded by the invading
population, for a considerable length of time before they had either
been exterminated or absorbed by the more civilized race. These
aborigines would adopt such of the arts and customs of the Aryans as
were most within their reach. The increased population and the greater
cultivation of the land which followed the Aryan invasion would make it
more difficult to obtain food from hunting, and the aborigines would
therefore be compelled to adopt domestication of animals as a means of
support, which they would have little difficulty in doing, as they would
be able to obtain a stock to start from, either by raids on their
neighbours’ herds or, perhaps, by barter. But the manufacture of bronze
weapons, being a much more complicated affair than the rearing of
cattle, would take a much longer time to acquire. This perhaps may
account for the remains found in the lake-dwellings, some of which show
a considerable degree of social advance, but an entire ignorance of the
use of bronze, while in the later ones bronze weapons are also found. We
may, then, regard the domestication of animals, to the extent that it
was practised by the Aryans in their Asiatic home, as a new thing in
Europe, and as introduced by the Aryans. It was on their flocks and
herds that these races chiefly depended for subsistence, and the
importance of the chase as a means of livelihood was very much less with
them than it was with the old hunter-tribes that formed the earlier
population of Europe. This in itself was a great advance in
civilization. It implied a regular industry, and the possession of
cattle was not only a guarantee against want, but an inducement to a
more regular and orderly mode of living.
There are no lessons so important to uncivilized nations as those of
providence and industry, and the pastoral life required and encouraged
both these qualities. It was necessary to store up at one time of year
food to support the cattle during another period; to preserve a
sufficient number of animals to keep the stock replenished. The cows too
had to be milked at regular times, and every night the flocks and herds
had to be collected into pens to protect them from beasts of prey, and
every morning to be led out again to the pasture. All this shows the
existence of a more organized and methodical life than is possible to a
hunter-tribe. The pastoral life, moreover, seems to be one particularly
suited to the patriarchal type of society. Each little community is
capable of supplying its own wants, and is also compelled to maintain a
certain degree of isolation. The necessity of having a considerable
extent of country for their pasturage would prevent different families
from living very near each other. In its simplest state, too, the
pastoral life is a nomadic one; so that the only social connection which
can exist among such a people is one of kinship, for having no fixed
homes they can have no settled neighbours or fellow-countrymen. The
importance attached to cattle in this stage of civilization is evidenced
by the frequent use of words in their origin relating to cattle, in all
the Aryan languages, to express many of the ordinary incidents of life.
Not only do cattle occupy a prominent place in Aryan mythology, but
titles of honour, the names for divisions of the day, for the divisions
of land, for property, for money, and many other words, all attest by
their derivation how prominent a position cattle occupied with the early
Aryans. The patriarch is called in Sanskrit ‘lord of the cattle,’ the
morning is ‘the calling of the cattle,’ the evening ‘the milking time.’
The Latin word for money, _pecunia_, and our English word ‘fee’ both
come from the Aryan name for cattle. In Anglo-Saxon movable property is
called ‘cwicfeoh,’ or living cattle, while immovable property, such as
houses and land, is called ‘dead cattle.’ And so we find the same word
constantly cropping up in all the Aryan languages, to remind us that in
the pastoral life cattle are the great interest and source of wealth to
the community, and the principal means of exchange employed in such
commerce as is there carried on.
[Sidenote: Commerce.]
The commerce between different tribes or families seems to have been
conducted at certain meeting-places agreed upon, and which were situated
in the boundary-land or neutral territory between the different
settlements. Very frequently at war with each other, or at best only
preserving an armed and watchful quiet,--each side ready at a moment’s
notice to seize on a favourable opportunity for the commencement of
active hostilities,--continual friendly intercourse was impossible. So
that when they wished for their mutual advantage to enter into amicable
relations, it was necessary to establish some sort of special agreement
for that purpose. It is probable, then, that when they found the
advantages which could be derived from commercial exchanges, certain
places were agreed upon as neutral territory where these exchanges might
take place. Such places of exchange would naturally be fixed upon as
would be equally convenient to both parties; and their mutual jealousy
would prevent one tribe from permitting the free entrance within its own
limits of members of other tribes. Places, too, would be chosen so as to
be within reach of three or four different tribes; and thus the place of
exchange, the market-place, would be fixed in that border-land to which
no tribe laid any special claim. So we see that to commerce was due the
first amicable relations of one tribe with another; and perhaps our
market crosses may owe their origin to some remains of the old ideas
associated with assemblies where men first learnt to look upon men of
different tribes as brothers in a common humanity.
It took a long time, however, to mitigate that feeling of hostility
which seems to have existed in early times between different
communities. Even when they condescended to barter with each other they
did not forget the difference between the friend and the foe. In the
_Senchus Mor_, a book compiled by the old Irish or ‘Brehon’ lawyers,
this difference between dealing with a friend and a stranger is rather
curiously indicated in considering the rent of land. ‘The three rents,’
says the _Great Book of the Law_, as it is called, ‘are rack rent (or
the extreme rent) from a person of a strange tribe, a fair rent from one
of the tribe (that is one’s own tribe), and the stipulated rent, which
is paid equally by the tribe and the strange tribe.’ Such a distinction
is generally recognized in all early communities. In dealing with a man
of his own tribe, the individual was held bound in honour not to take
any unfair advantage, to take only such a price, to exact only such a
value in exchange, as he was legitimately entitled to. It was quite
otherwise, however, in dealings with members of other tribes. Then the
highest value possible might justly be obtained for any article; so that
dealings at markets which consisted of exchanges between different
tribes, came to mean a particular sort of trading, where the highest
price possible was obtained for anything sold. It is probable that this
cast, to a certain extent, a slur upon those who habitually devoted
themselves to this kind of trading. Though it was recognized as just to
exact as high a price as possible from the stranger, still the person
who did so was looked upon to a certain extent as guilty of a
disreputable action; viewed, in fact, much in the same light as usurious
money-lenders are viewed nowadays. They were people who did not offend
against the laws of their times, but who sailed so near the wind as to
be tainted, as it were, with fraud. Indeed, our word ‘monger,’ which
simply means ‘dealer,’ comes from a root which, in Sanskrit, means ‘to
deceive;’ so commerce and cheating seem to have been early united, and
we must therefore not be surprised if they are not entirely divorced
even in our own time.
Now ‘mark,’ which, as we know, means a boundary or border-land, comes
from a root which means ‘the chase,’ or ‘wild animals.’ So ‘mark’
originally meant the place of the chase, or where wild animals lived.
This gives us some sort of picture of these early settlements, whose
in-dwellers carried on their commerce with each other in such primitive
fashion. They were little spots of cleared or cultivated land,
surrounded by a sort of jungle or primeval forest inhabited only by wild
beasts. It was in such wild places as these that the first markets used
to be held. Here, under the spreading branches of the trees, at some
spot agreed upon beforehand,--some open glade, perhaps, which would be
chosen because a neighbouring stream afforded means of refreshment,--the
fierce distrustful men would meet to take a passing glimpse at the
blessings of peace. These wild border-lands which intervened also
explain to us how it was that so great an isolation continued to be
maintained between the different settlements. If their pasture-lands had
abutted immediately on each other, if the herds of one tribe had grazed
by the herds of another, there must have been much more intercommunion
and mutual trust than appears to have existed.
The value of cattle does not consist only in the food and skins which
they provide. Oxen have from a very early time been employed for
purposes of agriculture; and we find among the names derived from cattle
many suggesting that they must have been put to this use at the time
when those names arose. Thus the Greeks spoke of the evening as
βουλυτός (boulutos), or the time for the unyoking of oxen; and
the same idea is expressed in the old German word for evening, ‘àbant’
(Abend), or the unyoking. This, then, is the next stage in social
progress: when agriculture becomes the usual employment of man. With the
advance of this stage begins the decay of the patriarchal life, which,
as we shall see in the next chapter, gradually disappears and gives
place to fresh social combinations. Though we have hitherto spoken only
of the patriarchal life of the Aryans, it was a life even more
characteristic of the Semitic race. They were essentially pastoral and
nomadic in their habits, and they seem to have continued to lead a
purely pastoral life much longer than the Aryans did. In the Old
Testament we learn how Abraham and Lot had to separate because their
flocks were too extensive to feed together; and how Abraham wandered
about with his flocks and herds, his family and servants, dwellers in
tents, leading a simple patriarchal life, much as do the Arabs of the
present day. Long after the neighbouring people had settled in towns,
these Semitic tribes continued to wander over the intervening plains,
depending for food and clothing only on their sheep and cattle and
camels.