Under these circumstances, says Mr. Geikie, the “much wider

extent of sea being exposed to the blaze of the tropical sun, the

temperature of the ocean in equatorial regions would rise above

what it is at present. This warm water, sweeping in broad

currents, would enter the polar fiords and seas, and everywhere,

beating the air, would cause warm, moist winds to blow athwart

the land to a much greater extent than they do at present; and

these winds thus distributing warmth and moisture, might render

even the high latitude of North Greenland habitable by civilized

man.” So we see that it is necessary to look for such

geographical changes as will interfere with the movements of

marine currents.

Now, it is easy to see that comparatively small geographical

changes would not only greatly interfere with these currents, but

might even cause them to entirely change their course. An

elevation of the northern part of North America, no greater in

amount than is supposed to have taken place at the commencement

of the Glacial Age, would bring the wide area of the banks of

Newfoundland far above the water, causing the American coast to

stretch out in an immense curve to a point more than six hundred

miles east of Halifax, and this would divert much of the Gulf

Stream straight across to the coast of Spain.23

Such an elevation certainly took place, and if continued

westward, Behring’s Strait would also have been closed. It is to

such northern elevations, shutting out the warm ocean currents,

that a great many geologists look for a sufficient explanation of

the glacial cold.

Prof. Dana says: “Increase in the extent and height of high

latitude lands may well stand as one cause of the Glacial Age.”

Then he points out how the rising of the land of Northern Canada

and adjacent territory, which almost certainly took place, “all a

sequel to the majestic uplift of the Tertiary, would have made a

glacial period for North America, whatever the position of the

ecliptic, or whatever the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit,

though more readily, of course, if other circumstances favored

it.”24

It may occur to some that if high northern lands be all that is

necessary for a period of cold, we ought to have had it in the

Miocene Age, when there was a continuous land connection between

the lands of high polar areas and both Europe and America, since

we know that an abundant vegetation spread from there, as a

center, to both these countries. But at that epoch circumstances

were different. The great North Temperate lands were in a

“comparatively fragmentary and insular condition.”25 There were

great inland seas in both Europe and Asia, through which powerful

currents would have flowed from the Indian Ocean to Arctic

regions.

Somewhat similar conditions prevailed in North America. The

western part was in an insular condition. A great sea extended

over this part of the country, joining the Arctic probably on the

north, through which heated water would pour into the polar sea.

And so, instead of a Glacial Age, we find evidence of a mild and

genial climate, with an abundant vegetation.

We thus see that there are two theories as to the cause of the

Glacial Age presented for our consideration. Both of them have

received the sanction of scholars eminent for their scientific

attainments. On inspection we see they are not antagonistic

theories. They may both be true for that matter, and all would

admit that whatever effect they would produce singly would be

greatly enhanced if acting together. Indeed, there are very good

reasons for supposing both must have acted in unison.

There seem to be very good reasons for not believing that the

eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, acting alone, produced the

glacial cold. If that were the case, then whenever the

eccentricity was great we should have a Glacial Age. Now, at some

period of time during the long-extended Tertiary Age we are

certain the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit became very great,

much more so, in fact, than that which is supposed to have

produced the cold of the Quaternary Age. But we are equally

certain there was no glacial epoch during this age.26 What other

explanation can we give for its non-appearance except that

geographical conditions were not favorable?

But, on the other hand, there are certain features connected with

the phenomena of the Glacial Age that seem very difficult of

explanation, if we suppose that geographical changes alone

produced them. We must remember that evidences of the former

presence of glaciers are found widely scattered over the earth.

We shall, therefore, have to assume an elevation not only for

America and Europe, but extend it over into Asia, and take in the

Lebanon Mountains, for they also show distinct traces of

glaciers. And this movement of elevation must also have affected

the Southern Hemisphere, the evidence being equally plain that at

the same comparatively late date glaciers crushed over Southern

Africa and South America.27 This is seen to prove too much.

Again, how can we explain the fact that some time during the

Glacial Age we had a submergence, the land standing several

hundred feet lower than now, but still remained covered with ice,

and over the submerged part there sailed icebergs and ice-rafts,

freighted with their usual _débris_? That such was the state of

things in Europe we are assured by some very good authorities.28

Neither do geographical causes afford an adequate explanation of

those changes of temperature that surely took place during the

Glacial Age. These last considerations show us how difficult it

is to believe that geographical causes could have produced the

Glacial Age.

We are assured that all through the geological ages the

continents had been increasing in size and compactness, and that

just at the close of the Tertiary Age they received a

considerable addition of land to the north. The astronomer also

informs us that at a comparatively recent epoch the eccentricity

of the earth’s orbit became very great. The conditions being

favorable, it is not strange that a Glacial Age supervened.

We have been to considerable length in thus explaining the

position of the scientific world in regard to the cause of the

Glacial Age. Our reason for so doing is that this age is, we

think, so connected with the Paleolithic Age of man, that it

seems advisable to have a clear understanding in regard to it.

What we have to say is neither new nor original. It is simply an

earnest endeavor to represent clearly the conclusions of some of

our best scholars on this subject, and we have tried to give to

each theory its due weight. Our conclusions may be wrong, but, if

so, we have the consolation of erring in very good company.

We have now gone over the ground and are ready to see what dates

can be given. Though the numbers we use seem to be very large

indeed, they are so only in comparison with our brief span of

life. They are insignificant as compared with the extent of time

that has surely rolled by since life appeared on the globe. Let

us, therefore, not be dismayed at the figures the astronomer sets

before us.29

About two hundred and fifty thousand years ago the earth’s path

around the sun was much the same as that of the present. No great

changes in climate were liable to take place at that time. During

the next fifty thousand years the eccentricity steadily

increased. Towards the end of that time all that was necessary to

produce a glacial epoch in the Northern Hemisphere was favorable

geographical causes, and that our earth should reach its point

nearest the sun in Summer. This it must have done when about half

that time had elapsed.

We can in imagination see what a slow deterioration of climate

took place. Thousands of years would come and go before the

change would be decisive. But a time must have at length arrived

when the vegetation covering the ground was such as was suited

only for high northern latitudes. The animals suited for warm and

temperate regions must have wandered farther south; others from

the north had arrived to take their place. We can see how well

this agrees with the changes of climate at the close of the

Pliocene Age. The snows of the commencing Glacial Age would soon

begin to fall, finally the sun would not melt them off of the

high lands, and mountain peaks, and so a Glacial Age would be

ushered in.

We have referred to the fact that the earth reaches its

perihelion point a little earlier each year, and, as a

consequence, we would have periods of mild climate alternating

the cold. This extended period of time, equal to twenty-one

thousand of our ordinary years, has been named the Great Year of

our globe. Mr. Wallace has pointed out some very good reasons for

thinking Mr. Croll’s theory must be modified on this point. He

thinks that when once a Glacial Age was fairly fastened on a

hemisphere, it would retain its grasp as long as the eccentricity

remained high, but whenever the Summer of the Great Year came to

that hemisphere, it would melt back the glacial ice for some

distance, but this area would be recovered by the ice when the

Winter of the Great Year supervened. These effects would be

different when the eccentricity itself became low. Then we would

expect the glacial conditions to vanish entirely when the Summer

of a Great Year comes on.30

As we have made the theoretical part of this chapter already too

long, we must hurry on. We can only say that this view is founded

on the fact that when a country was covered with snow and ice, it

had so to speak, a great amount of cold stored up in it, so much,

in fact, that it would not be removed by the sun of a new

geological Summer. This ought to be acceptable to such geologists

as are willing to admit the advance and retreat of the great

glacier, but yet doubt the fact of the interglacial mild climate.

But now to return to the question of time about two hundred and

twenty thousand years ago. Then the Northern Hemisphere,

according to this theory, was in the grasp of a Glacial Age.

According to Mr. Wallace, as long as the eccentricity remained

high, there could be no great amelioration of climate, except

along the southern border of the ice sheet, which might, for

causes named, vary some distance during the Great Year. Two

hundred thousand years ago the eccentricity, then very high,

reached a turning point. It then steadily, though gradually,

diminished for fifty thousand years; at that time the

eccentricity was so small, though considerably larger than at

present, that it is doubtful if it was of any service in

producing a change of climate.31 At that time, also, the Northern

Hemisphere was passing through the Summer season of the Great

Year. We ought, therefore, to have had a mild interglacial

season. Except in high northern latitudes the ice should have

disappeared. This change we would expect to find more marked in

Europe than in America.

We need only recall how strong are the evidences on this point.

Nearly all European writers admit at least one such mild

interval, and though not wanting evidence of such a period in

America, our geologists are much less confident of its

occurrence.

But from that point the eccentricity again increased. So when the

long flight of years again brought secular Winter to the Northern

Hemisphere, the glaciers would speedily appear, and as

eccentricity was again high, they would again hold the country in

their grasp. Fifty thousand years later, or one hundred thousand

years ago, it passed its turning point again; eighty thousand

years ago, it became so small that it probably ceased to effect

the climate. Since then it has not been very large. Twenty-five

thousand years ago it was less than it is now, but it is again

growing smaller. According to this theory, then, the Glacial Age

commenced about two hundred and twenty thousand years ago. It

continued, with one interruption of mild climate, for one hundred

and forty thousand years, and finally passed away eighty thousand

years ago.

What shall we say to these results? If true, what a wonderful

antiquity is here unfolded for the human race, and what a

wonderful lapse of time is included in what is known as the

Paleolithic Age! How strikingly does it impress upon our minds

the slow development of man! Is such an antiquity for man in

itself absurd? We know no reason for such a conclusion. Our most

eminent scholars nowhere set a limit to the time of man’s first

appearance. It is true, many of them do not think the evidence

strong enough to affirm such an antiquity, but there are no

bounds given beyond which we may not pass.

Without investigation some might reject the idea that man could

have lived on the earth one hundred thousand years in a state of

Savagism. If endowed with the attributes of humanity, it may seem

to them that he would long before that time have achieved

civilization. Such persons do not consider the lowliness of his

first condition and the extreme slowness with which progress must

have gone forward. On this point the geologists and the

sociologists agree. Says Mr. Geikie: “The time which has elapsed

from the close of the Paleolithic Age, even up to the present

day, can not for a moment compare with the aeons during which the

men of the old stone period occupied Europe.” And on this subject

Mr. Morgan says: “It is a conclusion of deep importance in

ethnology that the experience of mankind in Savagery was longer

in duration than all their subsequent experience, and that the

period of Civilization covers but a fragment of the life of the

race.”32 The time itself, which seems to us so long, is but a

brief space as compared with the ages nature has manifestly

required to work out some of the results we see before us every

day. We are sure, but few of our scholars think this too liberal

an estimate. All endeavor to impress on our minds that the

Glacial Age is an expression covering a very long period of time.

As to the time that has elapsed since the close of the Glacial

Age there is some dispute, and it may be that we will be forced

to the conclusion that the close of the Glacial Age was but a few

thousand years ago. Mr. Wallace assures us, however, that the

time mentioned agrees well “with physical evidence of the time

that has elapsed since the cold has passed away.”33

Difficulties are, however, urged by other writers. We can see at

once that as quick as the glaciers are removed the denuding

forces of nature, which are constantly at work, would begin to

rearrange the _débris_ left behind on the surface, and in the

course of a few thousand years must effect great changes. Now, in

some cases the amount of such change is so small that geologists

are reluctant to believe a vast lapse of time has occurred since

the glaciers withdrew. Mr. Geikie tells us of some moraines in

Scotland that they are so fresh and beautiful “that it is

difficult to believe they can date back to a period so vastly

removed as the Ice Age is believed to be.”34 In our own country

this same sort of evidence is brought forward, and we are given

some special calculations going to show that the disappearance of

the glaciers was a comparatively recent thing.35

It will be seen that these conclusions are somewhat opposed to

the results previously arrived at. In explanation Mr. Geikie

thinks the cases spoken of in Scotland were not the moraines of

the great glaciers, but of a local glacier of a far later date.

He thinks that the climate, while not severe enough to produce

the enormous glaciers of early times, was severe enough to

produce local glaciers still in Scotland.36 It is possible that a

similar explanation may be given for the evidence adduced in the

United States. We can only state that, according to the

difference in climate between the eastern and western sides of

the Atlantic Ocean, when the climate was severe enough to produce

local glaciers in Scotland, it would produce the same effect over

a large part of eastern United States down to the latitude of New

York City.37 And while it is true there would not be as much

difference in climate on the two sides of the Atlantic in Glacial

times as at present, since the Gulf Stream, on which such

difference depends would then have less force, still it was not

entirely lacking, and the difference must have been

considerable.38

Prof. Hitchcock has made a suggestion that whereas we know a

period of several months elapses after the sun crosses the

equator before Summer fairly comes on, so it is but reasonable to

suppose that a proportionate length of time would go by after the

eccentricity of the earth’s orbit became small, before the

Glacial Age would really pass away. He accordingly suggests it

may have been only about forty thousand years since the glaciers

disappeared.39

At the close of the Glacial Age Paleolithic man vanished from

Europe. This, therefore, brings us to the conclusion of our

researches into what is probably the most mysterious chapter of

man’s existence on the earth.

It may not come amiss to briefly notice the main points thus far

made in our investigation of the past. As to the epoch of man’s

first appearance, we found he could not be expected to appear

until all the animals lower than he had made their appearance.

This is so because the Creator of all has apparently chosen that

method of procedure in the development of life on the globe.

According to our present knowledge, man might have been living in

the Miocene Age, and with a higher degree of probability in the

Pliocene. But we can not say that the evidence adduced in favor

of his existence at these early times is satisfactory to the

majority of our best thinkers. All agree that he was living in

Europe at the close of the Glacial Age, and we think the evidence

sufficient to show that he preceded the glaciers, and that as a

rude savage he lived in Europe throughout the long extended

portion of time known as the Glacial Age.

We also found evidence of either two distinct races of men

inhabiting Europe in the Paleolithic Age, or else tribes of the

same race, widely different in time and in culture. The one

people known as the men of the River Drift apparently invaded

Europe from Asia, along with the species of temperate animals now

living there. This people seem to have been widely scattered over

the earth. The race has probably vanished away, though certain

Australian tribes may be descendants of them. They were doubtless

very low in the scale of humanity, having apparently never

reached a higher state than that of Lower Savagism. The second

race of men inhabiting Europe during the Paleolithic Age were the

Cave-dwellers. They seem to have been allied to the Eskimos of

the North. They were evidently further advanced than the Drift

men, but were still savages.

The Paleolithic Age in Europe seems to have terminated with the

Glacial Age. But we are not to suppose it came to an end all over

the earth at that time. On the contrary, some tribes of men never

passed beyond that stage. When the light of civilization fell

upon them they were still in the culture of the old Stone Age. We

are to notice that in such cases the tribes thus discovered were

very low in the scale. The probable data for the Paleolithic Age

have formed the subject of this chapter. While claiming in

support of them the opinions of some eminent scholars, we freely

admit that it is not a settled question, but open to very grave

objections, especially the date of the close of the Glacial Age,

which seems to have been comparatively recent, at least in

America. We think, however, that these objections will yet be

harmonized with the general results. Neither is this claimed to

be an exhaustive presentation of the matter. It is an outline

only—the better to enable us to understand the mystery connected

with the data of Paleolithic man.

In these few chapters we have been dealing with people, manners,

arid times, of which the world fifty years ago was ignorant. Many

little discoveries, at first apparently disconnected, are

suddenly brought into new relation, and behold, ages ago, when

the great continents were but just completed, races of men, with

the stamp of humanity upon them, are seen filling the earth. With

them were many great animals long since passed away. The age of

animals was at an end. That of man had just begun.

The child requires the schooling of adversity and trial to make a

complete man of himself, and it is even so with races of men. Who

can doubt that struggling up from dense ignorance, contending

against adverse circumstances, compelled to wage war against

fierce animals, sustaining life in the midst of the low

temperature which had loaded the Northern Hemisphere with snow

and ice, had much to do in developing those qualities which

rendered civilization possible.

As to the antiquity of man disclosed in these chapters, the only

question that need concern us is whether it is true or not.

Evidence tending to prove its substantial accuracy should be as

acceptable as that disproving it. No great principle is here at

stake. The truth of Divine Revelation is in no wise concerned.

There is nothing in its truth or falsity which should in any way

affect man’s belief in an overruling Providence, or in an

immortality beyond the grave, or which should render any less

desirable a life of purity and honor. On the contrary, we think

one of the greatest causes of thanksgiving mortals have is the

possession of intellectual powers, which enable us to here and

there catch a glimpse of the greatness of God’s universe, which

the astronomer at times unfolds to us; or, to dimly comprehend

the flight of time since “The Beginning,” which the geologist

finds necessary to account for the stupendous results wrought by

slow-acting causes.

It seems to us eminently fitting that God should place man here,

granting to him a capacity for improvement, but bestowing on him

no gift or accomplishment, which by exertion and experience he

could acquire; for labor is, and ever has been, the price of

material good. So we see how necessary it is that a very extended

time be given us to account for man’s present advancement.

Supposing an angel of light was to come to the aid of our feeble

understanding, and unroll before us the pages of the past, a past

of which, with all our endeavors, we as yet know but little. Can

we doubt that, from such a review, we would arise with higher

ideas of man’s worth? Our sense of the depths from which he has

ascended is equated only by our appreciation of the future

opening before him. Individually we shall soon have passed away.

Our nation may disappear. But we believe our race has yet but

fairly started in its line of progress; time only is wanted. We

can but think that that view which limits man to an existence

extending over but a few thousand years of the past, is a

belittling one. Rather let us think of him as existing from a

past separated from us by these many thousand years; winning his

present position by the exercise of God-given powers.

REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Prof. G. F.

Wright, of Oberlin, for criticism.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 113.

Nordenskiold’s “American Journal of Science,” vol. 110, p. 58.

Wright’s “Studies in Science and Religion,” p. 307, where a map

of this moraine is given.

There is, however, a small area in the south-west part of

Wisconsin where, for some reason, the ice passed by.

Dane’s “Manual of Geology,” p. 538.

Wright’s “Studies in Science and Religion,” p. 308.

“Men of the Drift,” p. 71.

Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 93.

“Men of the River Drift.”

Abbott’s “Primitive Industry,” p. 545; Quoted from “Geology of

Minnesota.” Report, 1877, p. 37.

Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 97.

The astronomical theory, which we will first examine, was first

enunciated by Mr. Croll, following a suggestion of the

astronomer Adhemer. Mr. Croll’s views were set forth in many

able papers, and finally gathered into a volume entitled

“Climate and Time in their Geological Relation.” The ablest

defense of these views is that by Mr. James Geikie, in his

works “The Great Ice Age,” and “Prehistoric Europe.”

Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 114.

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 420, Table 4.

Ibid., Table 5.

Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 123.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 143.

Ibid., p. 124.

“Geology of New Hampshire,” Vol. II, p. 5.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 99.

Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 103.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 149. Hitchcock’s “Geology of New

Hampshire,” Vol. II, p. 7, gives a map showing what immense

areas in that section would be raised to the surface by a raise

of three hundred feet.

_American Journal of Science,_ 1871, p. 329.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 184.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 182.

Ibid., p. 157 and note. Prof. Wright thinks this statement

doubtful. He refers to the date of the Glacial Age in the

Southern Hemisphere.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 200; Dawkins’s “Early Man in

Britain,” p. 119; Geikie’s “Great Ice Age,” p. 256;

Quatrefages’s “Human Species,” p. 288.

For these results, see McFarland’s Calculations in “American

Journal of Science,” 1880, p. 105.

“Island Life,” p. 153.

See chart, p. 124, Wallace’s “Island Life.”

“Ancient Society,” p. 39.

“Island Life,” p. 201.

“Prehistoric Europe,” p. 312.

On this point consult Wright’s “Studies in Science and

Religion,” pp. 232-347; also Prof. Lewis in “Primitive

Industry,” pp. 547-551.

“Prehistoric Europe,” p. 560.

See any isothermal map.

Wallace’s “Island Life,” p. 154, note.

“Geology of New Hampshire,” Vol. III, p. 327, referred to in

Wright’s “Studies in Science and Religion,” p. 327.

Chapter VI

THE NEOLITHIC AGE IN EUROPE.1

Close of the first cycle—Neolithic culture connected with the

present—No links between the two ages—Long lapse of time between

the two ages—Swiss lake villages—This form of villages widely

scattered—Irish cranogs—Fortified villages—Implements and weapons

of Neolithic times—Possessed of pottery—Neolithic

agriculture—Possessed of domestic animals—Danish shell-heaps—

Importance of flint—The art of navigation—Neolithic clothing—

Their modes of burial—The question of race—Possible remnants—

Connection with the Turanian race—Arrival of the Celts.

In the preceding chapters we have sought to learn what we could

of the Paleolithic Age. We have seen what strange people and

animals occupied the land, and have caught some glimpses of a

past that has been recovered to us out of the very night of time.

From under the ashes of Vesuvius archæologists have brought to

light an ancient city. We gaze on it with great interest, for we

there see illustrated the state of society two thousand years

ago. But other cities of that time are still in existence, and

not only by the aid of tradition and song, but from the pages of

history, we can learn of the civilization of the Roman people at

the time of the destruction of Pompei; so that, in this case, our

knowledge of the past is not confined to one source of

information. But no voice of history or tradition, or of existing

institutions, speaks to us of the Paleolithic Age. Of that remote

time, the morning time of human life, we learn only from the

labors of geologists and archæologists. We are virtually dealing

with a past geological age. The long term of years thus defined

drew to its close amidst scenes of almost Arctic sterility. In

all probability, glaciers reflected the sun’s rays from all the

considerable hills and mountains of Central and Northern Europe,

though forming, perhaps, but a remnant of the great glaciers of

the Ice Age. The neighboring seas must have been whitened by the

glistening sails of numerous icebergs. Such was the closing scene

of Paleolithic life.

The first great cycle of human life, as far as we know it now,

was concluded in Europe. We do not mean to say that it terminated

all over the world. In other regions it survived to far later

times. But, in Europe, Paleolithic animals and men had worked out

their mission, and we have now to record the arrival and spread

of a new race, bringing with them domestic animals, a knowledge

of rude husbandry, and many simple arts and industries of which

their Paleolithic predecessors were ignorant.

We recall, that the men of the Paleolithic Age seemed incapable

of advancement;2 or their progress was so slow that we scarcely

notice it. But we can trace the lines of advancement from the

Neolithic culture to that of the present. We have, however, to

deal with people and times far removed from the light of history.

We have before us, then, a new culture and a new people. On the

one hand is Paleolithic man, with his rude stone implements,

merely chipped into shape—surrounded by many animals which have

since vanished from the theater of life—inhabiting a country

which, at its close at least, was more like Greenland of to-day

than England or France. The scene completely changes, when the

misty curtain of the past again rises and allows us to continue

our investigations into primitive times.

We would naturally expect to find everywhere, connecting links

between these two ages—the culture of the one gradually changing

into the culture of the other. This, however, is not the case.

The line of demarkation between the ages is everywhere plainly

drawn; and, furthermore, we are learning that a very long time

elapsed between the departure, or disappearance, of the

Paleolithic tribes, and the arrival of their Neolithic

successors. This is shown in a great many ways, and we will

notice some of them. We learn that Neolithic man occasionally

used caves as a place of habitation. In such cases there is

nearly always a thick layer of stalagmite between the strata

containing the Paleolithic implements and the Neolithic strata

—though this stalagmite is unmistakable evidence of the lapse of

many years, we can not determine how many, as we do not know the

rate of formation.

This lapse of time is shown very plainly when we come to consider

the changes wrought in the surface features of the country by the

action of running water. We know that rain, running water, and

frost, constituting what we call denuding forces, are constantly

at work changing the surface of a country. We know that, in

general, this change is slow. But great changes have been wrought

between these two ages.

In the British Islands, we know that the rivers had time to very

materially change the surface features of the land. The important

rivers of Scotland had carved out channels one hundred feet deep

in places; and along their courses, especially near their mouths,

had plowed out and removed great quantities of glacial

material—forming broad flats which became densely wooded before

Neolithic man made his appearance on the scene. In some cases the

entire surface of the land had been removed, leaving only knolls

and hills of the old land surface. Examples of this occur on the

east coast of England, and in what is known as the Fen-lands. The

final retreat of the glaciers must have left the country covered

with _débris._ After this had been largely denuded, the country

became densely wooded. It was not until these changes had taken

place, that Neolithic man wandered into Europe.3

But still another ground exists for claiming a long interval

between these two ages, namely, the great changes that took place

in the animal world of Europe during these two epochs. Many

different species of animals characteristic of the Paleolithic

Age vanished as completely from Europe as the rude tribes that

hunted them, before the appearance of Neolithic tribes. But

little change in the fauna of England has taken place in the last

two thousand years. So it is obvious that the great change

above-mentioned demands many centuries for its accomplishment.

Huge animals of the elephant kind, such as the mammoth, no longer

crashed through the underbrush, or wallowed in the lakes. The

roars of lions and tigers, that haunted the caves of early

Europe, were no longer heard.4 In short, there had disappeared

forever from Europe the distinctly southern animals that

diversified the fauna of Paleolithic times. Even the Arctic

animals were banished to northern latitudes, or mountain heights.

We have dwelt to some length on the proofs of a long-extended

time between these two ages. The more we reflect on these

instances the more impressed are we with a sense of duration vast

and profound, in which the great forests and grassy plains of

Europe supported herds of wild animals all unvexed by the

presence of man. We will only mention one more point and then

pass on.

We have seen that the highest rank we can assign to Paleolithic

man in the scale of civilization is Upper Savagism. But when

Neolithic man appeared, he was in the middle status of Barbarism.

The time, therefore, between the disappearance of Paleolithic man

and the arrival of Neolithic man was long enough to enable

primitive man to pass one entire ethnical period, that of Lower

Barbarism. But this requires a very long period of time, probably

several times as long as the entire series of years since

Civilization first appeared, which is supposed to be in the

neighborhood of five thousand years ago.5

We must now turn our attention to Neolithic man himself and learn

what we can of his culture, and discover, if possible, what race

it was that spread over Europe after it had been for so long a

time an uninhabitable country. A few remarks by way of

introduction will not be considered amiss.

We are learning that tribal organization, implying communism in

living, is characteristic of prehistoric people.6 Tribal

organization sufficed to advance man to the very confines of

civilization. We have no doubt but that this was the state of

society amongst the Neolithic people. But this implies living in

communities or villages. We need not picture to ourselves a

country dotted with houses, the abodes of single families; such

did not exist, but here and there were fortified villages.

Still another consequence follows from this tribal state of

society. There was no such thing as a strong central government.

Each tribe obeyed its own chief, and a state of war nearly always

existed between different tribes. Such we know was the state of

things among the Indian tribes of America. Travelers tell us that

it is so to-day in Africa. Each tribe stood ready to defend

itself or to make war on its neighbors. One great point,

therefore, in constructing a village, was to secure a place that

could be easily defended.

Bearing these principles in mind, let us see what we can learn of

their habitations. Owing to a protracted drouth, the water in the

Swiss lakes was unusually low in the Winter of 1854, and the

inhabitants of Meilen, on the Lake Zürich, took advantage of this

state of affairs to throw up embankments some distance out from

the old shore, and thus gain a strip of land along the coast. In

carrying out this design, they found in the mud at the bottom of

the lake a number of piles, some thrown down and others upright,

fragments of rough pottery, bone and stone instruments, and

various other relics.

Dr. Keller, president of the Zürich Antiquarian Society, was

apprised of this discovery, and proceeded at once to examine the

collection made and the place of discovery. He was not long in

determining the prehistoric nature of the relics, and the true

intent of the pile remains. He proved them to be supports for

platforms, on which were erected rude dwellings, the platforms

being above the surface of the water, and at some distance from

the shore, with which they were connected by a narrow bridge.

Lake Village, Switzerland.

This was the first of a series of many interesting discoveries

from which we have learned many facts as to Neolithic, times. The

out we have introduced is an ideal restoration of one of these

Swiss lake villages. It needs but a glance to show how admirably

placed it was for purposes of defense. Unless an enemy was

provided with boats, the only way of approach was over the

bridge. But the very fact that they resorted to lakes, where at

the expense of great labor they erected their villages, is a

striking illustration of the insecurity of the times.

This discovery once made, it is surprising what numbers of these

ancient lake villages have been discovered. Switzerland abounds

in large and small lakes, and in former times they must have been

still more numerous, but in the course of years they have become

filled up, and now exist only as peat bogs. But we now know that

during the Neolithic Age the country was quite thickly inhabited,

and these lakes were the sites of villages. Over two hundred have

been found in Switzerland alone. Fishermen had known of the

existence of these piles long before their meaning was

understood. Lake Geneva is one of the most famous of the Swiss

lakes. Though in the main it is deep, yet around the shore there

is a fringe of shallow water.

It was in this shallow belt that the villages were built. The

sites of twenty-four settlements are known. We are told that on

“calm days, when the surface of the water is unruffled, the piles

are plainly visible. Few of them now project more than two feet

from the bottom, eaten away by the incessant action of the water.

Lying among them are objects of bone, horn, pottery, and

frequently even of bronze. So fresh are they, and so unaltered,

they look as if they were only things of yesterday, and it seems

hard to believe that they can have remained there for

centuries.”7

A lake settlement represents an immense amount of work for a

people destitute of metallic tools. After settling on the

locality, the first step would be to obtain the timbers. The

piles were generally composed of the trunks of small-sized trees

at that time flourishing in Switzerland. But to cut down a tree

with a stone hatchet is no slight undertaking. They probably used

fire to help them. After the tree was felled it had to be cut off

again at the right length, the branches lopped off, and one end

rudely sharpened. It was then taken to the place and driven into

the mud of the lake bottom. For this purpose they used heavy

wooden mallets. It has been estimated that one of the settlements

on Lake Constance required forty thousand piles in its

construction.8

The platform which rested on these piles was elevated several

feet above the surface of the water, so as to allow for the swash

of the waves. It was composed of branches and trunks of trees

banded together, the whole covered with clay. Sometimes they

split the trees with wedges so as to make thick slabs. In some

instances wooden pegs were used to fasten portions of the

platform to the pilework.

As to the houses which were erected on these platforms, though

they have utterly vanished, yet from a few remains we can judge

something as to the mode of construction. They seem to have been

formed of trunks of trees placed upright, one by the side of the

other, and bound together by interwoven branches. This was then

covered on both sides with two or three inches of clay. A plaster

of clay and gravel formed the floor, and a few slabs of sandstone

did duty for a fire-place. The roof was of bark, straw, or

rushes. There does not seem to have been much of a plan used in

laying out a settlement. As population increased other piles were

added, and thus the village gradually extended. No one village

would be likely to contain a great number of inhabitants.

Calculations based on the area of one of the largest settlements

in Lake Geneva, gives as a result a population of thirteen

hundred, but manifestly nothing definite is known.

This brief description gives us an idea of a method of

constructing villages which, as we shall soon see, extended all

over Europe, though varied somewhat in detail. The condition of

the remains indicate that these settlements were often destroyed

by fire. At such times quantities of arms, implements, and

household industries would have been lost in the water, and so

preserved for our inspection.

This mode of building found such favor among the early

inhabitants of Europe that it continued in use through the

Neolithic Age, that of Bronze, and even into the age of Iron.

Passages here and there in ancient histories evidently refer to

them. Though they have long since passed away in Switzerland, the

Spaniards found them in Mexico, and they are still to be seen in

some of the isles of the Pacific. Remembering this, we need not

be surprised if we find in one small lake settlements belonging

to widely different ages. Here one of the Stone Age, there one of

the Bronze, or even a confused mingling of what seems to be

several ages in one settlement.9

There is scarcely a country in Europe that does not contain

examples of lake villages. From their wide distribution we infer

that a common race spread over the land. We will now mention some

differences in construction discovered at some places, where,

from the rocky nature of the bed of the lake, it was impossible

to drive piles so as to form a firm foundation. They sometimes

packed quantities of stone around the piles to serve as supports

in a manner as here indicated. “In all probability the stones

used were conveyed to the required spot by means of canoes, made

of hollowed out trunks of trees. Several of these canoes may

still be seen at the bottom of Lake Bienne, and one, indeed,

laden with pebbles, which leads us to think it must have

foundered with its cargo.”10

Foundation, Lake Village.

In some cases these heaps of stone and sticks rise to the surface

of the water or even above it, the piles in such cases serving

more to hold the mass together than as a support to the platform

on which the huts were erected. This mode of construction could

only be employed in small lakes. This makes in reality an

artificial island, and seems to have been the favorite method of

procedure in the British Islands. In Ireland and Scotland immense

numbers of these structures are known. They are called crannogs.

This cut represents a section of one in Ireland. Though they date

back to the Neolithic Age, yet they so exactly meet the wants of

a rude people that they were occupied down to historic times.

Irish Crannog.

The advantage of forming settlements where they could only be

approached on one side were so great that other places than lakes

were resorted to. Peat-bogs furnished nearly as secure a place of

retreat as do lakes. These have been well studied in Northern

Italy. They do not present many new features. They were

constructed like the lake villages, only they were surrounded by

a marsh, and not by a lake. In some of the Irish bogs they first

covered the surface of the bog with a layer of hazel bushes, and

that by a layer of sand, and thus secured a firm surface.11 In

this case the villages were still further defended by a

breastwork of rough spars, about five feet high. One of the

houses of this group was found still in position, though it had

been completely buried in peat. No metal had been used in its

construction. The timbers had been cut with a stone ax, and the

explorer was even so fortunate as to find an ax, which exactly

fitted many of the cuts observed on the timbers.

But we are not to suppose that lakes and bogs afforded the only

sites of villages. They are found scattered all over the surface

of the country, and, as we shall soon see, they show the same

painstaking care to secure strong, easily defended positions.

They have been generally spoken of as forts, to which the

inhabitants resorted only in times of danger. We think, however,

they were locations of villages, the customary places of abode.

For this is in strict accordance with what we find to be the

early condition of savage life in every part of the world.

Traces of these settlements on the main-land have been mostly

obliterated by the cultivation of the soil during the many years

that have elapsed since their Neolithic founders occupied them.

In Switzerland the location of five of these villages are known.

In all instances they occupied places very difficult of

approach—generally precipitous sides on all but one or two. On

the accessible sides ramparts defended them. The relics obtained

are in all respects similar to those from the lake villages.12

Fortified Camp, Cissbury.

Fortified inclosures have been described in Belgium. We are told,

“They are generally established on points overhanging valleys, on

a mass of rocks forming a kind of headland, which is united to

the rest of the country by a narrow neck of land. A wide ditch

was dug across this narrow tongue of land, and the whole camp was

surrounded by a thick wall of stone, simply piled one upon

another, without either mortar or cement.” “One of these walls,

when described, was ten feet thick, and the same in height.”

These intrenched positions were so well chosen that most of them

continued to be occupied during the ages which followed. The

Romans occasionally utilized them for their camps. Over the whole

inclosure of these ancient camps worked flints and remains of

pottery have been found.13 These fortified places have been well

studied in the south of England.

What is known as the South-Downs in Sussex is a range of hills of

a general height of seven hundred feet. This section is about

five miles wide and fifty miles long. Four rivers flow through

these downs to the sea. In olden times their lower courses must

have been deep inlets of the sea, thus dividing those hills into

five groups, each separated from the other by a wide extent of

water and marsh land. To the north of these hills was a vast

expanse of densely wooded country. It is not strange, then, to

find traces of numerous settlements among these hills. As the

surface soil is very thin, old embankments can still be traced.

The cut given is a representation of Cissbury, one of the largest

of these camps. It incloses nearly sixty acres. The rampart

varies according to the slope of the hill. Where the ascent was

at all easy it was made double. Fortified camps are very numerous

throughout the hill country. They vary, of course, in size, but

the situation was always well chosen.14

As for the buildings themselves, or huts of the Neolithic people,

we know but little. They were probably built much the same as the

houses in the lake settlements. We meet with some strange

modifications in England. Frequently within these ramparts we

find circular pits or depressions in the ground. They are

regarded as vestiges of habitations, and they must have been

mainly under ground. “They occur singly and in groups, and are

carried down to a depth of from seven to ten feet through the

superficial gravel into the chalk, each pit, or cluster of pits,

having a circular shaft for an entrance. At the bottom they vary

from five to seven feet in diameter, and gradually narrow to two

and a half or three feet in diameter in the upper part. The

floors were of chalk, sometimes raised in the center, and the

roof had been formed of interlaced sticks, coated with clay

imperfectly burned.”15

In the north of Scotland, instead of putting them under ground,

they built them on the natural surface, and then built a mound

over them all. In appearance this was scarcely distinguishable

from a mound, but on digging in we discover a series of large

chambers, built generally with stones of considerable size, and

converging toward the center, where an opening appears to have

been left for light and ventilation. In some instances the mound

was omitted, and we have simply a cluster of joining huts, with

dry, thick walls. These have been appropriately named “Bee-hive

Houses.”16

We can form a very good idea of Neolithic Europe from what we

have learned as to their habitations. A well-wooded country,

abounding in lakes and marshes, quite thickly settled, but by a

savage people, divided into many tribes, independent of and

hostile to each other. The lakes were fringed with their peculiar

settlements; they are to be noticed in the marshes, and on

commanding heights are still others. The people were largely

hunters and fishers, but, as we shall soon see, they practised a

rude husbandry and had a few domestic animals. Such was the

condition of Europe long before the Greek and Latin tribes lit

the beacon fires of civilization in the south.

It is evident that the builders of the lake settlements and the

fortified villages were an intelligent and industrious people,

though their scale in civilization was yet low. Their various

implements of bone, horn, and stone display considerable advance

over the rude articles of the Drift.

Neolithic Axes.

One of the most important implements was the ax. The Paleolithic

hatchet, we remember, was rude, massive, and only roughly chipped

into shape, and was intended to be held in the hand. The

Neolithic ax was a much better made one, and was furnished with a

handle. They were enabled to accomplish a great deal with such

axes. “Before it, aided by fire, the trees of the forest fell to

make room for the tiller of the ground, and by its sharp edge

wood became useful for the manufacture of various articles and

implements indispensable for the advancement of mankind in

culture.”17 These axes vary in size and finish. As a general

thing they are ground to a sharp, smooth edge, but not always,

nor were they always furnished with a handle.

Some axes are found with a hole bored in them, through which to

pass a handle. These perforated axes are found in considerable

numbers, and some have denied that they could be produced without

the aid of metal. It is almost self-evident that the perforated

axes are later in date than the solid ones, and probably many of

them are no earlier in time than the Age of Metals. There is,

however, nothing to show that all belong to so late a time.

Besides, experiments have amply shown that even the hardest kind

of flint can be drilled without the aid of metals.18

Warlike implements are, of course, quite common. Many of the axes

found are probably war axes. Then besides we have arrowheads,

spears, and daggers. These are considered to be “marvels of skill

in flint chipping.”19 Stone was used for a great many other

purposes, such as scrapers, sling-stones, hammers, saws, and so

on. Flint was generally the kind of stone used. Our civilization

owes a great deal to this variety of stone. It is not only hard,

but its cleavage is such that it was of the greatest use to

primitive man. In a general way the Neolithic stone implements

are seen to be better adapted to the object in view than the

Paleolithic specimens. They are also generally polished.

Wood was largely used in their common household implements. But

it is only in exceptional cases that it has been preserved to us.

They have been recovered, however, in peat-bogs and in the

remains of lake settlements. These wooden utensils consist of

bowls, ladles, knives, tubs, etc. They used fire to hollow them

out, and the blows of the flint hatchet used to remove the

charred portions, are still to be observed in some specimens.

Neolithic Weapons.

The Neolithic people had learned how to manufacture pottery,

though not of a very superior quality. It is all hand-made: so

the potter’s wheel had not yet been introduced. The material is

clay mixed with gravel or pounded shells. Very often they

ornamented their clay vessels with lines and dots. The bowls or

jars were evidently suspended by cords, for the bottom was made

too rounding for them to stand erect. Besides, we find the holes

for the cords, and in some places handles.

Hafted Hatchet in Sheath, and Axe in Sheath.

No notice of Neolithic tools would be complete without mentioning

the use made of horn and bone. One peculiar use for which they

employed horn was as a socket for holding other implements. Thus

this figure shows us an ax in a socket of horn. The middle of the

socket is generally perforated with a round or oval hole,

intended to receive a handle of oak, birch, or some other kind of

wood adapted for such a use. The cut below represents a hatchet

of this kind. A number of these sockets have been found, which

were provided at the end opposite to the stone hatchet with a

strong and pointed tooth. These are boars’ tusks, firmly buried

in the stag’s horn. These instruments, therefore, fulfilled

double purposes: they cut or crushed with one end and pierced

with the other. Sockets are also found which are not only

provided with the boars’ tusks, but are hollowed out at each end,

so as to hold two flint hatchets at once, as is seen in our next

figure. Chisels and gouges were also sometimes placed in bone

handles. Portions of horn probably at times did duty as hoes. We

give a representation of such an implement.20 We must now seek

some information as to how the men of the Neolithic Age supported

life.

Sheath, with two Hatchets, Chisel in Sheath, and Horn Hoe.

From the remains of fish at all the lake settlements it is

evident they formed no inconsiderable portion of their food.

Fishing nets and hooks have been discovered. They were successful

hunters as well. But the men of this age were no longer dependent

on the chase for a livelihood. We have mentioned several times

that they were acquainted with agriculture. This implies a great

advance over the primitive hunters of the early Stone Age.

On the shores of the lakes which furnished them with a place of

habitation they raised many of our present species of grain.

Owing to a cause of which we have already spoken—that is,

destruction of the lake settlements by fire—the carbonized

remains of these cereals have been preserved to us. There were

four varieties of wheat raised, none exactly like our common

wheat. In addition to this they raised barley and millet, several

varieties of each. Nor were the fruits neglected. Apples and

pears were dried and laid away for use in the Winter. Seeds of

the common berries were found in abundance, showing that these

primitive people were fully alive to their value.

From this it follows that the Neolithic people were not only

tillers of the soil, but horticulturists as well. According to

Dr. Keller, the vegetable kingdom furnished their principal

supply of food. Hazelnuts, beechnuts, and chestnuts were found in

such quantities as to show they had been gathered for use.

Neither hemp, oats, nor rye were known. Not only do we find the

remains of the grains, fruits, seeds, etc., from which the above

conclusions are drawn, but, farther than this, pieces of bread

have been found in a carbonized state, and thus as effectually

preserved as the bread of a far later date found in the ovens of

Pompeii. According to Figuier, the peasant classes of Tuscany now

bake bread, after merely bruising the grain, by pouring the

batter on glowing stones and then covering it with ashes. As this

ancient prehistoric bread is of similar shape, it was probably

baked in an equally primitive fashion.21

Aside from the natural interest we feel in these evidences as to

ancient industry, a study of the remains of plants cultivated by

the Neolithic people reveals to us two curious and suggestive

facts. It has been found that the wild plants then growing in

Switzerland are in all respects like the wild plants now growing

there. But the cultivated plants—wheat, millet, etc.—differ from

all existing varieties, and invariably have smaller seeds or

fruits.22 This shows us that man has evidently been able to

effect considerable change by cultivation, in the common grains,

during the course of the many centuries which separate the

Neolithic times from our own age. But if this rate of change be

adopted as a measure of time, what shall we say is to the

antiquity demanded to explain the origin of cultivated grain from

the wild grasses of their first form?

We learn, in the second place, that the cultivated plants are all

immigrants from the south-east—their native home being in

South-eastern Europe and Asia Minor. We shall afterward see that

this is true of the domestic animals also. There can be but one

explanation for this. The ancient inhabitants of Europe must have

come from that direction, and brought with them the plants they

had cultivated in their eastern homes, and the animals they had

reduced to their service. The traces of agriculture thus found in

Switzerland are by no means confined to that country. In other

countries of Europe, such as England and France, we also find

proofs that men cultivated the earth. In localities where we do

not find the grain itself, we find their rude mills, or mealing

stones, which as plainly indicate a knowledge of the agricultural

art as the presence of the cereals themselves.23

As we have stated, Neolithic man in Europe possessed domestic

animals. He was not only a cultivator of the soil, but he was a

herdsman as well; and he kept herds of oxen, sheep, and goats.

Droves of hogs fattened on the nuts of the forest, and the dog

associated with man in keeping and protecting these domestic

animals. We know that the Swiss Lake inhabitants built little

stalls by the sides of their houses, in which they kept their

cattle at night. But these domestic animals were not descendants

of the wild animals that roamed the forests of Europe. Like the

plants, they are immigrants from the south-east. Our best

authorities consider they were brought into Europe by the

invading Neolithic tribes.

The knowledge of husbandry, though rude, and the possession of

domestic animals, though of a few species only, strikingly

indicate the advance over the Paleolithic tribes. They also had

fixed places of living. This culture spread all over Europe. That

it was substantially the same everywhere there is no doubt.

Certain refuse heaps in Denmark, Scotland, and indeed in all the

sea-coast countries, have been thought to support a different

conclusion. Those of Denmark have been very carefully studied,

and so we will refer to them. All along the Baltic coast, but

especially in Denmark, have been discovered great numbers of

mounds, which were found to consist “almost entirely of shells,

especially of the oyster, broken bones of animals, remains of

birds and fishes, and, lastly, some wrought flints.” The first

supposition in regard to those shell-heaps was that they were of

marine formation, accumulated beneath the sea, and elevated to

the surface along with the gradual rise of the land. But they are

now known to be nothing more or less than the sites of ancient

settlements. The location of the rude cabins can still be traced.

The ancient hearths are still in place. “Tribes once existed here

who subsisted on the products of hunting and fishing, and threw

out around their cabins the remains of their meals, consisting

especially of the _débris_ of shell-fish.” These heaps gradually

accumulated around their rude dwellings, and now constitute the

refuse heaps in question.24

The careful investigation of their contents has failed to

disclose any evidence of a knowledge of agriculture, and the only

domestic animal found is the dog. The implements are altogether

of stone and horn. No trace of metal has yet been obtained. As a

rule, they are rudely made and finished. Though of the Neolithic

type, they are not polished except in a few instances. The

principal interest turns on the question of age of these refuse

heaps. Some think they were accumulated at the very beginning of

the Neolithic Age—that these tribes preceded by many years the

men of the Swiss Lakes. Others think they were tribes of the same

great people, living at the same time. On such a point as this,

only those who have carefully studied the deposits are entitled

to speak.

Some few facts stand out quite prominently. The size of the

mounds25 indicate long-continued residence—showing that these

people had permanent places of abode. As they are not confined to

Denmark, but are found generally throughout Europe, it would seem

to imply that the Neolithic people preferred to live as fishers

and hunters wherever the surroundings were such that they could

by these means obtain an abundant supply of food. Some

shell-heaps in Scotland were still forming at the commencement of

the Bronze Age; and Mr. Geikie, on geological grounds, assigns

the shell-heaps of Denmark to a late epoch of the Stone Age.

It seems to us quite natural that isolated tribes, living where

game was abundant, and where fishing met with a rich reward,

should turn in disgust from the agricultural life of their

brother tribes, and, resuming the life of mere hunters and

fishers, speedily lose somewhat of their hardly won culture—for

civilization is the product of labor. Whenever a people from

necessity or choice abandon one form of labor for another

demanding less skill to triumph over nature, a retrogression in

culture is inevitable.26

Miner’s Pick.

From what we have stated as to the use of flint we can readily

see that it was a valuable material. Sections where it was found

in abundance would as certainly become thickly populated as the

iron and gold regions of our own day. In Paleolithic times the

supply of flint was mostly obtained from the surface and in the

gravel of rivers. In Neolithic times men had learned to mine for

flint. Flint occurs in nodules in the chalk. Near Brandon,

England, was discovered a series of these workings. They consist

of shafts connected together by galleries. These pits vary in

size from twenty to sixty feet in diameter, and in some cases

were as much as thirty feet deep. From the bottom of these shafts

they would excavate as far as they dared to the sides. They made

no use of timbers to support the roof, and so these side

excavations were not of great extent. In these old workings the

miners sometimes left behind them their tools. The principal one

was a pick made of deer’s horn, as is here represented. Besides

these, they had chisels of bone and antler. The marks of stone

hatchets on the sides of the gallery are visible.

In one instance the roof had caved in, evidently during the

night, and on clearing out the gallery near the end where the

roof stood firm, there were found the implements of the workmen,

just as they were left at the close of the day’s work; and in one

place on the pick, covered with chalk dust, was still to be seen

the marks of the workman’s hand. How many years, crowded with

strange scenes, have swept over England since that chalky

impression was made! The surface of the earth is a palimpsest, on

which each stage of culture has been written over the faint,

almost obliterated, records of the past. Not only the living man,

who has left there the impression of his hand has passed away,

but also his people and his culture. And now it is only here and

there that we catch a faint tracing underlying our later

civilization, by which we reconstruct the history of these

far-away times.

Nothing would be more natural than that where flint was found in

abundance a regular manufactory of implements would be

established. Such was the case at Cissbury, which we have already

mentioned as one of the early British towns. Mines had been dug

within the walls inclosing the town. The surface of the ground

near the old mines at this place is literally covered by

splinters of flint in every stage of manufacture, “from the

nodule of flint fresh out of the chalk, spoilt by an unlucky

blow, to the article nearly finished and accidentally broken.”27

Here the flint was mined and chipped into rudimentary shape, but

carried away to be perfected and polished.

A very important place in Neolithic manufactures was noticed near

Tours, France. Here was an abundant supply of flint, and very

easily obtained, and the evidence is conclusive that here existed

real manufactories. Of one stretch of ground, having an area of

twelve or fourteen acres, we are told: “It is impossible to walk

a single step without treading on some of these objects.” Here we

find “hatchets in all stages of manufacture, from the roughest

attempt up to a perfectly polished weapon. We find, also, long

flakes or flint-knives cleft off with a single blow with

astonishing skill.”

But in all these objects there is a defect; so it is concluded

that these specimens were refuse thrown aside in the process of

manufacture. As at Cissbury, very few polished flints are found,

so we may conclude the majority of weapons were carried elsewhere

for completion. But some weapons were completed here. In the

neighborhood have been found the stones used as polishers. This

cut shows us one used in polishing the axes. The workmen would

take one of the rough-hewn instruments, and, rubbing it back and

forth on such a stone as this, gradually produced a smooth

surface and a sharpened edge.28

Polishing Stone.

We have suggested that our civilization owes a great deal to

flint. If we will consider the surroundings of their

manufacturing sites, we will see the force of this remark. It

must have taxed to the utmost the powers of these primitive men

to sink the shafts and run the galleries to secure a supply of

this valuable stone. In short, they had to invent the art of

quarrying and working mines. This would lead to the division of

labor, for while one body of men would become experts as miners,

others would become skillful in chipping out the implements, and

still others would do the finishing and polishing. A system of

barter or trade would also arise, for the workmen at the mines

and factories would have to depend on others for food and

clothing, and in payment for the same would furnish them

implements. As localities where flint could be obtained in

suitable quantities are but few, we can see how trade between

widely scattered tribes would arise. This kind of traffic is

shown to have extended over wide distances in Neolithic times.

For instance, there was been found scattered over Europe axes

made of varieties of stone known as nephrite and jade. They were

highly valued by primitive tribes, being very hard and of a

beautiful green color. They are thought to have been employed in

the observance of superstitious rites. But quarries of these

varieties of stone do not occur in Europe. An immense amount of

labor has been expended in finding their native home. This is now

known to be in Asia.29 Manufactured in Asia, axes of these

materials may have drifted into Europe and finally arrived in

England.

Neolithic Boat-making.

Trade between different tribes must have been greatly facilitated

by means of canoes, which Neolithic man knew well how to make.

The art of navigation was probably well advanced. The canoes were

formed of the trunks of large trees. In most cases they were

hollowed out by means of the ax and fire combined. Sometimes the

ends were partially rounded or pointed, but often cut nearly

square across—rather a difficult shape to propel fast or to guide

properly. These ancient boats have been found in nearly all the

principal rivers of Europe, and in many cases, no doubt, come

down to much later date than the Neolithic Age. From the remains

of fish found in their refuse heaps we are confident that in some

such a shaped boat as this they trusted themselves far out at

sea. They served to transport them from the shores of Europe to

England, and at a later date to Ireland.

Neolithic Cloth.

The clothing of the men of the Neolithic Age doubtless consisted

largely of the prepared skins of the animals, and some fragments

of leather have been found in the lake settlements. But a very

important step in advance was the invention of spinning and

weaving, both of which processes were known at this time. The

cloth which is here represented is formed of twists of interwoven

flax, of rough workmanship, it is true, but none the less

remarkable, considering the epoch in which it was manufactured.

Balls of thread and twine have also been found.30 This cut is a

spindle-whorl. These have been discovered very often. They were

made sometimes of stone and at other times of pottery and bone.

The threads were made of flax, and the combs which were used for

pushing the threads of the warp into the weft show that it was

woven into linen on some kind of a loom. Several figures of the

loom have been given, but we have no certainty of their

correctness.31

Spindle-whorl, and Weaver’s Comb.

Let us now see if we can gather anything as to the religious

belief of Neolithic man. On this point we can at best only

indulge in vague conjectures. Yet some light seems thrown on this

difficult subject by examination of the burial mounds. This

introduces us to a subject of much interest which, in our hurried

review, we can but glance at.

Scattered over Europe are found numbers of mysterious monuments

of the past. Some of them we have mentioned already as the

embankments surrounding ancient villages. But aside from these

are other monuments, such as burial mounds, rude dolmens, and

great standing stones, sometimes arranged in circles, sometimes

in rows, and sometimes standing singly. Many of these remains may

be of a far later date than the Neolithic Age, still it is

extremely difficult to draw a dividing line between the monuments

of different ages.

Chambered Burial Ground, Denmark.

Dolmen, England.

Burial mounds are found everywhere, many in Europe going back to

the Neolithic Age, though some are of a very recent construction.

The Egyptian Pyramids are burial mounds on the grandest scale.

The first cut represents a Danish Tumulus, or burial mound, of

this Age. The openings lead to the center of the mound, where

they connect with chambers in which the bodies were formerly

placed. There are, of course, various modifications of this

tumulus. Often the gallery was omitted, a rude chamber was

erected, and a mound reared over it. Sometimes, indeed, no

chamber was made, but simply a mound placed over the body.

Dolmen, France.

Dolmen, once covered with Earth.

There have been found in England a great many stones arranged as

in the preceding cut, though generally not built with such

regularity as is there represented. They are named Dolmens, a

word meaning stone tables. They were more generally made of rough

stones, rudely arranged. This cut represents one found in France.

In early times these were supposed to have been rude altars used

by the mysterious Druids in celebrating their rites. They are now

known to be the tombs of the Neolithic Age. They are, in fact,

the chambers above mentioned. The mound of earth has since

disappeared and left its chamber standing exposed to the air.

Traces of the old passage way are still met. Whether all Dolmens

were once covered with earth or not, is not yet known. In the

majority of cases they probably were. In the last cut portions of

stone are still buried in the earth. We are told that in India

the people in some places still erect Dolmens similar to those of

Neolithic times.32

Menhir.

Stone Circle, England.

Aside from the tombs themselves, there are other arrangements of

great stones which must have once possessed great significance to

their builders, but their meaning is now lost. Of this nature are

the blocks of rough stone set up in the ground generally in the

vicinity of tombs. These are the standing stones, or menhirs,

which, as we have stated, are arranged in various forms. When

arranged in circles, they are generally regarded as tombs. When

placed in long parallel rows, as at Carnac, in France, we are not

sure of their meaning. We are told that the Hill tribes of India

to this day erect combinations of gigantic stones into all the

shapes we have here described.33

The peculiar shape of the burial mounds, with a passage way

conducting us to an interior chamber, or series of chambers,

probably arose from the belief entertained by many savage people,

that the dead continue to live an existence much like that when

alive, and consequently the same surroundings were deemed

necessary for their comfort. So the tomb was made similar to the

house of the living. The ordinary Winter huts of the Laplander

are very similar in shape and size to the burial tumuli, and

amongst some people, as the inhabitants of New Zealand, the house

itself is made the grave. It was closed up and painted red, and

afterward considered sacred.

Chambered Tomb, France.

So it may quite well be that the Neolithic inhabitants of

Denmark, “unable to imagine a future altogether different from

the present, or a world quite unlike our own, showed their

respect and affection for the dead by burying with them those

things which in life they had valued most; with women, their

ornaments, with warriors, their weapons. They buried the house

with its owner, and the grave was literally the dwelling of the

dead. When a great man died he was placed on his favorite seat,

food and drink was arranged before him, his weapons were placed

by his side, his house was closed, and the door covered up,

sometimes, however, to be opened again when his wife or children

joined him in the land of spirits.”

That they believed in a life beyond the grave is shown by the

objects they buried with the individuals. These are implements of

various kinds, flakes, arrow-heads, scrapers, celts, and pottery,

doubtless intended to be of service to the deceased. We know this

to be a very common proceeding amongst all barbarous people. In

some cases it would appear as if they realized that the material

things themselves could be of no service to the departed, but

imagined that in some vague way the spirits of things might be of

service to the spirits of men, and so they would purposely break

the flints and throw the fragments into the grave. Sometimes they

may have buried only models of the objects they wished to give to

the dead, imagining that in this way the spirits of the objects

represented would accompany and be of service to the spirits of

the departed. To this day the Eskimos bury small models of boats,

spears, etc., rather than the objects themselves. The ancient

Etruscans buried jewelry, but made it so thin and fragile that it

could not have been of service to the living. In China this is

carried still further, and paper cuttings or drawings of horses,

money, etc., are burned at the grave.

These remarks may explain the absence of remains so often noticed

in Neolithic burials in England. But other evidence can be given

to show this belief in future life. The mounds were of course

often erected over noted chiefs, and we are not without evidence

that he was not allowed to go unattended into the other world. It

has been noted that often skeletons have been met with having the

skull, cleft, and in one case, at least, all but one presented

that appearance. It is but reasonable to suppose that these

skeletons were those of captives or slaves sacrificed to be the

attendants of the chief in the spirit world. Funeral feasts were

also held in honor of the dead. Thus we may gather from burial

mounds something of the religious belief of their occupants.

It is not improbable that ancestor worship, or the worship of the

dead, was part of their faith, so that the mounds became temples.

On this point we are told “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

religions belief.”34

We now approach a difficult part of our inquiry, but, at the same

time, one that possesses for us a great interest. Who were these

people into whose culture we have been inquiring? While laying

the foundation of our present civilization, though being the

fountain head from whence many of the arts and industries, which

now make our existence comfortable and happy, take their feeble

origin, gradually developing and expanding as the time rolls on,

have they themselves, as a race, vanished in the mighty past, or

are their descendants still to be found in Europe? Who were they?

Whence and when? Difficult problems, but we have read to but

little purpose if we have not already learned that earnest

observers need but the slightest clue to enable them to trace out

brilliant results.

In the first place, are there any grounds for supposing the

Neolithic people to be the descendants of those who hunted the

reindeer along the Vézère? This view has its supporters. M.

Quatrefages, a very able scholar indeed, maintains that the

Neolithic people were the same race as those who inhabited the

caves and found shelter in the rock grottoes of France.35 This,

to others, does not seem credible. We must recall the long lapse

of time that it is apparent has elapsed between the two ages. We

have seen how different were the two cultures; as Mr. Geikie

remarks, “So great, indeed, is the difference between the

conditions of life that obtained in the two ages of Stone, that

we can hardly doubt that the two people came of different

stocks.”36 The Neolithic people brought with them domestic

animals and plants whose native home is in Western Asia. We can

hardly account for this fact, if we suppose them to be the

descendants of Paleolithic tribes in France.

Abandoning, therefore, any attempt to trace lines of connection

between the people of the two ages, let us carefully study all

the facts connected with the Neolithic people and their culture,

to see if we can solve the problem by so doing. We have noticed

that substantially the same stage of culture existed throughout

Europe from Switzerland to the British Islands. This points to

the presence of a common race during at least a portion of the

time. But if there was a common race living in Europe they would

certainly possess common physical features. As a race they may

have been tall in stature, or medium, or short, and portions of

the human skeleton would show a uniformity in this regard.

Now one of the means that scientists use to determine the races

of men is a comparison of skulls, measured in a systematic

manner. The objection has been made that no reliance can be

placed on these results, because at the present day skulls of all

sorts of shapes and sizes can be obtained among people of the

same nationality. But these objections would not apply to people

of prehistoric times. Their surroundings would be simple and

natural—not artificial and complex, as in modern times. In our

times people of different nationality are constantly coming in

contact, and intermarriage results; but in prehistoric times this

was not liable to occur, and so the comparative purity of blood

would certainly produce a much greater uniformity of physical

features.37

From a very careful examination of a great number of burial

mounds in Great Britain, it has been ascertained that in all of

those that date back to Neolithic times, and contain portions of

human skeletons, the bones are always those of individuals small

in stature, the average height being about five and a half feet.

The skulls are of that variety known as long skulls. From this we

can at once form a mental picture of the Neolithic inhabitants of

Britain. No less important conclusions have been deduced from the

study of burial mounds on the continent. We meet with remains of

these same small-sized people. “They have left traces of their

presence in numerous interments in chambered tombs and caves in

Belgium and France, as well as in Spain and Gibraltar. We may

therefore conclude that at one period in the Neolithic Age the

population of Europe, west of the Rhine and north of the Alps,

was uniform in physique and consisted of the same small people as

the Neolithic inhabitants of Britain and Ireland.”38

We must now inquire whether there are any people living in Europe

which might have descended from the original stock. We are in the

position of those who, from a few broken down arches, a ruined

tower and dismantled wall, would seek to form a mental picture of

the stately building that once stood there. If we can here and

there discover, by the light of history or exploration, some

races or tribes that, owing to their geographical position, have

escaped the fate that befell the great body of their countrymen,

we may perhaps replace our mental picture by one founded on

reality. Nor need we be in doubt where to seek for such scattered

remnants of people. Successful invaders always appropriate to

their own use the fertile lowlands and the fruitful portions of

the country of their helpless foes. But a weak people have often,

in the rocky fastnesses of their land, made a successful stand.

So, to determine the race, we will examine the people living in

such regions, and see if there are any that physically conform to

what is already known of the Neolithic people, and so entitled to

claim a relationship by descent.

Both slopes of Pyrenees Mountains, between France and Spain, have

been occupied from time immemorial by a peculiar race of people

known as the Basque. Secure in their mountain homes, they have

resisted foreign civilization, and retained their national

characteristics as well as their liberties, though they have been

nominally vassals to many powers, from the early Carthaginians to

the later French and Spanish. From the many invasions they have

undergone the Basque language and people are by no meals uniform.

But Dr. Broca, one of the most learned anthropologists in Europe,

has shown that the original Basques were dark in complexion, with

black hair and eyes. In addition to this, the efforts of some of

the most eminent scholars in Europe,39 who have made numerous

examinations of skulls and skeletons obtained from ancient Basque

cemeteries, have conclusively shown that in all physical features

the Basques agree with men of Neolithic times.40

The Basques do not belong to the great division of the human

family known as Aryans, to which the English-speaking races, as

well as the nations of Europe generally, belong. They belong to a

far older division of the human family—the Turanian41—and were

doubtless in possession of Europe long before the Indo-European

nations commenced their westward migrations from Central Asia.

They are described as being brave, industrious, and frugal, with

patriarchal manners and habits. They scorn authority, except what

emanates from themselves, and have but few nobility. They are

impetuous, merry, and hospitable, fond of music and dancing.42 Of

their warfare we are told they are “not distinguished in open

warfare, but unconquerable in guerrilla warfare, and famed for

defense of walled cities.”43 Such are the Basques of to-day, and

many of these traits of character, we doubt not, were the same

amongst the Neolithic people.

Mr. Dawkins also thinks that two tribes, living in Northern

Italy, in the very earliest historical times, are other remnants

of the same people. One of these were the Ligurians.

Investigations and traditions show that some time before the dawn

of history they had been driven out of the pleasant parts of

Southern France, but had made a successful stand in the mountain

regions of Northern Italy. They, like the Basques, were strong,

active, and warlike. They were small in stature, swarthy in

features, and long-headed. To the south of these were the

Etruscans. But little is known of them, though the evidence is

that long before the Christian Era they were a powerful people.

In physical features they resembled those already described.

Their sculpture exhibits only short, sturdy figures, with large

heads and thick arms. Another possible remnant of these people

existed at the very dawn of history in the mountainous regions of

Wales. They were known as Silures. but have since become absorbed

in the surrounding population. In civilization and physical

features they agree with the remnants already described.

In the north of Russia are found the Finns. Their origin and

migrations are alike unknown. One thing is certain, they belong

to the Turanian family, and so are probably allied to the Basques

and Etruscans. It is possible that they also are but a sorry

remnant of the once wide-spread Neolithic people. Driven out of

the fairer portions of Europe, they hive found an asylum in their

present bleak surroundings. Like the people already described,

they are short in stature, and dark visaged.44

The tribes we have thus briefly mentioned are regarded by some as

representatives of the Neolithic people. Prof. Winchell, speaking

of the wide-spread extension of the Turanian race, assures us,

that “history, tradition, linguistics, and ethnology conspire to

fortify the conclusions that, in prehistoric times, all Europe

was overspread by the Mongoloid (Turanian) race, of which

remnants have survived to our own times in the persons of the

Basques, Finns, Esths, Lapps, and some smaller tribes.”45

Researches into the surroundings of these people, combined with

what we have already learned as to the culture, customs, and

manners of the Neolithic people in the preceding pages, throw no

little light on this age. The darkness of oblivion seems

dispelled by the light of science, and we behold before us the

Europe of Neolithic times, thickly inhabited by a race of people,

small in stature, dark visaged, and oval-faced—fond of war and

the chase, yet having a rude system of agriculture. The picture

seems complete; and we have now only to raise some inquiries as

to the great stock of people to which they belonged, and

conjecture as to the date of their arrival in Europe.46

We are now learning that far back in the past, when mankind was

yet young in the world, the great Turanian family held a

commanding position. They seem to have dispersed widely over the

earth. Their migrations began long before that of the Aryan and

Semitic people. When tribes of these later people began their

wanderings, they found a Turanian people inhabiting the country

wherever they went. Long before the times of Abraham, the fertile

plains of Chaldea were the home of powerful tribes of this

family. Egypt, and the fertile Nile Valley, the home of ancient

civilization, was their possession at a time long preceding the

rise of the Pharaohs. Their Asiatic origin is corroborated by

what we have learned of their domestic animals and cereals, which

we know to be also from Asia, or the south-east. These Turanian

tribes, at some far remote time, must have appeared in Asia

Minor. Urged onward by the pressure of increasing population,

they passed into Europe and Northern Africa. Their progress was,

doubtless, slow; but they gradually filled Europe. The English

Channel must have presented no inconsiderable barrier, and it was

after Europe had been populated for a long time that they

ventured to brave its passage in their rude canoes.

The Neolithic culture, which we have treated of in reference to

Europe only, is seen to have been of Turanian origin. From its

Asiatic home it spread over the entire world—to the islands of

the Pacific, and even America. The road that leads from barbarism

to civilization is long and difficult, and it is not strange that

but one or two families of men were able to attain that end by

their own unaided effort.47 The Turanian Family, which probably

advanced man from savagism into barbarism, seems to have at that

stage exhausted its energies. This is but an illustration of the

fact that a race, like an individual, has a period of growth, a

maturity of healthful powers, and an old age of slow decadence.

After thus dispersing over the world, carrying with them the

culture of the Neolithic Age, they seem to have halted in their

progress. It remained for a new people, starting, perhaps, from

the same state of culture, but with new energies, to discover and

employ metals in the construction of tools and implements. This

gave them so great a command over nature that civilization became

possible. But whatever considerable advance the Turanian races

were able to make beyond the Neolithic culture was by reason of

intercourse with these later people. Where completely isolated

from them, as in the New World, they remained, for the most part,

in the Neolithic culture.48

We have hitherto spoken as if there was but one race in Europe

during Neolithic times. In the main this is true; yet, near the

close of this time, a different race arrived in Europe. That this

is so, is proved by the same line of evidence used to determine

the Neolithic people. We shall have much to say of them

hereafter. They were the vanguard of the great Aryan race. This

calls for some explanation. It has been found that the principal

languages of Europe and South-western Asia have certain common

characteristics; so much so that we are justified, even

compelled, to assume that the nations speaking these languages,

such for instance as the Teutonic, Sclavic, Italic, Greek,

Persian, Hindoostanee, and others, are descendants from a common

ancestor. These people are called, collectively, Aryans. They

were the ones who drove the Turanians out of the fairest portions

of Europe. Though they appeared at a late date, they have filled

the most important places in history, and the civilization of the

world to-day is Aryan.

Now we must again form a mental picture of Neolithic Europe—

after it had been for a long time in the possession of the

Turanian tribes, the first band of Aryan invaders make their

appearance. They must have appeared somewhere near the

south-eastern confines of Europe, but they pressed forward to the

western portion. They firmly seated themselves in the western and

central parts of Europe, driving out the Turanian tribes who had

so long possessed the land. They were themselves still in the

Neolithic stage of culture. But they probably did not long

antedate the knowledge of metals. Mr. Dawkins thinks that it

caught up with them before they arrived in Britain, and that they

are the ones who introduced bronze into that island. The Aryan

tribe, who thus made their appearance in Europe, are identified

as the Celts of history.

The Neolithic Age thus drew to its close, but not all at once. It

disappeared first in the southern portion of Europe—from Greece

and Italy; but it lingered to a far later date in the north:

among the scattered tribes of Turanian people it would still

assert its sway. Even after metals were introduced, the cheapness

and abundance of stone would cause it to be used, among the

poorer people at least. But finally this culture gives way to a

higher one in Europe—though it still survived in portions of

Asia, the Isles of the Pacific, and in America. We can but

reflect on the difference between the two ages of stone. The

former ends amidst Arctic scenes—and, in the darkness that

ensues, ages pass before we again detect the presence of man. The

Neolithic closes gradually, everywhere giving way to a higher

culture. We must not forget that our present civilization owes

much to our far away Neolithic ancestors. When we reflect on the

difficulties that had to be overcome before animals could be

profitably held in a domestic state, or cultivation of the earth

made profitable, we almost wonder that they succeeded in either

direction. Aside from these, we turn to them for the origin of

trade, navigation, and mining. No inconsiderable part of the

battle of civilization had thus been won.

REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to Prof. Chas.

Rau, of the Smithsonian Institution, for criticism.

The Cave-men were, undoubtedly, considerably in advance of the

Men of the Drift. If we regard the two as but one race of men,

then the statement is not true. We have, however, given our

reasons for considering the Cave-men as a different race. Hence

the statement made above.

Consult Geikie’s “Prehistoric Europe,” chapters on “British

Post-glacial and Recent Deposits.”

Lions still lived in Greece at the time of Herodotus. See

“Polymnia,” vii, 125, etc.

This last argument is drawn from Mr. Morgan’s work. It is well

to state that his divisions are very far from being accepted by

all authorities.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society.”

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 189.

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” p. 223.

On lake settlements, consult Keller’s “Lake Dwellings;” Rau’s

“Early Man in Europe,” chap. v; Sir John Lubbock’s “Prehistoric

Times,” chap. vi; Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” p. 218, _et seq._

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” p. 222.

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 270.

Keller’s “Lake Dwellings.” Translated by Lee.

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” p. 153.

General Lane Fox’s “Hill Forts of Sussex,” Archæology, vol.

xvii.

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 267.

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 56.

Mr. Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 274.

Smithsonian Report, 1868.

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 103.

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” pp. 161-166.

“Primitive Man,” p. 171.

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 219.

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 268.

These heaps are generally called “kjökken-möddings”—meaning

kitchen refuse.

One mound is spoken of as being one thousand feet long, two to

three hundred feet wide, and ten feet high.

On Danish Shell Mounds, consult Keary’s “Dawn of History,” p.

369, _et seq._; Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” chap. vii;

Geikie’s “Prehistoric Europe,” pp. 365-9; Figuier’s “Primitive

Man,” pp. 129-134; Rau’s “Early Man in Europe,” pp. 108-113;

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” pp. 309-305.

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 279.

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” pp. 147-150 and 154: Another very

important place was the Island of Rügen, in the Baltic Sea.

Rau’s “Early Man in Europe,” p. 137.

“Proceedings American Antiq. Society, April, 1881,” p. 286.

Figuier’s “Primitive Man,” p. 262.

See remarks of Prof. Rau on this subject (“Early Man in

Europe,” pp. 128-9 and note.) Mr. Dawkins thinks it “probable

also that the art of weaving woolen cloth was known, although,

from its perishable nature, no trace of it has been handed down

to us.” (“Early Man in Britain,” p. 275.)

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 132.

Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” p. 130.

On this subject consult Lubbock’s “Prehistoric Times,” chap.

v.; Keary’s “Dawn of History,” p. 363-6; Geikie’s “Prehistoric

Europe,” p. 375; Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 284-9;

Ferguson’s “Rude Stone Monuments;” Figuier’s “Primitive Man,”

chap. iii.; Rau’s “Early Man in Europe,” p. 139; “Archæology,”

Vol. XLII.

“Human Species”, p. 335.

“Prehistoric Europe,” p. 547.

Dawkins’s “Early Man in Britain,” p. 310, note 3.

Ibid., p. 314.

Thurman, Virchow, Huxley, and others.

Mr. Dawkins is inclined to view them as a remnant of the

Neolithic people. Whether our scholars will ultimately accept

his views, remains to be seen.

Brace’s “Races of the Old World,” p. 82,

Am. Encyclopedia, Art. Basque.

Brace’s “Races of the Old World,” p. 82.

Brace’s “Races of the Old World,” p. 82.

“Pre-Adamites,” p. 150.

It is unnecessary to caution the reader, that, after all, our

knowledge of “prehistory” is vague. Prof. Virchow, who is

eminent authority on these points, thinks it not yet possible

to identify the prehistoric people of Europe; and good

authorities hold that the Turanian tribes just named are the

remnants of Paleolithic tribes, instead of Neolithic.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 39.

The exceptions to this statement are the higher classes of

sedentary Indians, of which we shall treat in future pages.

Chapter VII

THE BRONZE AGE IN EUROPE.1

Races of Men, like Individuals—Gradual change of Neolithic Age to

that of Bronze—The Aryan family—First Aryans Neolithic—Origin of

Bronze—How Great discoveries are made—Gold the first metal—Copper

Abundant—No Copper Age—The discovery of Tin—Explanation of an

Alloy—Bronze, wherever found, the same Composition—What is meant

by the Bronze Age—Knowledge in other Directions—Gradual Growth of

Culture—Three Centers of Bronze Production—Habitations during the

Bronze Age—The Bronze Ax—Implements of Bronze—Personal

ornaments—Ornaments not always made of Bronze—Advance in Arts of

living—Advance in Agriculture—Warlike Weapons—How they worked

Bronze—Advance in Government—Trade in the Bronze Age—Religion of

the Bronze Age—Symbolical figures—Temples of the Bronze

Age—Stonehenge.

ITis with races of men as with individuals, the progressive

growth of youth soon reaches its limit and maturity of power.

While it brings greater strength, it has not the buoyancy of

early years, so the manner of life becomes fixed, and onward

progress stops. They can then only hope to hold on the even tenor

of their way, happy if increasing years do not bring again their

childhood state. The Neolithic people entered Europe early in the

youth of the race which spread their civilization over the globe,

but the race to which they belonged appear to have reached their

zenith of development long ages ago, since which time, whatever

higher culture they have reached has been a gift to them by other

people. Their energies became exhausted, and for a long series of

years Europe was filled by the camps, lake villages and fortified

places of Neolithic times.

As to the absolute length of time during which they inhabited

Europe, we have no data to determine. Relatively, their sojourn,

however long, was but a short time compared to the duration of

the old Stone Age. It presents no such evidence of lapse of ages

as can be observed in the older deposits, yet we may be sure that

it was for no inconsiderable period.

The Paleolithic Age was apparently terminated in Europe by the

cold of the last glacial epoch. No such natural course put an end

to the Neolithic Age, but as the strong have an advantage over

the weak, the young over the old, so does a race young,

undeveloped, or in the early maturity of its powers, have an

advantage over the older and more fixed civilization with which

it comes in contact. To understand the causes which introduced

into Europe the Bronze Age, we must refer to the Aryan race and

to Asia.

We have in the preceding chapter briefly mentioned the Aryan

race. They have so much to do with the higher culture of the

Metallic Ages, that it seems not out of place to refer once more

to their origin. The evidence goes to show that the ancient

Aryans inhabited some portion of South-western Asia. As a race or

family, they appear to have been one of the latest developed. Yet

a record of their progress is a record of civilization.

Unless we reflect, we are liable to be misled by the expression,

recent development. The Hindoos, one of the latest members of

this family, were in India several thousand years before Christ.2

But however far back we trace them, we find them in possession of

metals. Aside from this, we know that before the different Aryan

tribes had commenced their migration (with the exception,

however, of the Celts), while they formed but one mass of people,

they worked some of the metals.3 They could have acquired this

knowledge only after the passage of many years, when they were

ignorant of it. This bespeaks a profound antiquity for the Aryan

family.

As we have seen, Europe, while yet inhabited by Neolithic people,

was invaded by a branch of the Aryans. We do not know the date of

this invasion, yet it must have been an early date, since the

Celts separated from the Aryans before the use of metals. The

Aryans have ever been noted as an aggressive people, and under

different names have, in modern times, carried victorious arms in

all quarters of the globe. This is equally characteristic of the

primitive Aryans. Though it is not apparent that they possessed

any higher culture than the people who already inhabited Europe,

yet they everywhere triumphed over them and possessed themselves

of the fairest portion of the Neolithic domain, driving the

primitive inhabitants to those mountainous regions where their

descendants are found to-day.

It is not probable that the Aryan invaders waged exterminating

war against the Neolithic tribes. The evidence shows that there

was considerable mingling of the two races. It has been

suggested, however, that the Neolithic people who were not driven

away were reduced to slavery.4 However that may be, the remains

of the two people are found side by side in chambered tombs and

sepulchral caverns, showing that they dwelt together in the same

area. As before remarked, the Aryan invaders are identified as

the Celts. That it was relatively late in the Neolithic Age when

they made their appearance, is shown by the fact that they had

only reached the English Channel when a knowledge of bronze

caught up with them.

We must now endeavor to learn the origin of bronze. The impulsive

energies of this newer race found vent not only in conquest over

the neighboring tribes, but it is extremely probable that they

are the ones who first compelled nature to yield up her metallic

stores to be of service to man. If the knowledge of fire was the

starting point of human advancement, surely the knowledge of

metals, their useful properties, and how to extract them from

their ores, may lay claim to being the starting point of our

present enlightenment. We have but to glance around us to see how

many of our daily comforts are dependent on the use of metals.

Should we, by any mischance, become deprived of the use of iron,

or of the useful alloys, bronze and brass, our civilization would

be in great danger of reverting to Savagism. Man, destitute of

metals, can do but little to improve his surroundings; but grant

him these, and victory over his environment is secured.

We can not retrace the exact steps of this beautiful discovery;

we are not sure to what family it is to be ascribed. Perhaps not

to any one alone. Nature may have taken her children by the hand,

and kindly guided their feeble steps in the line of experiments

leading up to this knowledge, and, finally, one family, more

fortunate than the others, succeeded in the attempt. All great

discoveries have been approached in different directions, by

different people. No sooner is it made than this fact appears,

and people widely separated by time and place are found to be on

the verge of the same great truth. It was probably so at the

discovery of metallurgy.

The Turanian tribes, who had so long inhabited Europe, were

suddenly confronted by the victorious hosts of the Celts, the

vanguard of the Aryans, the precursors of a higher culture. The

movements of these primitive people could not fail to have a

great effect on the human mind. It would become alert, keen, and

active. Such was the state of ancient society when a knowledge of

bronze was introduced—a discovery which consigned stone, hitherto

the substance most commonly made use of to advance human

interests, to a subordinate position, and opened up for man the

exhaustless mineral stores of nature.

It is suggested by some that gold was the first metallic

substance employed. Its glittering particles would attract the

attention of primitive man, and little articles of ornament were

early manufactured from it. To be sure, the supply was very

limited; but what there was would serve the useful purpose of

imparting to men some idea of metallic substances. Portions of it

falling in the fire might have suggested the idea of smelting and

of molding—might, at least, have lead to experiments in that

line. The supply of gold existing in a native state is so small,

that no use could have been made of it except for ornaments.

Iron, we know, is the most abundant mineral. But it is very rare

in a native state, and its ores have nothing distinguishing about

them, and so it is not strange that another metal received the

attention of primitive man. That metal was probably copper. It is

often found in a pure state in nature. In the Michigan mines of

our own country, masses of pure copper many tons in weight have

been discovered.5 No such rich deposits are found in the Old

World; but considerable quantities of native copper were

obtained, and it was by no means a rare metal. Copper possesses

several qualities that would attract attention. It is quite

malleable; that is, it can be easily hammered into shape. We can

imagine the surprise of the old stone-workers at finding a stone

that, instead of breaking or splitting, could be hammered into

shape. By accident, or otherwise it would be learned, in time,

that it could be melted. This would lead to the idea of molding.

If the above process were followed out, there would be a real

Copper Age preceding that of Bronze: no trace of such an age has

yet been detected in Europe. “But there is, however, every reason

for believing, that, in some parts of the world, the use of

native copper must have continued for a lengthened period before

it was discovered that the addition of a small portion of tin not

only rendered it more fusible, but added to its elasticity and

hardness.”6 The absence of a Copper Age in Europe would imply

that the art of manufacturing bronze was discovered in some other

locality.

Copper by itself is so soft that it would not be of much use to

man, except the experience they would gain of melting and

molding. In our own country the aboriginal inhabitants were well

acquainted with copper, and even knew how to mold it. Yet, except

as just pointed out, it is not probable that it exerted any

marked influence on their development.7 In the old world supplies

of native copper are limited, and recourse must be had to the

ores of copper. Now these ores, such as copper-pyrites, are

nearly always of a bright color, and as such would attract the

attention of primitive man. They might suspect that these bright

colored ores contained copper from finding similarly colored ores

in connection with native copper, in fact passing from one form

to the other. But it requires no little skill to reduce the ores

of copper; and, when obtained, for reasons just pointed out, it

would not be of great utility. But primitive man was thus

cautiously and experimentally feeling his way to a knowledge of

metallurgy.

All the evidence obtainable goes to show that tin was known as

early as copper, or at least soon after. Its ores though not

striking on account of their color, are on account of their great

weight. It is comparatively easy to reduce it from its ores. It

is quite widely distributed over the earth. It often occurs in

the gravels of rivers, where, as we have already mentioned,

primitive men must have, at a very early date, sought for gold.

Owing to their weight, the gravel of tin-stone would remain

behind with the gold when it was washed. “In process of time its

real nature might have been revealed by accident; and, before the

eye of the astonished beholder, the dull stone, flung into the

fire, became transfigured into the glittering metal.”8

When two metals come together in a molten state, they often form,

not a mixture of the two, part copper and part tin, for example,

but a new compound, different from either, called an alloy.

Copper is, so to speak, a sociable metal, and readily unites with

many different metals—amongst others with tin, when it forms

bronze, the article that marks a new state in the history of

primitive culture. It seems to us strange that an alloy, a

combination of two different metals, should have been the first

used by man, and not a simple metal like iron. Such, however, is

the fact of the case; and we have tried to point out the probable

steps which led up to the invention of bronze. We can scarcely

comprehend the difficulties which attended the labors of the

primitive metal-workers. There were no books containing the

wisdom of many, from which the investigator could draw his stores

of knowledge. and the only way that knowledge could be

disseminated was by word of mouth.

Now, when one man makes an important step in a discovery,

hundreds of earnest workers, some, perhaps, in distant places,

are quickly made aware of the fact, and extend its scope, or

point out its imperfections, and thus hasten on the desired end.

Then, each individual, or community, must, of necessity, have

commenced at the beginning, and the discoveries made would hardly

be perpetuated in the memory of others. There were so many

obstacles to be overcome before a knowledge of bronze could be

acquired, in the then existing state of human knowledge, that it

must ever remain a source of wonder to us, at the present day,

that it was invented at all.

We may picture to ourselves the ancient copper-worker, after

numerous experiments, guided by some good genius, finally hitting

on some process by which, from his mass of ore, he extracted a

nearly pure piece of copper. Having learned how to reduce these

ores, there are many ways in which it might have been found that

a mixture of the two metals would form a new compound of greatly

increased value.

It must have taken a long course of experiments to determine what

proportions of each metal to use to make the best bronze. It is

interesting to know that these early workers had learned the

proportions of each to use, not varying a great deal from the

results of modern research—that is, from ten to twelve per cent

of tin. Bronze relics, no matter where obtained, whether in the

Old or the New World, do not widely depart from this standard,

and such instances as do would probably denote that the supply of

tin became short. This uniformity of composition would imply that

the art of making bronze was discovered in one place, from which

it gradually spread over the globe.

This fact is a key to the culture of the Bronze Age. Widely

separated communities, destitute of a knowledge of metals, would

instinctively make use of stone. In this case uniformity of type

would not imply community of knowledge. But a knowledge of metals

is altogether different. It is wonder enough that one community

should have hit on the invention of bronze. The chance would be

against its independent discovery in widely separated areas. They

would be more apt to chance on the production of some other

metal. Thus; tribes in the interior of Africa are said to have

passed direct from the Stone to the Iron Age, a knowledge of

bronze not having been carried to them.

We are thus able to form a true conception of the Bronze Age. It

did not prevail over the world at the same time. Indeed, as we

shall subsequently see, there is every reason to suppose it

spread very slowly, and that it still lingered in Central and

Northern Europe long after its use had been abandoned for that of

iron in the South. Neither, when it was first introduced, did it

put a stop to the use of stone. It was necessarily costly, and on

its first appearance in a country, brought hither by trade, could

only be afforded by rich and powerful chiefs and warriors. As

time advanced, and they learned to make it cheaper, and each

country took up its separate manufacture, it would gradually

supersede stone. But bronze was never cheap enough to drive out

the use of stone altogether. This only occurred when the art of

working iron was discovered.

We shall learn that the knowledge of bronze, while a very

important and distinguishing phase of culture of the Bronze Age,

was not its only characteristic. It was distinguished by the

arrival and spread of the Aryan races, by a great extension of

commerce, by more refinements in the comforts of life, by the

increasing strength of government, which in after ages flowered

out in the mighty nations of antiquity, and rendered historic,

civilization possible.

Some facts stand out with great prominence. The origin of this

culture is lost in the very night of time. We may be sure that it

goes back to a profound antiquity, and that it extended over a

long series of years.

It is evident there was no great and sudden change from the

culture of the Stone Age to that of Bronze. It was as if the

darkness of night had given place to the roseate light of dawn,

to be shortly followed by the full day of historic times. It was

probably introduced by trade. The articles introduced in this way

would consist of simple implements, weapons, and ornaments.

Following after the trade would be found the smelter with his

tools, and, where the conditions were favorable, local

manufactories would be set up. But this home industry would not

prevent importation of more pretentious articles from abroad.

This would account for the rich collections of shields, swords,

and golden cups found in Denmark that betray an Etruscan origin.

Investigations of recent scholars show that the bronze of the

early Bronze Age came from Asia Minor. Subsequently there were

three great centers of bronze production, each having certain

styles. These were the Russian on the east, the Scandinavian on

the north, and the Mediterranean on the south. If this view be

correct, bronze must have been in use in the South of Europe long

before it was in the North. This view of the introduction of

bronze is, we think, that of the best scholars in Europe. Others,

however, think bronze was brought in by the invasion of the Aryan

tribes. Mr. Keary says: “The men of the Bronze Age were a new

race, sallying out of the east to dispossess the older

inhabitants, and if, in some places, the Bronze men and the Stone

men seem to have gone on for a time side by side, the general

characteristic of the change is that of a sudden break.”9 We have

shown that it was carried to England by an invasion, and it was,

perhaps, so introduced into Denmark, but in other countries of

Europe by trade.10

Let us now see what change in the home life, in the culture of

the people, would be brought about by the use of bronze. We must

reflect that we are not to deal with some new race, but with the

same race that inhabited Europe at the close of Neolithic times.

The people who had triumphed over nature with their implements of

stone were now put in possession of weapons and implements of

greatly increased efficiency. The results could not fail to

advance their culture. We would not expect any great change in

the houses. They would, however, be much better built. The

metallic tools were certainly a long ways ahead of the best stone

implements. With the aid of metallic axes, knives, saws, gouges,

and chisels, their cabins could be increased in size and

appearance. They still built settlements over the lakes, but the

Bronze Age settlements were more substantially built, and placed

farther out from shore. Fortified places were still numerous; the

remains of thousands of them of this age have been found in

Ireland. But the forests were cleared, wild animals disappeared,

society became more settled, and we may be sure that an

increasing number of little hamlets were scattered over the

country.

Caves were resorted to during this epoch only in times of danger.

One at Heathbury Burn, in England, contained portions of the

skeletons of two individuals, surrounded by many articles of

bronze and a mould for casting bronze axes. It is not difficult

to read the story. In some time of sudden danger workers in

bronze fled hither with their stores, but owing to some cause

were unable to escape the death from which they were fleeing, and

their bodies, with their mineral stores, were lost to sight until

the modern explorer made them a subject of scientific

speculations.11

Bronze Axes—First Form.

The most important implement was the ax. Our civilization has

originated from many small things. It is difficult to

overestimate the importance of the ax in advancing civilization.

The stone axes, easily blunted and broken, could have made but

little impression on the vast forests of pine, oak, and beech,

covering the greater part of Britain and the continent in the

Neolithic Age. Clearings necessary for pasture and agriculture

must unquestionably, then, have been produced principally by the

aid of fire. Under the edge of the bronze ax clearings would be

rapidly produced, pasture and arable land would begin to spread

over the surface of the country; with the disappearance of the

forests the wild animals would become scarce, hunting would cease

to be so important, agriculture would improve, and a higher

culture inevitably follow. “When first the sound of the woodman’s

ax was heard in the forests of the north, the victory of man over

his natural environments was secured, and the forest and morass

became his forever.”12

The bronze ax was used for a great variety of purposes, not only

as an ax, but as chisel, hoe, etc. As might be expected, the

oldest axes were simply modeled after the stone ones. The

preceding cut represents these simple forms.

They were inserted into the handle much the same as they did the

stone axes. It never occurred to these ancient workers to cast

the axes with a hole in them for the handle.

Bronze Axes—Second and Third Form.

The above cut represents the second form of the ax. The trouble

with the first was that much usage would inevitably split the

handle. To remedy this, a stop or ridge was raised across the

celt, and the metal and the wood were made to fit into one

another. The small figure illustrates this method of hafting. It

would be quite natural to bend the sides of this second form

around, and thus would arise a third form in which the handle was

let into a socket, of which we also give a cut. As a general

thing, bronze axes were plain, but they were sometimes ornamented

with ridges, dots, and lines.

In addition to axes, they of course had many other implements of

bronze. Chisels were made much the same as at present, except

that the handle fitted into a socket. A few hammers have been

discovered in the Swiss lake villages. Bronze knives of different

styles and sizes were quite numerous. The workmanship on them is

generally skillful. They were, as a rule, fitted into a handle of

bone, horn, or wood, and the blade was nearly always carved. In

some cases the knives also ended in a socket into which the

handle fitted.13

Hammer, Chisel and Bronze Knives.

In matters of personal ornament, the men and women of the Bronze

Age were as willing to make use of artificial helps as their

descendants to-day, and no doubt fashion was quite as arbitrary

in her rule then as now. Among some savage nations the dressing

of the hair—especially of the men—is carried to a very elaborate

pitch.14 In this respect, some of the dandies of the Bronze Age

certainly excelled. They evidently built up on their heads a

great pyramid of hair; in some cases large enough to allow of the

use of hair-pins two feet long. Of course such a structure as

this was intended to last a life-time. So careful were they of

this head-dress that they used a crescent-shaped pillow of

earthenware, so that it might not be disturbed when they slept.

Dr. Keller, who first described these crescent-shaped articles,

thought they were religious emblems of the moon. He may be right,

as the matter is not yet decided, but some think they were the

pillows in question. At first thought this would seem absurd, but

when we learn of the habits of the natives of Abyssinia and other

savage races, we cease to wonder.

Crescent, Bracelet and Hairpin.

In speaking of the ornaments of the Bronze Age, a caution is

necessary, because ornaments of bronze may belong to any age.

Bracelets and rings have been quite numerous. The bracelets vary

much in shape, are decidedly artistic in workmanship, and often

set off with carved designs. Some of this shape are composed of a

single ring of varying width, the ends of which almost meet and

terminate by a semicircular clasp; others are a combination of

straight or twisted wires ingeniously joined to one another.

“Some of these ornaments remain even up to the present day in a

perfect state of preservation. In an urn from one of the lake

settlements six specimens were discovered, the designs of which

appeared quite as clearly as if they had only just been

engraved.”15

We are called on to notice one important point in reference to

these bracelets and rings. That is, they are so small they could

scarcely be worn nowadays; a fact leading us to infer that the

people must have been of small size. It has also been noticed

that the handles of the swords are smaller than would be

convenient for soldiers now. Some ornaments of bronze were worn

as pendants. For this purpose they were provided with a circular

hole, and were probably worn suspended around the neck.

Bronze Pendants.

Ornaments were not always of bronze. Necklaces were sometimes

made of amber, and gold beads were quite common. We give a cut of

both. They are from burial mounds of this age in England. We

remember the ornamentations on implements in the Paleolithic Age

was by engraving animal forms. In the Neolithic Age they seem to

have cared very little for ornamenting. During the Bronze Age the

ornamentation was of a simple but pleasing and uniform style. It

consisted of simple geometrical patterns, combination of circles,

dots, and straight lines. In this next figure we have given the

principal designs found in France.

Necklace and Beads.