There is here obviously suggested a method whereby the framework of

history arrived at by the evidence of fossil and cultural remains may be

filled in. The broad conclusions drawn from a study of hunting and

fishing races may be applied to Palaeolithic races. But this method must

be used with great caution; it has undoubtedly been pressed too far. It

is possible to divide hunting and fishing races into groups and to

compare these groups with stages in the evolution of Palaeolithic

culture. How far it is in any way valid to attribute in this fashion

particular social institutions which characterize lower, middle, and

upper hunting races to lower, middle, and upper Palaeolithic races

respectively is very doubtful. It is not proposed here to attempt to

carry the method as far as this. For one thing, so far as the subject

has been worked out, there is no clear correlation between different

factors affecting fertility and elimination on the one hand and stages

in culture among hunting races on the other hand. Thus, as it happens,

any attempt to carry this method into more detail is not productive of

results, and therefore it is not worth while to inquire whether results

would be valid or not. All that it is proposed to do here is to examine

the evidence regarding the prevalence of certain customs, habits, and so

on, among hunting races, and to apply the broad conclusions founded on

this evidence to the ancestors of civilized races who supported

themselves by hunting. In this manner only is it at all possible to fill

in the framework of history provided by the remains of culture and by

fossils, and thus to arrive at any conclusions regarding the course of

the movement away from the conditions found in the pre-human ancestor to

those found among civilized races.

4. With regard to the question as to the way in which this evidence may

be most conveniently set out, it is proposed to proceed in the following

manner. Before we come to the evidence regarding fertility and

elimination, something has to be said regarding fecundity in man, and

that will be the subject of the fifth chapter. In the following chapter

the evidence regarding fossil and cultural remains will be very briefly

discussed, just so far as, in the first place, provides the necessary

historical facts to form a basis for the discussion of the qualitative

problem and as, in the second place, provides the framework into which

we can fit the conclusions which we shall draw from a study of primitive

races. In the seventh chapter the evidence drawn from a study of hunting

races will be reviewed in so far as it throws light upon fertility and

elimination. In the eighth chapter the evidence bearing upon these

problems, so far as the agricultural races are concerned, will be

similarly set out. In the ninth chapter the evidence will be discussed

in its bearing upon the quantitative problem among these races—all

reference to the qualitative problem being left for later chapters. In

the tenth chapter the evidence for the historical races will be

similarly reviewed, and in the eleventh chapter similarly discussed. The

twelfth chapter will be devoted to a discussion of certain problems

connected with the quantitative problem at the present day. The twelfth

chapter therefore will complete the treatment of the first or

quantitative aspect of the problem, and in the remaining chapters will

be discussed the second or qualitative problem. Already there will have

been presented a large part of the evidence necessary for the discussion

of the second problem—namely, the evidence connected with the outline of

the facts of history and that connected with fertility and elimination.

What other evidence is necessary can be given as and when required.

V

HUMAN FECUNDITY

1. As a preliminary to the separate inquiries into the two aspects of

the problem, it is necessary briefly to consider the question of human

fecundity.

We may ask, in the first place, whether, taking a broad view of human

history, there is any reason to believe that human fecundity has changed

since the epoch of the pre-human ancestor, and, if so, whether it has

increased or diminished. Secondly, there are a number of habits and

customs which have been practised in different degrees at different

times, such as prolonged lactation, polygamy, and so on, and we may also

ask what bearing, if any, such habits and customs have upon fecundity.

There is much connected with the subject which is difficult and obscure.

It is, in particular, often difficult to ascertain whether any

differences in fecundity, as may be found to exist, are of the nature of

racial or of environmental differences. Into such points, however, we

need not go. We are concerned only with the question as to whether there

are differences in fecundity, and we may confine our attention to a

notice of any broad differences which do exist and to the question

whether certain habits and customs widely practised at one time or

another and supposed to bear upon fecundity do or do not have the

influence attributed to them. We may begin with the first question set

out above. In order to obtain an answer to this question we have to rely

upon evidence derived from various sources, partly from primitive races,

which we assume in general to exhibit conditions prevalent among

prehistoric races, and partly from evidence derived from a study of the

mammalian species which have been subject to changes comparable with

those to which man has in the course of his history been subject.

2. From what has been said regarding the nature of reproduction in

Chapter II, it follows that it is the female rather than the male that

we have to consider. The male gametes vastly outnumber the female, and,

generally speaking, the male is always ready for intercourse. When

studying the possibility of increasing the fecundity of domestic

species, attention can, as pointed out by Marshall in the case of

sheep,[104] be limited to the female. Taking a broad view of the matter,

it is clear that there has been no change in fecundity due to any change

in male reproductive power.

There are, nevertheless, two points concerning the male which we may

notice before we pass to the consideration of the female. First, with

regard to the problem as to changes in fecundity during the course of

history, we shall bring forward evidence to show that good conditions

favour an increase in the reproductive power of the mammalian female.

There is reason to think that good conditions have a similar effect on

males. Thus among some mammalian species in a state of nature there is a

special ‘rutting season’ for the male, and it is not infrequently found

that in captivity the males of such species will rut all the year

round.[105] We shall also bring forward evidence to show that with

improvements in conditions, sexual excitement is more easily aroused and

that there has been an increase in the development of the generative

organs, and we may note here that these observations apply to the male

as well as to the female. As, however, any increase in male reproductive

capacity can have had no general influence upon fecundity, we may, so

far as the question of any general increase or decrease in fecundity is

concerned, neglect the male and confine our attention to the female.

Secondly, with respect to the influence of certain factors at particular

times, it is in nearly all cases the female and not the male which is

affected. But it may be observed that sterile marriages are in part due

to male sterility. Mayer estimates that this is so in a third of such

marriages.[106] Kelly gives the result of an investigation into 110

cases, of which 59 per cent. are attributed to the male.[107] Male

sterility is due either to inborn or acquired conditions. So far as

sterility due to the former is concerned, there do not appear to be any

grounds for thinking that it has to any important extent varied from one

epoch to another. So far, however, as sterility due to disease is

concerned, there have been in all probability certain changes.

Gonorrhoea is perhaps the most important of those diseases which bring

about sterility. Of the 59 cases mentioned above 12 per cent. were due

to gonorrhoea. Other diseases may cause sterility, such as tubercle and

epididymitis. Relatively to the historical period as usually defined,

gonorrhoea is an old disease; but we shall find reason for thinking that

the great majority of diseases have evolved since the time of the

pre-human ancestor, and to the extent to which this is true it must be

allowed that male sterility due to disease is more or less recent. With

these remarks we may leave the question of male sterility, as it is

relatively of little importance.

3. It is therefore to factors which influence the female generative

process that we must look for the causes of such increase or decrease of

fecundity as are of importance. Certain factors may be put aside on the

grounds that there is no reason to think that they have been of more

importance at one time than at another. Such are malformations of any

kind that prevent the meeting of the male and female gametes.[108] With

regard to the factors of importance it is by their influence upon

different aspects of the female generative process that they are best

classified. There are three main aspects of this process, variations in

any of which will influence fecundity. These are the length of the

mature period, the interval between births, and the number at a birth.

Some reference to the nature of the female sexual cycle in mammals has

been made. The beginning of maturity is usually measured by observing

the beginning of menstruation. It is, perhaps, worthy of mention that

the beginning of menstruation does not always coincide with the

beginning of ovulation. Thus the estimation of the duration of the

mature period made by watching for the beginning and end of menstruation

is not always exact; the difference is not of consequence here, but the

fact that a difference is possible emphasizes that what is essential in

the whole process is ovulation. The true mature period is the period

during which ovulation occurs. The interval between births is also

dependent upon ovulation and so is number at a birth.[109] In fact what

we are asking is in the main what factors influence ovulation.

4. The information regarding the duration of the mature period is not

satisfactory. Though there is a large amount of information about the

beginning of menstruation, there is little information about the age at

which it ends. There are at least three factors which influence the age

at which menstruation begins—climate, race, and general nature of the

surrounding conditions.

Generally speaking, the hotter the climate the earlier menstruation

begins. Englemann gives the following figures:[110]

_Zone._ _Average Age for Menstruation._

Tropics 12·9 years

Temperate 15·5 „

Cold 16·5 „

and Krieger gives the following figures:[111]

_Place._ _Average Age for Menstruation._

Christiania 16 years 9 months 25 days

Berlin 15 „ 7 „ 25 „

London 15 „ 1 „ 14 „

Lyons 14 „ 5 „ 29 „

Marseilles 13 „ 11 „ 11 „

Calcutta 12 „ 6 „ 0 „

Sierra Leone 10 „ 0 „ 0 „

It further appears that there is a tendency for menstruation to end

earlier in hot climates; so much so that upon the whole the mature

period is shorter in hot than in cold climates.

There is, however, no very close or definite connexion between climate

and menstruation. In the United States it has not been found possible to

detect any influence of climate upon menstruation, though this country

stretches from 29° to 45° of latitude, and has a temperature the annual

average of which varies from 40° F. to 70° F. But if the conditions

concerning the different racial elements in the population of the

country are examined, it is found that in whatever part of the country

they may be the average age for each racial element remains constant,

and usually varies slightly from the average age for the whole

population.[112] There are other indications that the age at which

menstruation begins are connected with differences in race. Krieger

quotes the following from Joachim for girls in Hungary:[113]

_Race._ _Average Age of Menstruation._

Slavonic 16 to 17 years

Magyar 15 „ 16 „

Jewish 14 „ 15 „

Styrian 13 „ 14 „

Other figures show that Jewesses menstruate earlier than the average age

for menstruation in the country in which they live.[114]

What is of chief interest to us is that good conditions also influence

the age at which menstruation begins. The better the conditions, the

earlier does it begin. Further, it is also known that the mature period

tends to be prolonged where conditions are good. It is known, for

example, that the mature period comes to an end earlier among the

labouring than among the richer classes.[115] Therefore good conditions

tend to be connected not only with an earlier beginning but also with a

longer duration of the mature period. Thus Mayer found the average age

at which menstruation began among 3,000 women of the upper classes to be

14·69 years, and among 3,000 poor women to be 16·0 years.[116] Several

observers have recorded the average age for the beginning of

menstruation among the different classes in the population. The

following table is given by Krieger:[117]

_Brienne de _Tilt._ _Krieger._ _Ravn._

Boisment._

_Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._

Upper Class 13 8 13 5½ 14 1⅙ 14 3

Middle Class 14 5 14 3½ 15 4–2/6 15 5½

Lower Class 14 1 16 8⅙ 16 5¼

5. With regard to the question as to the interval between births some

interesting indirect evidence is obtained from what we can learn

regarding the former condition of the sexual cycle in man. A sketch was

given in the second chapter of the main features of the mammalian sexual

cycle. These cycles may follow one another without any prolonged

interval, or there may be a lengthy period of rest. In monkeys and also

in man the interval is short; but the former cannot breed at every heat

period; special sexual seasons are experienced at definite times of the

year when breeding takes place. It is probable that ovulation is limited

to this special season, and that, although copulation may take place at

other seasons of the year, conception can only follow copulation at this

special season.[118] In civilized man, so far as is known, ovulation is

never confined to any particular season of the year; conception can,

therefore, follow copulation at any period. But we do find evidence of

the former existence in man of a special sexual season, and this is of

particular interest because it suggests that at one time there was in

man, as there usually is in monkeys, one season only during which

conception could follow copulation.

This evidence has been reviewed by Westermarck, by Ploss and Bartels,

and by Havelock Ellis.[119] Some examples of this evidence may be cited

in order to show upon what facts this suggestion is founded. According

to Mr. Johnston, the Indians of California “have their rutting season as

regularly as have the deer, the elk, the antelope, or any other

animals”. And Mr. Powers confirms the correctness of this statement, at

least with regard to some of these Indians, saying that spring ‘is a

literal St. Valentine’s day with them, as with the natural birds and

beasts of the forest’. As regards the Goddanes in Luzon, Mr. Foreman

tells us that ‘it is the custom of young men about to marry to vie with

each other in presenting to the sires of their future brides all the

scalps that they are able to take from their enemies, as proof of their

manliness and courage. This practice prevails at a season of the year

when the tree—popularly called by the Spaniards “the fire tree”—is in

bloom.’ Speaking of the Watch-an-dies in the western part of Australia,

Mr. Oldfield remarks, ‘Like the beasts of the field, the savage has but

one time for copulation in the year. About the middle of the spring the

Watch-an-dies begin to think of holding their grand semi-religious

festival of Caa-ro, preparatory to the performance of the important duty

of procreation. A similar feast was, according to Mr. Bonwick,

celebrated by the Tasmanians at the same time of the year.’[120] Similar

evidence is forthcoming as regards many other primitive races. It is

interesting to note that among civilized races there are traces of

customs which point to the former existence of a season of sexual

licence. Such were the mediaeval Feast of Fools, and the classical

festivals of Brumalia and Rosalia.[121] ‘Feasts, similar to the erotic

feasts which were indulged in by the ancients ... were still practised

to some extent in Russia and in some parts of India at a much later

date, while such customs as “gwneyd Bragod” and possibly our own “bean

feasts” may not improbably be the modern representatives of these

ancient customs in our own country.’[122]

This evidence all points to a former condition when conceptions could

only take place at one season of the year. We must suppose that it has

gradually become possible for copulation to be followed by conception at

any period, and that therefore fecundity has increased.[123] Some light

is thrown upon the causes that underlie these changes by a reference to

certain facts regarding other species. Before we turn to this question

reference may be made to the phenomenon of ‘mittelschmerz’—or

intermenstrual pain. It is not uncommon and is sometimes accompanied by

a discharge. The interpretation of this phenomenon is doubtful. One

explanation, however, has some interest for us. It is suggested that it

may represent the first steps in the establishment of a different

variety of sexual cycle in which the dioestrous periods occur

fortnightly instead of monthly. If this interpretation is correct, it

would mean that the sexual cycle is evolving in the direction of still

greater fecundity.[124]

6. It has frequently been observed that when members of a wild species

are brought into captivity there is a change in the sexual season. This

change may be in the direction of an increase or of a decrease in the

generative power. If the bringing into captivity involves such an

alteration of conditions as to disorganize the generative process, then

a decrease in fecundity may result. It frequently happens, for instance,

that carnivores are infertile in captivity, and this may be due among

other things to the absence of fresh meat.[125] Generally speaking,

however, if the alterations do not produce disorganization, an increase

in fecundity results, and as there is no reason to suppose that the

change in human circumstances was ever of such a nature as to produce

disorganization, we must suppose, on the analogy of what happens among

other mammalian species, that, if the betterment of the conditions has

had any effect, it has been in the direction of an increase in

fecundity.

A few examples of what is meant may be given. The wild dog of South

America, the wolf, and the fox breed only once a year under natural

conditions; in captivity they experience two annual heats like the

dog.[126] The otter in the wild state breeds but once a year; in

captivity oestrous may occur at regular monthly intervals all the year

round.[127] Bears are monoestrous in the wild state; in the Zoological

Gardens oestrous may be experienced for two or three months.[128] With

regard to the Ungulata we have numerous facts of the same nature. The

red deer offers the best example; under natural conditions there are two

dioestrous cycles lasting three weeks; in captivity the sexual season

extends over the whole year.[129] The facts are somewhat similar in

respect to cattle and horses. Examples might also be taken from other

mammalian classes. The wild rabbit breeds from February to May; in

captivity the sexual season lasts nearly the whole year. Further it may

be noticed that among lower groups good conditions are, as is well

known, markedly favourable to increased fecundity.

Before we go on to look into the causes of this increase in fecundity,

it may be noticed that the number of young produced at a birth among

domestic species is on an average greater than that produced by the wild

ancestor. This evidence, it will be observed, refers to the third factor

which bears upon the increase in fecundity. The wild rabbit is said to

produce at the most six young at a time; the tame rabbit has four to

eleven, and a case is known in which eighteen were born, all of which

survived.[130] The wild sow bears from four to eight, and sometimes

twelve, young. The domestic sow is considered to be of no value unless

she produces at least eight at a birth. Equally remarkable examples are

to be found outside the Mammals. ‘The hen of Gallus bankiva lays from

six to ten eggs; the tame one in the course of a year from eighty to one

hundred.’

7. It is clear that one common feature in the conditions surrounding

domesticated species and civilized man, as compared with species in a

state of nature, is the increase in the richness and regularity of the

food-supply, and the general betterment of the environment. In fact,

just as this increase in the richness of the surroundings may increase

the length of the mature period, so it may increase the number at a

birth and also decrease the interval between births. That this is the

result of an improved environment in the case of the sheep has been

shown by Marshall. He found, for instance, that in ‘Scotch Blackfoot,

Cheviot, and other Scottish sheep the normal percentage of ova

discharged at any single oestrous is not appreciably in excess of the

usual percentage of births at the lambing season’.[131] This, it may be

noted, is an example of what was said in the second chapter regarding,

in the first place, the measurement of fecundity by the number of ripe

ova produced, and, in the second place, regarding the fertilization on

the average of all, or nearly all, ripe ova. Marshall also found that

‘there was every reason for supposing that the processes of growth and

maturation can be very largely influenced both by insufficiency of

food-supply on the one hand and by artificial stimulation on the

other’.[132] What apparently happens is that insufficiency of food

retards the development of the ova and may cause the degeneration of

some of them. Therefore if the food-supply is good, there will be more

ripe ova at the sexual season, fewer sterile females, and a greater

number of twin births. ‘There is overwhelming evidence,’ says Heape,

‘that flocks in good condition at tupping time have a higher subsequent

development of fertility than flocks in poor condition at tupping

time.’[133] By ‘good’ condition is meant not a ‘fat’ but a strong,

healthy, and vigorous animal.

It may be asked whether there is any evidence as to the increase in

numbers at a birth in the human female. Among civilized races about one

birth in eighty to ninety is on the average a twin birth. Our knowledge

of primitive races is not sufficiently precise to enable any estimate to

be made regarding the frequency of twin births among them. There are,

however, very numerous references in the accounts of these races to the

superstitions attaching to twin births. The nature of these

superstitions, and in general the mystery felt to surround twin births,

very strongly suggests that the phenomenon is rare. It can only be said

that it is probable that twin births are rarer among primitive races

than among civilized races.

So far, therefore, as we have gone, the evidence points to the

conclusion that two of the three factors which determine fecundity have

varied in the direction of increasing fecundity, and that possibly the

third factor may have varied in the same direction. It has also been

noted that similar changes have been observed to take place in animals

which have been subject to better conditions. The fact that human

conditions have certainly been bettered suggests that the same cause may

have been at work in the case of man. There is, however, no doubt that

changes in the case of man are not wholly explicable in this way. In

part the differences are racial differences, and to the degree in which

the differences are racial they cannot be attributed to the direct

effect of the surroundings.

8. Additional support to the view that fecundity has increased with

civilization is given by certain other types of evidence. In the first

place it appears to be a fact that the reproductive organs of the more

primitive races of mankind are smaller and in all respects less well

developed than those of civilized races.[134] It is not meant that the

organs differ qualitatively in any way; they are merely smaller

relatively to the other organs than among civilized races. It is

doubtful how we should interpret these facts; but it does not seem

unreasonable to assume a connexion between a lesser development of the

reproductive organs and a lower degree of fecundity.

Secondly, we have a considerable body of evidence with respect to the

strength of sexual desire among these races.[135] Many observers have

recorded their opinion that the members of these more primitive races do

not experience sexual excitement to the same degree as do the members of

the more civilized races. There are other observations which record the

difficulty experienced in obtaining sexual erethism. It seems reasonable

to associate these observations with a lower degree of fecundity than

that found among civilized races.

In this connexion the fact that lack of sexual excitement renders

fertilization less likely is relevant. As fertilization has been

achieved with the female in a condition of narcosis,[136] it is clear

that sexual excitement is not necessary. Nevertheless, if the question

of sexual excitement has any bearing at all upon the degree of fecundity

as between higher and lower races, it must be in the direction of

rendering the lower races less fertile.

It was observed in the second chapter that the willingness of the female

to receive the male at any time in the sexual cycle is a peculiarity of

man. It may be observed in passing that evidence has lately been brought

forward suggesting that the indifference of the female to the point in

the sexual cycle at which intercourse takes place has been exaggerated,

or rather that the existence of periods of desire has been somewhat

overlooked.[137] However this may be, what concerns us here is the

peculiar fact that the male is received by the female at any time in the

sexual cycle. It is possible that copulation at one time in the sexual

cycle is more likely to result in conception than at other times, though

the facts are obscure. But whether this is so or not is scarcely

relevant to our purpose, because there is no reason to think that there

have been any variations in the practice of copulation between one time

and another or between one race and another, as could have sensibly

affected fecundity even if the limitation of copulation to one period of

the sexual cycle is of marked importance.

9. Lastly, we have to refer to what we may call the statistical

evidence. The interpretation of the evidence as to number of children

among primitive races is so difficult a matter that it cannot in itself

be held to throw much light upon the question of fecundity. The trend of

the evidence, however, certainly supports the conclusion that fecundity

is less among primitive races than among civilized races. There are a

vast number of observations recorded by travellers regarding the number

of children among these races. For the most part these observations have

reference only to the number of children seen alive, and therefore are

not even a measure of the fertility—far less a measure of the fecundity.

Practically all such observations emphasize the small size of the

families. When dealing with hunting and agricultural races in another

connexion we shall have reason to refer in some detail to this evidence.

Here we may give a few typical examples of this evidence, remembering

that it is evidence for the most part of the number of children seen and

not of the number of children born, though, in selecting the following

examples for quotation, an effort has been made to pick out those in

which the authors have attempted to discount the effects of infanticide

and other factors of elimination.

Of the Australians Curr remarks: ‘I am of opinion that the Australian

females bear on an average six children, or did before the advent of the

whites and whilst living in their natural state.’[138] Spencer and

Gillen state that sterility is common among the Australians[139] and

that the number of children rarely exceeds four or five and is generally

two or three.[140] Of the Eskimos we read: ‘the women are not prolific.

Although all the adults are or have been married, many of them are

childless, and few have more than two children. One woman was known to

have had at least four. Dr. Simpson heard of a “rare case” where one

woman had borne seven children.’[141] ‘On the average the pure breed

Greenlanders are not prolific. Two, three, or four children to each

marriage is the general rule, though there are instances of families of

six or eight or even more.’[142] Of the American Indians there is a

large amount of evidence. Dr. Holder, who combined medical knowledge

with exceptional opportunities for observation, says: ‘With Indians

large families are the exception. The Crow tribe, of less than 2,500

people, is divided into 630 families, which gives less than four to each

family, and this includes parents and often grandparents and relatives

by affinity or adoption, leaving the average offspring, to each

child-bearing woman decidedly lower than in white communities.’[143]

Speaking of the Indians of Vancouver Island, Sproat says: ‘As a rule

they have few children.’[144] Bancroft reports of the Nootka tribe:

‘Women rarely have more than two or three children.’[145] Of the

Chinooks: ‘Barrenness is common, the birth of twins rare, and families

do not usually exceed two children.’[146] Catlin says: ‘It is a very

rare occurrence for an Indian woman to be “blessed” with more than four

or five children during her life; generally they are contented with two

or three.’[147]

It is merely suggested here that evidence of this kind, which will be

much amplified in the following chapters, may have to be interpreted as

pointing to a lower degree of fecundity among these lower races than

among the civilized races. The trend of the evidence is at least

suggestive when it is remembered that according to the estimate made by

Matthews Duncan a normal woman among civilized races living in wedlock

throughout the mature period under favourable circumstances should bear

from ten to twelve children.[148]

If the view suggested is correct, we should expect to find in such

countries as India and China a higher fecundity than among primitive

races, but a lower fecundity than among European races. There is some

indication that this is so. At first sight it might seem that the

well-known fertility of these races indicated a higher fecundity than in

Europe. When, however, in the case of India, not the crude fertility,

but the fertility corrected for the number of married women of

reproductive age is calculated, it is found to be lower than in Europe.

The figures per 1,000 are 160 in India and 196 in England.[149] It has,

of course, to be remembered that there are in both countries certain

factors bearing upon fertility—early marriage in India and restraint

from intercourse and contraceptive methods in England. But it can hardly

be supposed that the former is more effective than the latter in

decreasing fecundity, and it is probable that we have here an indication

of lower fecundity in India.

10. All the evidence, therefore, points to the same conclusion. If there

has been any general change in the strength of human fecundity in the

course of human history, using that phrase in the widest sense, it has

been in the direction of an increase. It is not necessary for our

present purpose to attempt to be more precise. This view is, as we shall

show below, that of the best authorities. It may be noticed that

different opinions are frequently expressed by authors who are not

professional biologists.[150] Such opinions are in most cases so vaguely

worded that it is seldom clear what precisely is meant. In many cases it

is fairly evident that it is intended to imply that there is some

connexion between growth of civilization and decrease in fecundity. So

far as this is what is meant, there is no evidence for this view. (There

is no indication whatever that increasing intellectual activity is

accompanied by decreasing fecundity. On the other hand, inasmuch as

intellectual activity is connected with an amelioration in the

conditions, to that degree there is a connexion between it and an

increase in fecundity.) Such views clearly owe their origin to the

attention paid to the decline in the birth-rate. It is not always

realized that a declining birth-rate may be due to a decline in

fertility alone, wholly unconnected with a decline in fecundity.

That fecundity has increased was the opinion of Darwin. ‘There is reason

to suspect’, he says, ‘that the reproductive power is actually less in

barbarous than in civilized races.... It is highly probable that

savages, who often suffer much hardship and do not obtain so much

nutritious food as civilized men, would be actually less prolific.’[151]

According to Heape, ‘it would seem highly probable that the reproductive

power of man has increased with civilization, precisely as it may be

increased in the lower animals by domestication; that the effect of a

regular supply of good food, together with all the other stimulating

factors available and exercised in modern civilized communities, has

resulted in such great activity of the generative organs, and so great

an increase in the supply of the reproductive elements, that conception

in the healthy human female may be said to be possible almost at any

time during the reproductive period.’[152]

It is interesting to note that no differences in fecundity can be

observed as between modern civilized races.[153] The conclusion we have

reached is merely that there has been, broadly speaking, an increase in

fecundity, and that in large measure this is explicable as a result of

the betterment of conditions, and there is nothing to lead us to expect

that there would on this account be any difference between modern

European races.

11. We may now pass to a brief consideration of certain habits, customs,

and other factors which, operative from time to time, have, or are

widely supposed to have, an influence upon fecundity, and in some cases

upon fertility; for though fertility is not, properly speaking,

considered in this chapter, it is convenient to deal with certain

matters here.

To polygamy has often been attributed a decrease in the number of

children born to a woman. Whether it is supposed that the practice of

polygamy in some way decreases fecundity or has an influence upon

fertility is not clear. In any case there is no evidence that it has any

influence either upon fecundity or upon fertility. There is no reason to

think that polygamy is attended by any structural or physiological

changes such as would influence fecundity, and the statistical evidence

does not show any difference in the average number of children born,

whether monogamy or polygamy is practised. Theal investigated this

question as far as marriages among Bantu women are concerned. He

collected a number of returns and sums up the returns as follows.

‘Altogether these returns embraced 393, the wives or widows of

monogamists, mostly professing Christians, and 591 women, the wives or

widows of polygamists. In a few instances it was noted that the women

might not have passed the age of child-bearing. The 393 women, wives of

monogamists, had borne 2,223 children, that is on an average 5·65

children to a woman. The 591 women, wives of polygamists, had borne

3,298 children, that is on an average 5·58 children to each woman. Thus

monogamy made hardly any appreciable difference in the birth-rate.’[154]

The question of the influence of lactation on fecundity is of

considerable importance, but unfortunately no very definite conclusions

can be drawn from the facts known. There is a considerable amount of

evidence to the effect that the continuance of lactation to some extent

inhibits heat in animals and menstruation in women. Though the effect of

continued lactation is doubtless in this direction, it cannot be said to

be of any very definite strength. It is stated that mares giving suck

are liable to miss a season.[155] ‘There can be no doubt that in the

case of sows early weaning is conducive to a more frequent recurrence of

oestrous and an increased number of litters.’[156] ‘The return of

menstruation during lactation in women has been dealt with recently by

Heil and Dingwall Fordyce. Heil, who has studied the conditions of 200

nursing mothers, expresses the belief that the recurrence of

menstruation and not the condition of amenorrhoea is the normal state

during lactation, but that menstruation is not so frequent in the later

lactations as in the earlier ones. Fordyce has reached similar

conclusions, finding that menstruation occurred during lactation in 40

per cent. of the cases in which suckling was performed, while in 92 per

cent. of the cases its return was within nine months of parturition, and

that menstruation during lactation was commoner with the earlier than

with the later lactations, showing that age is an important

factor.’[157]

There is another question of importance. It may be asked what influence

age at marriage has upon fecundity. As far as the age of the husband is

concerned, there is scarcely any influence at all. For any given age of

wife the fecundity remains nearly the same, whatever the age of the

husband. The age of the wife, however, is of importance, apart from the

fact that delay in marriage reduces the use made of the limited period

of maturity. For a woman is not equally fecund throughout the mature

period. The earlier years are the most fecund years, and therefore

postponement of marriage reduces the fecundity, other things being

equal, by more than the fraction of the mature period which is passed in

celibacy. According to Dunlop’s observations on marriage in Scotland

‘the effect of one year’s delay of marriage is to reduce the average

family by fully one-third of a child, or that three years’ delay may be

expected to result in the family being one child less. This result may

be fairly correct in general, but it cannot be strictly applied, for the

crude observations show that the effect of one year’s delay is not

constant through the fertile period of the woman’s life, but is greater

for the younger and less for the later years. Thus a year’s delay when

the woman is aged from 20 to 25 averages 0·45 of a child, 0·37 when she

is aged from 25 to 30, 0·32 when she is aged from 30 to 35, 0·29 when

she is aged from 35 to 40, and 0·19 when she is aged from 40 to

45.’[158] It requires, it may be noticed, a delay of about forty years

on the part of the husband to decrease the number of children by one

child.[159]

A further problem is the influence of sexual intercourse before puberty

upon fecundity. Exactly what influence early intercourse has upon the

generative organs and their functions is not clear. It is known,

however, that early intercourse is injurious to the general health, and

it is not difficult to understand in a general way how, if this is so,

the reproductive functions would be adversely affected. In the Punjab

Census Report ‘it has been shown that the states which practise early

marriage on an extensive scale have generally a smaller proportion of

females at the age period 12 to 15. Inquiries into a large number of

cases show that, when the marriage of young people is consummated at an

early age, a fairly large number of wives dies of phthisis or some other

disease of the respiratory organs or from some ovarian complication

within ten years of the consummation of marriage.’[160] It is also known

that when of two races both living a similar kind of life under similar

conditions, one practises early marriage and the other does not, as for

example the Hindus and Mohammedans in India, fertility is higher among

the latter than among the former.[161]

Finally, it may be noted that the development of fat may lead to

sterility. It is a fact well known to breeders that excessive fatness is

accompanied by sterility. Animals that have been fattened for

agricultural shows are often barren. There is no doubt that the

development of fat may have the same effect in women. It is not quite

clear why the development of fat should be inimical to fecundity;

formerly it was supposed that the sperm was prevented from reaching the

ovum owing to the presence of a mechanical obstruction. Although this

may at times be the cause, it seems that the presence of an excessive

amount of fat has a deleterious influence upon the metabolism of the

organism and that the maturation of the ova must be in some way

affected. Marshall found signs of abnormal ovarian metabolism in

interstitial tissue of the ovaries of fat cows and heifers.[162]

Sterility, it may be remarked, is not to be regarded as an ultimate

consequence of ‘good’ conditions which have been made too ‘good’. ‘Good’

conditions do not merely consist in abundant food, but also in

sufficient exercise and so on. The development of fat in such a degree

as to cause sterility is due to an excessive amount of food—an abundant

food-supply being one only of the factors going to make up ‘good’

conditions—to the exclusion of other factors.

12. In conclusion, some calculations may be conveniently added to

illustrate the strength of human fecundity, which, as we shall see, is

constantly under-estimated. Let us consider a population of a million

born in the same year, half of whom are males and half females. Let us

suppose that they all marry, each couple before the age of twenty

producing two children, half of whom are girls and half boys. For the

sake of simplicity we may imagine that at the end of each twenty-year

period the parents die simultaneously with the birth of their offspring.

Then, if the children marry and produce offspring as did their parents,

we shall have a standard population of 1,000,000, which will neither

increase nor decrease so long as these conditions are fulfilled. If,

however, the average number of children is 2½ per couple, then in 100

years the population will be 3,050,000; if three, 7,954,000; if four,

32,000,000; if five, 97,650,000.

VI

HUMAN HISTORY

1. As a further preliminary to the separate inquiries into the two parts

of the problem, we have to sketch the main outlines of history in its

broadest aspect. The facts will in themselves form an important element

in the subject-matter when we come in the second part of the book to

discuss the qualitative problem. They also form, as explained in the

third chapter, a framework into which such knowledge as we have of

primitive races may be fitted with all the necessary qualifications and

safeguards. The procedure will be in the first place to glance at the

main subdivisions of the sedimentary deposits, and to ask how far they

can be dated. In this fashion alone can we arrive at any chronological

basis with regard to human evolution. We have then to refer to the

evolution of the Primate branch of the mammals to which man belongs, and

afterwards to the evolution of the bodily form of man. As the fossils

upon which the evidence is based are connected with certain geological

strata, some vague indication of their date, or at least of their

relative appearance in time, can be arrived at, in any case with regard

to the later forms. We can then refer to the evidence of the cultural

remains of man and correlate this evidence with that derived from the

fossil remains. In this fashion some indication can be obtained of the

evolution of culture and of the physical form of man anterior to the

last three or four thousand years. For the last period written records

are available, and supplement the evidence derived from cultural

remains. Finally we have to discuss the manner in which we can use the

evidence derived from primitive races to fill in the gaps in our

knowledge.

2. The deposition of the sedimentary strata is usually divided into four

main periods, each of which is subdivided into smaller eras. The

following table shows the divisions most commonly adopted.

{ Recent

{ Quaternary { Pleistocene

{

Cainozoic { { Pliocene

{ { Miocene

{ Tertiary { Oligocene

{ Eocene

{ Cretaceous

Secondary { Jurassic

{ Triassic

{ Permian

{ Carboniferous

Primary { Devonian

{ Silurian

{ Cambrian

Archaeozoic Precambrian

It is with the Cainozoic period that we are alone concerned, and chiefly

with the Pleistocene and Recent subdivisions of that period. Before we

consider the Quaternary epoch, one or two facts with regard to the

dating of the other periods may be mentioned. However long it is

supposed that the deposition of the sedimentary deposits has occupied,

it is usually held that the Archaeozoic period occupied at least half of

the whole length of time. This supposition is rendered necessary by the

fact that already in the Cambrian era organisms of a high degree of

complexity are found; thus in this era Crustaceans, Brachiopods, and

Worms are common; Echinoderms, Coelenterates, and Sponges are also

known. In the Silurian most of the classes of the animal kingdom are

represented, the exceptions being amphibians, reptiles, birds, and

mammals. The presence of fish shows that by this time vertebrates had

already been evolved. Amphibians first appear in the Carboniferous and

reptiles in the Permian. Birds first occur in the Upper Jurassic and

mammals towards the close of the Triassic. The estimates as to the time

occupied by the deposition of all these strata taken together vary very

greatly—the average being about 100,000,000 years, though it should be

mentioned that as long a period as 1,000,000,000 years has been

proposed.[163] With regard to the length of time which it is supposed

that the later subdivisions of the Cainozoic period have covered, it may

be noticed that Penck estimates the length of the Pliocene and Miocene

periods at about two and three million years respectively.

It is the dating of the subdivisions of the Pleistocene epoch that is of

interest here. This era is also known as the glacial epoch. During this

period large areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres were

covered by the formation of glaciers or by the advance of

previously-existing glaciers. It is now almost universally admitted that

in Europe at least there were four separate advances of the ice. After

reaching on each occasion a point of maximum extension, the ice

retreated, and there were thus three inter-glacial or genial epochs,

while the period since the fourth glaciation is known as the Recent

period. The limit of the extension of the ice varied in each glaciation,

and was at its maximum in the second glaciation. These separate

glaciations and intervening genial periods serve to subdivide the

Pleistocene era, and when fossil and cultural remains are discovered an

attempt is made to ascertain in which of these subdivisions they occur.

Nothing more than guesses can be made as to the length of the glacial

period as a whole and of the subdivisions, and these guesses differ very

widely. Osborn gives the following list of estimates:[164]

1863. C. Lyell 800,000 years

1874. J. D. Dana 720,000 „

1893. C. D. Walcott 400,000 „

1893. W. Upham 100,000 „

1894. A. Heim 100,000 „

1900. W. J. Sollas 400,000 „

1909. A. Penck 520,000–800,000 years

1914. J. Geikie 620,000 (minimum) years

Osborn adopts the more conservative estimate of Penck for the duration

of the whole period, and gives a subdivision of the period, which is as

follows:[165]

│ _Period._ _Relative Duration._ _Grand Totals._

───────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────

│Recent 25,000 25,000

───────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────

Pleistocene│Fourth Glacial 25,000 50,000

„ │Third Genial 100,000 150,000

„ │Third Glacial 25,000 175,000

„ │Second Genial 200,000 375,000

„ │Second Glacial 25,000 400,000

„ │First Genial 75,000 475,000

„ │First Glacial 25,000 500,000

3. With man are associated among mammals more or less closely five

groups of animals—the Anthropoid apes, the Platyrrhini or Old World

monkeys, the Catarrhini or New World monkeys, the Lemurs, and the

Tarsii. It is clear that all these groups diverged from a common stem;

the first divergence, however, must have occurred not later than the

Eocene. To ascertain the interrelationship of these groups and the order

of their divergence we have to rely chiefly upon the evidence provided

by fossils. This evidence is very incomplete and, so far as the

definitely pre-human ancestor is concerned, is lacking entirely until we

come to a form known as Pithecanthropus, found in Java in a deposit

attributed either to the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene. With regard

to the evolution of the Primate stock it is usual to assume that the

Lemurs[166] and the Tarsii branched off from the main stem very early,

and that the Catarrhini followed by the Platyrrhini branched off in the

Eocene. It is usual, therefore, to assume that in Oligocene times there

was existing a Primate stock ancestral both to the anthropoid apes and

to man. It is possible that Propliopithecus from the Fayum is a

representative of this common stock from which the gibbons branched off

in the Miocene in one direction, and the orang, chimpanzee, gorilla, and

man in another. Man, it is imagined, branched off from this latter stock

in the early Miocene and the orang shortly afterwards, the separation of

the chimpanzee and gorilla occurring somewhat later. Various ancestral

gibbons (Pliopithecus and Pliohylobates) and ancestral anthropoids

(Dryopithecus, Neopithecus, and Palaeopithecus) are known from the

Miocene and Pliocene, but nothing has come to light as yet of the

distinctively pre-human stock in these times.

Apart from the question as to how the distinctively human stock is

related to the rest of the primate stock, there is much to be said for

the view that the pre-human ancestor of Miocene times was a small

arboreal primate which probably lived in a restricted area. But of the

mode of life we have of course no direct knowledge. It is possible,

however, that the mode of life of the anthropoid apes may give some

indication of the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor lived.

That they are all confined to warm climates in the Old World is

suggestive when it is remembered that Pithecanthropus was found in Java.

They are all more or less arboreal. The orang seldom comes to the

ground; the chimpanzee, though more arboreal than the gorilla, is less

so than the orang, while the gorilla is the least arboreal of all. The

first two species construct nests in the trees, and the same is asserted

of the gorilla, though this appears to be doubtful. They all adopt in

varying degrees a semi-erect attitude from time to time. They exhibit a

certain development of the social instinct; the gorilla is seen in

bands, the gibbons congregate in the evening in groups. It seems certain

that marriage in the sense in which Westermarck employs the term exists

among them; it is asserted that they are all polygamous, though the

chimpanzee may be monogamous. In any case they are not promiscuous in

their sexual relations.

If a guess is to be made at all as to the mode of life of the pre-human

ancestor, it is most reasonable to assume that it was something after

the same kind. But whereas the apes are powerful specialized animals,

the pre-human ancestor must have been a weaker and more generalized

primate, having specialized only in the increase of the brain. It was

this character which undoubtedly enabled him to maintain himself, and

which compensated for the relative absence of other means of defence.

The apes, on the other hand, are well able to look after themselves.

‘The orang, as Selenka informs us, is more than a match for the

dangerous carnivora with which he has to contend, and the gorilla is

monarch of the woods.’[167]

When we survey the Tertiary period as a whole we see that there was a

rapid and varied evolution of the mammalian stock in Eocene and

Oligocene times which culminated in the Miocene. All classes of mammals

were in process of rapid evolution. After this epoch of evolution,

specialization, and adaptation, the way was opened to the taking of the

lead by a species which exceeded others rather in intelligence than in

bodily superiority. The pre-human ancestor, we must suppose, had

somewhat fallen behind in this contest to achieve adaptation by means of

specialization, and could not then have taken a prominent place among

mammalian species. Nevertheless, somehow he managed to maintain himself,

and ultimately, as we shall point out later on, the retention of a

generalized bodily form became of a very distinct advantage in that it

enabled the best use to be made of his growing intellect.

4. The fossil remains of man from the Pleistocene are few and

incomplete. It is a matter of great interest to observe in what

subdivision of the Pleistocene these fossils occur, in which glacial or

genial epoch, that is to say, they are found, as in this manner some

indication can be gained, if not of their absolute, then of their

relative, distance from the present epoch in time. As already mentioned,

abundant evidence of human cultural remains are also found in the

Pleistocene, and these remains likewise can be associated with the

subdivisions of the period. Various names have been given to these

cultural periods, and we shall glance later at the evidence upon which

these periods are based. But it will be of assistance now to give a

table showing how the cultural periods are connected with the

subdivisions of the epoch, as it will thus be apparent how the fossil

remains stand in relation not only to the glacial and genial periods,

but also to the cultural periods.[168]

With regard to this table, except in respect to epochs of the later

post-glacial period, the dates are only intended to give an idea of

relative distance in time.[169] Some approximation to accuracy can be

obtained for the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron ages. In the case of the

latter two epochs, different dates have been given for the beginning of

the period in the Orient and in Europe. The remaining dates refer to

Europe only. As many cultures, so far as can be deduced from the

evidence, came from the Orient, the beginnings of such culture periods

in the Orient are doubtless to be dated some considerable time before

they first appeared in Europe. The names of the cultural periods, it may

be remarked, are taken from the places where either specimens of the

culture were first found, or where they are seen at their best. Thus

Chellean is derived from Chelles—a palaeolithic station close to

Paris—Acheulean from St. Acheul in the valley of the Somme, Mousterian

from Le Moustier on the right bank of the Vézère, and so on.

_Period._ _Date._ _Culture._ _Racial Type._

───────────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────

Post-Glacial 1,000 B.C. Iron │Europe

„ 1,800 „ „ │Orient

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

„ 2,000 „ Bronze │Europe

„ 4,000 „ „ │Orient

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

„ 5,000 „ Neolithic │Copper

„ 7,000 „ „ │Swiss Lake Modern racial

│ types.

„ 10,000 „ „ │Early

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

„ 12,000 „ Upper │Azilian

Palaeolithic│

„ 16,000 „ „ │Magdalenian Brünn and other

│ races.

„ 20,000 „ „ │Solutrian

„ 25,000 „ „ │Aurignacian Cro-Magnon and

│ Grimaldi.

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

Fourth 50,000 „ Middle │Mousterian H.

Glacial Palaeolithic│ neanderthalensis.

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

Third Genial 150,000 „ Lower │Acheulean

Palaeolithic│

„ │Chellean

Third Glacial 175,000 „ „ │Pre-Chellean Eoanthropus.

───────────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────

Second Genial 375,000 „ │ H. heidelbergensis.

Second 400,000 „ │

Glacial │

First Genial 475,000 „ │

First Glacial 500,000 „ │

Beginning of 525,000 „ │ Pithecanthropus.

Pleistocene │

5. Turning to the fossil remains of man we have first to deal with

Pithecanthropus. In September 1891 Dr. Eugene Dubois of Amsterdam

discovered at Trinil in Java certain fossil remains; he continued to

excavate for some two years, and succeeded in finding other remains, all

of which he attributed to the same individual. To this individual he

gave the name of Pithecanthropus erectus.[170] Dubois considered that

the strata in which Pithecanthropus was found belonged to the Pliocene.

Very great interest naturally attaches to this question; Dubois’s view

has been challenged: subsequent visitors to Trinil have very carefully

considered the matter, and the weight of scientific opinion now favours

the attribution of the strata to the early Pleistocene.[171]

The scantiness of the remains renders a reconstruction of the individual

a difficult and doubtful matter. Nevertheless, after some twenty years

of discussion there is a very general agreement that Pithecanthropus was

in many respects intermediate in type between modern man and the

hypothetical pre-human ancestor. The bones of the cranium are fused, the

brow ridges massive, and there is a marked narrowing behind the

orbit—all ape-like features. Further the cranium is flattened somewhat

as among the apes, but not to so great a degree; the altitudinal index

is 34·2; of the average European it is 52; of Neanderthal man 40·4. The

cranial capacity is about 855 c.c., or 250 c.c. greater than the largest

known skull of any of the Simiidae, whereas the average cranial capacity

of the Australian, the lowest living race, is about 1190 c.c. The femur

has only a slight curvature, and is decidedly human, indicating that its

possessor was some 1650–1700 mm. in height, and probably walked upright.

The teeth are simian rather than human, the roots diverge and the crowns

are large; they exhibit, nevertheless, certain human features.

If we attempt to reconstruct Pithecanthropus, we must picture a creature

half ape, half man, which was probably terrestrial and erect. His body

weight must have been about 70 kilograms. If this fact is correct, it

provides a very useful method of estimating the relation of

Pithecanthropus to the apes on one hand and to man on the other. We know

roughly what proportion brain weight bears to body weight. If

Pithecanthropus had been human—given the brain weight deduced from the

cranial capacity—the body weight should be 19 kilograms. If

Pithecanthropus had been simian, the body weight should be 230

kilograms. We have in fact reason to think that it was about 70

kilograms, which emphasizes the intermediate position of Dubois’s famous

discovery.

It is further probable that Pithecanthropus had free use of the arms,

the legs having become specialized for progression. It is quite possible

that he may have employed tools of wood or of stone, though there is no

evidence to this effect. It is further possible that some rudimentary

form of speech may have been employed. The motor centre for speech is

found in a particular area of the brain known as Broca’s area. This area

can be identified in the brain cast of Pithecanthropus, and it is stated

to be twice as great as in the apes, but only half as large as in man.

‘The undeveloped forehead of Pithecanthropus and the diminutive frontal

area of the brain indicate that the Trinil race had a limited faculty of

profiting by experience and accumulated tradition, for in this

prefrontal area of the brain are located the powers of attention and of

control of the activities of all other parts of the brain. In the brain

of the ape the sensory areas of touch, taste, and vision predominate,

and these are well developed in Pithecanthropus. The central area of the

brain, which is the storehouse of the memory of action and the feelings

associated with them, is also well developed, but the prefrontal area,

which is the seat of the faculty of profiting by experience or of

recalling the consequences of previous responses to experience, is

developed to a very limited degree.’[172]

Pithecanthropus is thus a form of the highest interest in the history of

man. Provisionally, it may be put at the dawn of the Pleistocene.

Uncertainty also surrounds the position of the next human remains to be

mentioned, which consist of a lower jaw from the Mauer Sands near

Heidelberg.[173] It is generally agreed that these sands were deposited

in a genial epoch, and opinion now inclines to associate them with the

second genial epoch. The jaw itself is very simian, scarcely showing any

approach to human characters. The teeth, however, are remarkably human,

and it is said that in some respects the teeth of existing primitive

races approach the simian condition more nearly than do the teeth of the

Heidelberg race. The relation of this form to Pithecanthropus and to

those which follow may be left for consideration until we have completed

our sketch of human fossil types.

There remains a third early form to be mentioned—Eoanthropus dawsoni

from Piltdown near Lewis.[174] The gravel in which Eoanthropus was found

was certainly deposited in a warm period. It probably dates from either

the second or the third genial epoch, but great uncertainty attaches to

the correlation of these gravels with the phases of the glacial period.

Some implements found near the bones have been referred to the

pre-Chellean culture period, which would indicate the third genial

epoch. The mammalian fauna seems also to favour the reference of these

strata to the same period.

The remains of Eoanthropus consist of the greater part of the brain case

and part of the right mandible with the first and second molars _in

situ_. The canine tooth was found later. The skull has been

reconstructed from several fragments. There has been much controversy as

to the correct method of performing this reconstruction. The first

estimate of the cranial capacity put it at about 1,100 c.c. Woodward has

later revised his estimate, and arrived at a figure approaching 1,300

c.c. Keith has suggested a higher figure. The bones of the skull are

very thick, brow ridges are almost absent, and the forehead is very

steep. The jaw, on the other hand, is even more ape-like than the jaw of

Heidelberg man; it slopes away with scarcely any vestige of a chin, the

pre-molar series of teeth is parallel, and the molars do not decrease in

size backwards. It is owing to the simian features of the jaw that the

authors felt justified in creating a new species for these remains.

Although the absence of brow ridges and the presence of a steep forehead

are characters which mark the higher human types, they are also found

among all young apes. It is thus possible that Eoanthropus may represent

in the general form of the skull the missing Miocene and Pliocene

ancestor more nearly than Pithecanthropus. The brain, though very

primitive, was decidedly human; there was a moderate development of

those areas connected with speech.

6. It is a matter of doubt to what subdivisions of the Pleistocene the

types hitherto mentioned should be assigned and with what cultures, if

any, they should be connected. At this point we come to a region of less

uncertainty. Associated with Mousterian implements and with the deposits

of the fourth glacial period we find a distinct type of man whom we may

call Mousterian or Neanderthal; for it was in the Neanderthal near

Düsseldorf that the first specimen of this race was discovered in

1856.[175] Since that date several other examples of this type have been

found. Some of the specimens have been preserved almost complete, and

Professor Boule has been able to make a detailed study of the skeleton

from La Chapelle-aux-Saints.[176] In the course of his memoir he

institutes a comparison between this and other examples of Neanderthal

man, and shows that they all agree in the possession of certain features

of importance. Neanderthal man was small but massive; the facial portion

of the head was much developed in comparison with the cranial; the head

was low and narrow, the forehead receding, the occiput protruding, the

orbits large, and the brow ridges heavy. The lower jaw was strong, the

chin rudimentary, and the hinder molar teeth primitive. The vertebral

column indicates a less upright posture than that of modern man. With

regard to one feature—the cranial capacity—there is great variability.

The cranial capacity of the Gibraltar skull is only 1,296 c.c., whilst

that of the Chapelle-aux-Saints specimen is 1,620 c.c. According to

Boule, however, this variation is no greater than that found among

modern European skulls. He makes out the average capacity of Neanderthal

man as 1,400 c.c.; this estimate is far lower than that usually given;

it is often said that the average capacity approaches 1,600 c.c.

The Neanderthal race forms a very distinct type. It is found only in the

Middle Palaeolithic period.[177] Of its origin there will be something

to be said later; it appears that it died out before the Upper

Palaeolithic age began, for, as we shall see, apparently none of the

types which occurs later descended from this race.

7. The Upper Palaeolithic culture is associated with the end of the

fourth glacial epoch. In place of the remains of Neanderthal man we find

the remains of several types, none of which shows any affinity to

Neanderthal man. On the contrary they all approximate more or less

closely to modern man. At one bound we seem, when looking at the fossil

remains from this epoch in Europe, to have passed into the modern period

so far as human bodily form is concerned. As we shall see later, it is

probable that the various types entered Europe from the East, and

probably originated somewhere in Western Asia. The most important of

these types is known as Cro-Magnon man. It is found throughout the Late

Palaeolithic period. The first specimen was found at Cro-Magnon in the

valley of the Vézère. Other specimens have been found in the Grotte de

Grimaldi and assigned to the beginning of the Aurignacian, the first

subdivision of the Upper Palaeolithic, and others again at Obercassel,

and assigned to the Magdalenian, or last subdivision of the Upper

Palaeolithic. In modern France in the region of Périgueux there is

existing at the present day a type which in so many features resembles

Cro-Magnon man that it may be a survival from Upper Palaeolithic times.

The general features of the chief types of the Upper Palaeolithic may be

very briefly indicated. The skull of Cro-Magnon man was narrow, the face

low and broad; the brow ridges project slightly; the orbits are low and

rectangular; the nose is long and narrow and the root broad. Cro-Magnon

man was tall, approaching an average of 6 ft. in height; the cranial

capacity was large, being somewhere about 1,600 c.c.[178]

In the Grotte de Grimaldi were also found two skeletons of what has been

called the Grimaldi race. No other skeletons of this type have been

found in Europe. There are two points to notice about this type; first

it is not relatively speaking a low type; the cranial capacity was, for

instance, 1,580 c.c.; secondly, it shows undoubted resemblance to the

Negroid type. The skull is narrow, the face large and low, and

prognathism is marked. The orbits are large and of low vertical height,

the nose broad and flat.

The third type is that found at Brünn and again at Brux in connexion

with Solutrian culture (middle of Upper Palaeolithic). The skull is very

long and generally of a lower type than the Cro-Magnon skull. In certain

respects there is a slight resemblance to the Neanderthal type. Finally

from deposits at the close of the late Palaeolithic period at Offnet two

further types are known. One of them is a long-headed race not unlike

the Mediterranean type of European at the present day. The other is a

broad-headed race, which is not unlike the Alpine type of modern

European.

In a general sketch further details need not be added. There is no

essential difference between the physical type existing in Neolithic

times and that of modern man. Leaving the discussion of the

interrelationship and origin of these types until after we have spoken

of the evolution of culture, what we have found so far is that in the

beginning of the Pleistocene and in the early Palaeolithic there are

three primitive types of man known, and that in the Middle Palaeolithic

there is a peculiar type with many primitive features, whereas in the

Upper Palaeolithic we are in the presence of types which for the most

part differ but little from modern races, and even show affinity to

certain modern races in particular cases.[179]

8. We have now to give some account of the evolution of culture as shown

by the implements and other remains left by primitive man. The story of

the first identification of stone implements by Boucher de Perthes is

well known. Gradually a succession of periods has been recognized, and

the names given to them have already been introduced in the preceding

pages. Of the two main periods—Palaeolithic and Neolithic—the first is

distinguished by the facts that stone implements were not polished,

agriculture was not practised, pottery was not made,[180] and animals

were not domesticated. Within the Palaeolithic period several successive

types of culture can be distinguished, but before we deal with them

something must be said regarding the so-called Eolithic period.

There are found in many places stones supposed to exhibit a very

primitive form of human workmanship. To them the name of eoliths has

been given. They have been described from the

Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. Many archaeologists believe that they

are the remains of a primitive form of culture which preceded the

Palaeolithic form of culture. The matter is still under debate.

We may note that eoliths exhibit very little variation. The same types

appear from the Oligocene onwards, and if there was an eolithic culture

it must have lasted some millions of years and been accompanied by

little or no progress in the fashioning of implements. An exception must

be made in the case of the so-called ‘rostro-carinate’ implements

described by Mr. Reid Moir, and attributed to the late Pliocene.[181]

These stones are of a distinctive type, and apparently do not occur in

the Oligocene and the Miocene.[182] There are several considerations

which make it difficult to accept eoliths as genuine remains of an early

culture; some of these considerations do not apply to the

rostro-carinate type, and some apply with less force, (_a_) Breuil has

pointed out that as good eoliths occur in the Eocene as in the later

strata.[183] Apart from this, the occurrence of eoliths in the

Oligocene, taken together with the immense length of the period during

which no progress in skill was made, is almost incompatible with what we

must suppose to have been the course of human evolution. The various

classes of mammals were in rapid evolution at this time, and it is

difficult to understand how, before this period of mammalian expansion,

man alone could have evolved to something akin to the type of the early

Pleistocene, and then for so long a period have failed to progress.[184]

If indeed Propliopithecus, or any similar form in the Oligocene, is a

type from or near the line of human ascent, then we cannot allow

Oligocene eoliths to be genuine artefacts, and there is no reason why,

if we reject Oligocene eoliths, we should consider Miocene or Pliocene

eoliths to be genuine. (_b_) Numerous observations have been made

showing that stones similar to eoliths are formed under natural

conditions of pressure, wave action, and so on. It is of particular

interest to note that even the rostro-carinate type can be thus

formed.[185] (_c_) Upon the whole eoliths are only found where other

stones of the same composition are found, whereas palaeoliths may be

found anywhere—the deduction, of course, being that eoliths, inasmuch as

they are formed under natural agencies, remain associated with other

stones of the same composition whereas palaeoliths were widely

distributed by those who used them. The question of eoliths is very far

from being settled. Lest it be thought that the difficulties in the way

of accepting eoliths as genuine have been exaggerated owing to some

bias, it may be mentioned that the chief deduction we shall draw from

human history as a whole would be considerably strengthened if eoliths

could be regarded as genuine artefacts. If we cannot accept eoliths as

without question genuine, it does not mean that before the Palaeolithic

period man did not make and use stone implements. Undoubtedly he did so.

But it may be from the nature of the case that it is impossible to

recognize these instruments.[186]

9. In a warm period of the Pleistocene, now almost universally

identified with the third genial epoch, occur the first implements of

undoubted human workmanship. Within this early Palaeolithic epoch three

phases of culture are distinguished, the pre-Chellean, Chellean, and

Acheulean. It is worth while observing that M. Rutot, who is a foremost

supporter of the eolithic theory, remarks, on arriving in a general

review of the evidence at this pre-Chellean period, that there can be

observed the ‘apparition subite d’objets nouveaux’.[187] It is precisely

these ‘objets nouveaux’ which many authorities consider as the first

genuine artefacts, and not as mere improvements of a more primitive type

of implement.

The typical instrument of the Chellean period was the hand axe—a stone

shaped to fit the hand, and used for striking blows.[188] Knives and

scrapers were also common. In the Acheulean or latest period of the

Palaeolithic there is seen a general improvement in workmanship. The

hand axe is lighter and more carefully worked. There is a great variety

of small implements, often showing a considerable degree of care and

skill. For the first time there is in the Acheulean era evidence that

man employed fire. It does not appear that bone was yet used for making

implements. It can be shown that early Palaeolithic implements represent

a steady and continual advance in skill with the improvement of old

types and the development of new types.

During the late Acheulean period it was becoming colder, and the

succeeding stage, or Middle Palaeolithic era, falls almost wholly

within the fourth glacial period. Man began to make his home in caves,

and we are well acquainted with the physical type under the name of

Neanderthal man, described above. There are again traces of fire. Some

kind of ceremonial burial was employed. A skeleton found at La

Chapelle-aux-Saints showed that the body had been carefully disposed

for burial; implements had been placed close to the body, one fine

implement lying within reach of the left hand. There is a marked

difference as regards the stone implements between this and the

preceding period. A different method of shaping implements was

employed. There is some inclination to regard the Mousterian stone

industry as of a lower grade than the stage previously attained. With

regard to this stage in general we may note that it is the first in

which we have a detailed knowledge of the physical type and in which

we have some indication of the stage of psychical development as shown

by the employment of ceremonial burial.

This stage is sharply divided from that which follows it. So far as is

known, Neanderthal man disappears at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic,

and Mousterian industry is replaced by the Aurignacian, a wholly new

type of culture, presumably introduced by some new racial element. As we

have seen, there are several racial types in the Upper Palaeolithic, and

the Cro-Magnon type, which occurs from the beginning of this period, may

have brought the new culture into Europe. The art of stone implement

making reached a height during the Aurignacian never previously

approached; knives and scrapers were especially finely shaped. In the

Solutrian, or middle period of the Upper Palaeolithic, stone implement

making reached the highest point to which it attained in the

Palaeolithic period. The workmanship exhibited in the well-known willow

and laurel leaf lance-heads is very fine. Bone tools are first found in

the Upper Palaeolithic. It is clear from the disposition of the

skeletons that burials were again employed, and indicate, if not a

belief in a future life in our meaning of the phrase, at least the

presence of a body of tradition regarding the state of the deceased. It

is not certain whether man at this stage possessed the bow and arrow.

Nothing can, of course, be known with certainty regarding the degree to

which perishable substances were manufactured; it can only be said that

in all probability skins and furs were used as clothing, that basketwork

was understood, and nets constructed. The most remarkable remains which

have been preserved from this period are the drawings and paintings on

the walls of caverns. They are found throughout the Upper Palaeolithic

period, and indicate a high degree of skill and taste.[189]

That the Solutrian Age shows an improvement upon the Aurignacian from

the point of view of stone implement making has been indicated. It also

shows a similar improvement as regards bone implements; bone needles

with perforated eyes, for instance, occur for the first time. There is a

distinct improvement in the drawings and paintings. In the next or

Magdalenian period of the Upper Palaeolithic there is a loss of skill so

far as stone implements are concerned; there is no general decadence,

however, as the making of implements from bone, horn, and ivory shows a

considerable advance. Further, drawing and painting reached their

highest development. The remains from this era are very abundant and

well known, and exhibit a vast number of types of implements giving a

general impression of a considerable degree of material wealth

relatively to the fact that agriculture was not practised.

At the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic the Magdalenian culture is

succeeded by a rather obscure stage known as the Azilian-Tardenoisian.

There is again a sudden and very distinct break in the evolution of

culture. In nearly all respects there is a failure to reach the previous

level of skill. Both flint and bone implements are of inferior

workmanship. The artistic spirit vanishes. Little is known about this

culture; possibly man at this period was not so unskilled, as at first

sight seems to have been the case, for he had apparently domesticated

the dog.[190]

10. Neolithic culture is marked by the practice of agriculture, the

domestication of animals,[191] the polishing of stone implements, and

the making of pottery.[192] Though it is strongly contrasted with the

preceding culture, there is considerable evidence of a transition

period. This evidence, however, is generally interpreted as indicating

the infiltration of the new culture from the East, and not the evolution

of the new culture in Europe. Even at this relatively recent period in

history the chronology is vague. The Swiss Lake Dwellings (Robehausian

period) represent the typical fully developed European Neolithic

culture, and are dated about 8000 to 7000 B.C. Farther East there is

evidence of a far greater antiquity. Montelius on the basis of De

Morgan’s observations at Susa calculated that the Neolithic Age began

there about 20,000 years ago.[193] Sir Arthur Evans estimates that at

least 14,000 years have elapsed since the beginning of the Neolithic

period at Cnossus.[194] All that can be said is that the Neolithic

culture was flourishing in the eighth millennium B. C. in many parts of

Europe, having been brought from farther East, where it had originated

at a considerably earlier date. It has proved very difficult to

subdivide the Neolithic epoch into successive periods. In the

Palaeolithic period superimposed deposits containing relics of various

cultures are not infrequently found, thus enabling the succession of

culture periods to be made out. In the Neolithic period evidence of this

kind is for the most part lacking. It is not proposed to enter upon the

subject here beyond saying that three stages are recognized by French

archaeologists, the Campignienne, the Chasséo-Robenhaussienne, and the

Carnacéenne. The first of these stages is markedly more primitive than

the succeeding stages. The second is that of the Swiss Lake Dwellings,

and the third that of Megalithic monuments—Dolmens, Menhirs, Cromlechs,

Allées Couvertes, stone circles, and so on.[195]

What has been said regarding culture periods in general—namely, that

they are not definite periods in time in the history of mankind as a

whole, but epochs through which different races have passed at different

times—is well illustrated in the case of the Neolithic. The Neolithic

culture had existed some thousands of years in Western Asia before it

penetrated into Europe, and was practised in some parts of Europe, in

Britain, for instance, up to about 2000 B. C. or later, for thousands of

years after metals had been taken into use elsewhere. In general the

Neolithic period has to be regarded as a period of great advance in

material wealth. Relatively to Palaeolithic men, Neolithic men were

rich, and often lived in villages of some size. Several animals were

domesticated, several varieties of cereals cultivated, linen was

manufactured, and the vine as well as a large number of fruit-trees

known. It appears that many at least of the well-known trading routes

used in the Bronze Age were open in the Neolithic Age. Some of these

routes brought the Baltic into communication with the Mediterranean, one

began at Venice, passed over the Brenner, and reached the Danube by

means of the Inn; thence it traversed the Bohemian forest to the Moldau,

and thus reached the Elbe, which was followed to its mouth. Another

began at Trieste, and passing through Laibach and Grätz reached the

Danube by means of the Leitha; thence it followed the March, traversed

Moravia, passed through Silesia along the Oder, while the Vistula was

reached by striking across Posen, the principal terminus being

Danzig.[196]

11. Obscurity surrounds the location and date of the first use of

metal.[197] Gold was probably the first metal known to man; it is found

in the pure state in many countries, and would attract attention owing

to its lustre. It was not, however, of economic importance until much

later. In all probability man learnt the art of metal working from the

accidental reduction of ore that formed one of the ring of stones round

the camp fire. Copper may have been first used where it appears at the

surface in a pure state, having been beaten into implements, as was done

by the Indians near Lake Superior; the use of this metal is, however,

until heat is employed, to be regarded merely as a variation of the art

of stone implement making, and does not form the first step in the art

of metal working for which knowledge of reduction by heat is required.

It is frequently said that an age of copper preceded the age of bronze,

and in many places copper implements were used before bronze implements.

Probably the occurrence of a Copper Age in any one place was dependent

upon the nature of the ore found there. Copper is frequently associated

with tin and other metals in a state of nature. We may suppose that the

first metal workers were simply trying to get metal—being aware that

metal could be obtained by heating certain kinds of stone—and that in

some places they got copper and in other places bronze. Later they

learnt to add a definite percentage of tin or some other metal, and thus

to produce an alloy of definite composition. Thus a true Bronze Age

followed either a Copper Age or an accidental Bronze Age. It is somewhat

curious that iron was not taken sooner into use, for less heat is

required than in the case of copper for reduction—700° C. to 800° C. as

against 1,100° C.

Whether there was more than one place of origin of the use of any metal

in the Old World is not known. Copper was independently taken into use

in the New World, and the use of copper may have originated

independently in North and South America.[198] Bronze was known in Peru.

Heat was certainly employed for hammering and annealing copper, and

casting may have been employed. Iron was sometimes used in North America

to make ornaments. With regard to the Old World a claim is made for many

countries as the original home of metal working. Reisner found copper

daggers, spear heads, harpoons, pins, needles, and bracelets in the

graves of the middle pre-Dynastic period of Egypt; by the time of the

first dynasty the Egyptians were ‘in possession of a full equipment of

copper weapons’.[199] In the early pre-Dynastic period metallic pigments

containing copper were in use, and it is possible that the reduction of

copper may have been first suggested by some accidental fusion of these

substances. It is further claimed that there is evidence of the local

evolution of copper implements since the earliest forms imitate stone

implements, and the later forms are merely improvements of pre-existing

types.[200] Reisner concludes that there is no reason to assume that the

invention came from beyond the frontiers of Egypt.[201] The Sumerians,

on the other hand, when we first meet them at a very early date, must

have been using copper for some considerable time. All that can be said

with certainty is that the use of metals originated in the Orient,

probably before 4000 B. C.—possibly some two or three thousand years

earlier. Copper, it may be noticed, occurs in Armenia, in the upper

basin of the Tigris and in Sinai amongst other places. The use of bronze

gradually spread over Europe. It is found in Crete about 3000 B. C., in

Southern Thessaly about 2500 B. C., and seems to have reached England

about 2000 B. C. or somewhat later. Generally speaking, we can connect

the taking into use of metals with the rise of the first civilizations.

These civilizations reached their greatest development before the

introduction of iron. The whole Minoan civilization, the Mycenean

survival of Minoan civilization on the mainland,[202] the most glorious

period of Egyptian history up to and including the greater part of the

Second Empire, the Sumerian kingdom, the earlier periods of Babylonia

and Assyria, all fall within the Bronze Age.

Though it is clear that a great advance took place in the Bronze Age, it

is not evident how far this advance is attributable to the taking of

metals into use and how far to other discoveries which were made about

the same time. The first use of the wheel and of the plough, for

instance, dates from this period, and very considerable importance

without question is attributable to the plough. Still greater importance

is in all probability to be attributed to writing, which again was first

used about this time. At a far earlier period various methods of marking

sticks had doubtless been employed as aids to memory, as they are still

employed by the Australians, and some progress may have been made

towards such a system as that of the use of knotted cords in Peru. But

the invention of writing properly speaking came much later. By the time

of the fourth dynasty Egyptian writing had reached its final form, and

the Sumerians, when we first meet them, were using cuneiform writing.

This invention of such great import, whether it arose independently or

not in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China, was evidently roughly coincident

with the first use of metals.

Estimates as to the date of the first use of iron in the Mesopotamian

region vary considerably; 1500 B. C. to 1300 B. C. is the date most

usually given. In Egypt the earliest known iron weapon dates from 1200

B. C. By 900 B. C. the use of iron had spread over most of Europe. It

reached Scandinavia about 500 B. C. It was introduced into Greece by the

Thresprotian invasion, which put an end to the Mycenean period, and

inaugurated the Homeric Age. It is possible that the Etruscans brought

the knowledge of iron to Italy where they arrived during the eleventh

century B. C. Upon the whole, opinion inclines to the view that the use

of iron originated in Western Asia. Claims have also been made for

Europe (neighbourhood of Hallstatt) as the place of origin,[203] for

Egypt, and for Africa south of Egypt.[204] With regard to Egyptian

claims it may be noticed that iron does not become common until after

1200 B. C. But four examples of iron have been found in Egypt from

periods before this date—some of them belonging to very early times. The

finding of these pieces of iron presents a rather difficult problem, of

which the solution seems to be that iron was very occasionally used, and

probably only for ornamental purposes, long before 1200 B. C. in Egypt;

it was not, however, brought into general use at this early date.

It is not necessary to carry this sketch of cultural evolution any

farther. The Bronze Age marks a turning-point in history. The outline at

least of the subsequent course of events is sufficiently familiar. One

point may be noticed. We have found reason to place the centre of

progress somewhere in the Orient. After metal has been taken into use

the centre of progress begins to shift westwards. Once metals had been

introduced into Crete, for instance, Minoan civilization was in any case

largely an autochthonous growth. Speaking of Crete, Hall says: ‘We have

nothing to show any intrusion of any other culture system which in any

way suddenly modifies or alters the course of this development, which is

that of the civilization of a single people raising itself on its own

lines from Neolithic barbarism. Its first development from the static

condition in which it had existed for many centuries in the Neolithic

stage was sudden, and the dynamic influence which was given by the

acquisition of metal speedily carried it to the great height of

cultivation which we have seen.’[205] Hitherto—before, that is to say,

the taking into use of metal—the centre of progress has been looked for

in Central Asia.[206] There had been progress in Europe within the

culture periods, but the great steps in progress were made in the East.

12. Let us now review what has so far been said in this chapter. Such

indications as the evidence provides point to the origin of man in the

eastern portion of the Old World, and probably in a warm climate. The

principal facts in favour of this view are the distribution of the

anthropoids, the occurrence of Pithecanthropus in Java, and the failure

to find any evidence of the antiquity of man in the New World.[207]

Unless Pithecanthropus is to be attributed to the Pliocene, we have no

knowledge of man before the Pleistocene. It would seem that the

pre-human ancestor of the Miocene and Pliocene was probably rather an

obscure member of the primate stock retaining generalized features.

Somehow without specialization he managed to survive—possibly in some

very limited area. When the rapid evolution of bodily form among the

mammals had slowed down, the only specialization in which the pre-human

ancestor had indulged began to stand him in good stead. That it carried

him as far as it did—to the dominion over all living things—was made

possible by the fact that his bodily form was not specialized, but was

capable of being turned into an instrument of the mind. The evidence

seems to indicate the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene as the era when

man began to develop along this path.

Just as the East was probably the place of man’s origin, so it remained

the seat of both bodily and cultural evolution. There is no sign of the

evolution of human physical form in Europe, nor is there any evidence of

the evolution of the main stages of culture in Europe until after the

taking of metals into use, though there is evidence both of progress and

of decay within the culture periods. The evidence points to the

conclusion that successive waves of immigrants brought with them new

cultures from the East. Some may have entered Europe from Africa, as

perhaps did the Cro-Magnons, bringing the Aurignacian culture. These

waves of migration are not, however, to be regarded as comparable to

migrations within the historical period—the Islamic migrations of the

Arabs, for instance. These earlier movements were rather of the nature

of slow driftings of peoples. They may have been connected with climatic

changes and have occupied long periods of time. Quite possibly when we

appear to see the extinction of one culture and the sudden replacement

of it by another, what in fact happened was that, owing to climatic

changes, those who practised the earlier culture had shifted elsewhere

before the newcomers occupied the area in question.

With regard to the bodily evolution of man the first detailed knowledge

we have is of the Neanderthal race. We know that Neanderthal man lived

in the fourth glacial period. Before this epoch we know nothing of human

bodily evolution except from three imperfect specimens which we cannot

assign definitely to any period in the Pleistocene beyond placing them

before the Middle Palaeolithic. No definite conclusions can be drawn as

to the relation of these three forms one to another, or to the forms

which follow.

Pithecanthropus may or may not be on the direct line leading to all the

higher races. There is some probability that Heidelberg man is a

forerunner of Neanderthal man, whereas Eoanthropus would seem to be

related on the one hand to the hypothetical Pliocene ancestor, and on

the other hand to the Late and not to the Middle Palaeolithic races. It

is quite possible that, as Europe was not the scene of human evolution,

Piltdown and Heidelberg men represent varieties which have died out, and

not stages from the main line of human evolution. This is certainly the

case with the Neanderthal race. In the Upper Palaeolithic we find races

of as high a physical type as those of the present day, but we have no

certain knowledge of their direct ancestors.

By far the most remarkable feature of the whole process has been the

speeding up of the rate of progress of the evolution of culture. This

speeding up would be very much emphasized if we could accept eoliths as

genuine, as indicating, that is to say, the existence of an eolithic

culture before the Palaeolithic culture extending over an immense period

of time. As it is, the acceleration of the rate of progress is striking

enough. The whole Palaeolithic period probably lasted at least 100,000

years. Regarding this period as a whole, we can observe a noteworthy

speeding up of progress in the last part of the period. A few thousand

years only separate the early from the late divisions of the Upper

Palaeolithic and the progress exhibited is very considerable, whereas

but relatively little progress is visible during the huge length of time

which the Lower Palaeolithic must have occupied. The whole progress

made, however, up to the opening of the Bronze Age is insignificant

compared with that made since. Nevertheless, progress has not been

uniform within the historical era. There have been periods of stagnation

and even of decadence. Little progress in command over nature was made

between the time of the later Egyptian civilization and the later Middle

Ages as compared with the progress made in the last hundred years.

Progress in skill gathered speed in the thirteenth century, and the

speeding up became very marked in the eighteenth century. There has been

a similar lack of uniformity in the evolution of culture where culture

is judged by standards other than command over nature.

13. How far can we employ our knowledge of primitive races to fill in

this framework? Some reference has been made in the fourth chapter to

the position which these races occupy. It was pointed out that they

represent ‘relicts’ of stages of culture through which the civilized

races have passed, due allowance being made for the fact that they have

developed to some degree on specialized lines of their own since their

separation from the main stream of progress. In some few cases, as in

the example of the Seri Indians, there may have been decadence.

Broadly speaking, these races fall into two groups. There are the

hunting and fishing races, and there are those which practise a

primitive form of agriculture. The former, it is to be presumed, ceased

to be in any important manner influenced by, if they were not wholly cut

off from, the main current of cultural evolution before the end of the

Palaeolithic Age. The latter may have remained more or less in contact

with the main stream of evolution until late Neolithic times, or they

may have lost touch earlier and have acquired independently the art of

agriculture, as was presumably the case with those American Indians who

practise agriculture. The chief hunting and fishing races are the

Tasmanians, Australians, Bushmen, Eskimos, and certain of the American

Indians. Professor Sollas has drawn up a comparison between the culture

of some of these races and that of certain epochs in the Palaeolithic

era. He has shown that Tasmanian and Australian culture may be compared

with early and late phases respectively of the Middle Palaeolithic. A

very striking similarity indeed can be shown between the Aurignacian

culture and that of the Bushmen on the one hand and between the

Magdalenian culture and that of the Eskimo on the other. When we

consider the osteological evidence, however, we do not find any striking

similarity between Neanderthal man and Australians and Tasmanians. The

existence of the negroid skeleton of Grimaldi is suggestive, but the

likeness between it and the Bushmen type is not close. The skull found

at Chancelade, however, and generally considered as an aberrant type of

Cro-Magnon man does show a very curious resemblance to the Eskimo skull.

Thus though we cannot think of the Tasmanians and Australians as actual

relicts of the Neanderthal racial type, which we know in Europe, we may

think of Australian culture in its broad general features as

representative of the Middle Palaeolithic.[208]

As has been already indicated in the fourth chapter, it is not proposed

to attempt to carry the method so far as to attribute to peoples of

different Palaeolithic cultures peculiarities of certain primitive

hunting and fishing races. All that it is proposed to do is to look into

the general conditions which obtain among hunting and fishing races with

the object of throwing light upon the conditions in the Palaeolithic era

as a whole. Similarly it is proposed to throw light upon the Neolithic

period by an inquiry into the conditions obtaining among primitive

agricultural races. This method is clearly legitimate. It may

nevertheless be said at once that as a matter of fact, so far as the

most important conclusions are concerned, we shall find no reasons for

thinking that hunting and fishing races differ from agricultural races.

The legitimacy of the method is therefore not strictly relevant. It

follows from this that the splitting up of the data and the

consideration separately of hunting and of agricultural races is in

reality only a matter of convenience.

14. Before we embark upon this attempt to throw light upon such general

characteristics of prehistoric races as are relevant to our particular

purpose, there is another point to be considered. One supposition

regarding the mode of life of man in early days is that he lived in

groups of polygamous families. As monogamy occurs among some of the

lowest of existing primitive races, he may have been monogamous. In any

case it seems that early man was not promiscuous in his sexual

relations. Whatever his primitive mode of life may have been, man

gradually rose to the recognition of common bonds and to the observation

in common of certain rules and restrictions. Primitive social

organization in fact gradually came into being, and this step, slowly

and painfully achieved as it no doubt was, represents one of the most

important steps ever achieved by man. Then for the first time he began

to reap the benefits of co-operation. Clearly we must imagine a

primitive form of social organization to have existed in the late

Palaeolithic; the attainment to so relatively high a degree of skill and

achievement is not otherwise comprehensible. The achievements of late

Palaeolithic man indicate the presence of a considerable body of

tradition, and the presence of tradition in any considerable amount

indicates social organization. It is difficult to come to any conclusion

with regard to early and Middle Palaeolithic times. The mode of life of

Neanderthal man is perhaps apt to be considered as more primitive than

was in fact the case, owing to the somewhat brutal form attributed to

his bodily features. It has to be remembered that he practised

ceremonial burial, and was acquainted with the use of fire—very

significant facts which render it on the whole probable that social

organization of a kind existed. Possibly we may have to suppose that

social organization existed among lower Palaeolithic men. They too

employed fire, and it may well be that their mode of life was not very

different from that of the Tasmanians.

Among all primitive races we find a form of social organization, and

unless it has been achieved more than once they are all ‘relicts’ of the

periods succeeding that in which men wandered in family groups. In the

first place, therefore, primitive races are only comparable with

prehistoric races which have achieved this great step forward. They

throw little or no light upon the conditions anterior to the taking of

this step. Further, when we look into the life of these races, we find

that the form of social organization is rigid. Men are bound hand and

foot by custom.[209] It has been suggested that the peculiarly rigid

nature of the social organization among these races—the fact that they

are soaked in tradition—is due to their having been left out of the main

stream of progress. It has been suggested in fact that, while other

races have gone forward, they have more or less stagnated, and that—this

is what is important—the relative stagnation has been the cause of the

rigidness of the organization. It follows that, to the extent to which

this is so, primitive races are not properly comparable with prehistoric

races. But it may be doubted if the facts are altogether as sometimes

alleged. Doubtless the earliest social organization was far less rigid

than it afterwards became, and we must beware of attributing to those

early races, which first became socially organized, the features

characteristic of primitive races, at least in many aspects. But we must

date back the origin of social organization in all probability nearer

100,000 than 50,000 years ago. In other words, later Palaeolithic races

must have had some thousands of years of social organization behind

them. Is then the peculiar rigidity of the organization of primitive

races altogether to be regarded as an acquirement attained during the

15,000, 20,000, 30,000 years, or whatever the period may have been,

since they have been out of the main stream of progress? It can scarcely

be so. A hardening of the system may have taken place, but not to such

an extent as to render it impossible to make comparisons between

primitive races and prehistoric races, and, what concerns us, to render

unacceptable the attribution to prehistoric races of those general

conditions of life found among primitive races, which will form the

subject-matter of the next two chapters.

VII

HUNTING AND FISHING RACES

1. We now pass to a consideration of the quantitative problem. In this

chapter we deal with hunting and fishing races. We require information

first regarding those factors which hinder the realization to the full

of the power of fecundity, and secondly regarding those factors which

cause elimination. Not until we have this information can we hope to

determine how numbers are regulated among these races. This inquiry is

not intended to be exhaustive; our aim is merely to gain an idea of the

nature of the more important factors which are in operation. When we

come to the interpretation of the evidence, there will be more to say

both as to the incompleteness of the evidence as here presented and as

to the inherent difficulties of ascertaining what the position was

before European influence had made itself felt.

2. We may first consider sexual intercourse before maturity. It is

perhaps more difficult to determine the prevalence of this custom than

that of any other practice which we shall have to examine in the course

of this chapter. The difficulty is due to the nature of the facts under

discussion; first it is clearly not easy to ascertain them and

comparatively few authors have the intimate knowledge necessary to

enable definite statements to be made; secondly such veiled and guarded

language is often used that the true state of the case remains

uncertain. We shall see that marriage, or at any rate cohabitation, very

soon after puberty is the universal rule among these races. Statements

therefore concerning ‘very early’ marriage must, in the absence of more

exact information, be taken to mean no more than that marriage follows

at once after puberty. Of the Tasmanians there is no certain

information. Statements exist to the effect that marriages are sometimes

consummated in Australia before puberty;[210] these statements are

seldom specific or on good authority. The more trustworthy accounts

state definitely that, no matter at what age betrothal occurs, the

husband does not claim his wife until she is mature.[211] The existence

of early betrothal as a widespread habit has no doubt betrayed some

authors into an error.[212] We know little of the customs of the Bushmen

in this as in most other respects. Statements have been made, however,

to the effect that marriage took place at so early an age that the girls

could not have been mature.[213]

Passing to the Eskimos it would appear that pre-puberty intercourse is

not uncommon. Of the Eskimos of Greenland we read as follows: ‘Often

indeed he marries before there is any chance of the union being

productive.’[214] Murdoch says of the Port Barrow Eskimos that

‘promiscuous sexual intercourse between married or unmarried people, or

even among children, appears to be looked upon merely as a matter for

amusement’;[215] similarly Turner says of the Eskimos of the Ungava

district that ‘many of the females are taken before that period’ (i.e.

before maturity).[216] There are some indications that similar habits

occur among the Indian tribes of the far north and of the Pacific Coast.

Ross reports of the Eastern Tinneh that ‘they marry sometimes, but not

often at ten, and have their menses at thirteen’.[217] Bearing in mind

the average age at which menstruation begins among American Indians, the

following statement by Gibbs, referring to the tribes of Western

Washington and North-western Oregon, points to the same conclusion.

‘Cohabitation of unmarried females among their own people brings no

disgrace if unaccompanied by child-birth. ... This commences at a very

early age, perhaps ten or twelve years.’[218] There does not seem to be

any definite statement with regard to the Californians; nevertheless the

common accounts of marriage at twelve or thereabouts, coupled with

statements as to freedom before marriage, are suggestive. Speaking

generally of the Californians, Powers says that ‘marriage frequently

takes place at the age of twelve or fourteen’,[219] and that ‘there is

scarcely an attribute known as virtue or chastity in either sex before

marriage’.[220] Another observer speaks of very early marriage among the

Comanches in such a manner as to suggest that it may be consummated

before puberty.[221] Lastly, there is some information for certain other

races which belong to this group. We are told that among the Fuegians

sexual relations begin at about ten to twelve years of age,[222] whereas

menstruation begins at about fourteen or fifteen years of age.[223] Of

the Veddahs we read that ‘marriage takes place at an early age; it was

said that marriage sometimes takes place before puberty, and as we have

heard of this at Herrebedda, Barrdaraduwa, and Omuni, we see no reason

to doubt the truth of the statement’.[224]

3. There is ample evidence to the effect that the period of lactation is

always prolonged among these races. Speaking of the Tasmanians, Ling

Roth mentions two years[225] and Bonwick three to four[226] as the

length of this period. Of the central Australians Eyre says that

‘infants are not often weaned until between two and three years

old’.[227] Of the Western Australians Grey says that ‘the native women

suckle their children until they are past the age of two or three

years’.[228] For the Southern Australians, Eylmann mentions four

years,[229] for the Narrinyeri, Taplin two years,[230] for the

aborigines of Encounter Bay, Meyer ‘a considerable time, sometimes to

the age of five or six years’,[231] for the aborigines of Victoria, Curr

three years,[232] and for the natives of King George’s Sound, Brown four

to five years.[233]

From America the evidence is similar. Among the Port Barrow Eskimos the

children are nursed until about three or four years of age.[234] Nansen

states that ‘Greenland mothers are very slow to wean their children.

They often give suck until the child is three or four, and I have even

heard of cases in which children of ten or over continue to take the

breast.’[235] Crantz, speaking of the same country, corroborates this

evidence,[236] and Bessels mentions a case from Smith Sound in which a

child was suckled up to seven years of age.[237] Heriot, speaking

generally of the Indian tribes of the North, mentions ‘the length of

time employed by the women in nursing their children, whom they nourish

for three or four years’,[238] and Long gives four, five, and even six

years.[239] For the Ingaliks Dall mentions three years,[240] for the

Eastern Tinneh Ross three or four,[241] for the Thlinkeet Krause four

years,[242] and Lord for the Indians of Puget Sound two or three

years.[243] Speaking of the Ahts of Vancouver Island, Sproat says he has

seen ‘a boy of four following his mother for her milk’,[244] and of the

tribes of California Schoolcraft that ‘children are sometimes not weaned

until five years of age’.[245] Similarly the Nootkas suckle their

children until they are three or four years old,[246] and Chinooks their

children ‘until three, four, or five years old’.[247] The facts are

similar for the inland Salish and Shushwap[248] as well as for the

tribes of Oregon and Washington[249] and the Chepewayans.[250] So also

in South America the Puelches[251] and the Abipones[252] suckle their

children for three years, and the same is reported of the Fuegians[253]

and of the Andaman Islanders who ‘never wean their babies so long as

they are able to suckle them’.[254] Among the Ghiliaks suckling is

continued up to the age of three years.[255]

4. Initiation ceremonies at the period of maturity are of common

occurrence among primitive races. These ceremonies are sometimes

accompanied by mutilation of the genital organs; but there is apparently

no reason to believe that this mutilation has any effect upon fecundity,

except possibly among the Australians.[256] It is unnecessary to

describe the exact nature of the operations performed upon Australian

boys and girls. The operations are severe and it seems very possible at

first sight that they might affect the reproductive power. The opinion

of authorities is divided on this point. Spencer and Gillen think that

the operations may have an injurious effect;[257] others, such as

Roth[258] and Mathews,[259] hold the contrary view. Upon the whole,

opinion inclines to the latter side.

Less doubt exists with regard to the assertion sometimes made that these

ceremonies are practised with the intention of producing sterility, or

in any case relative sterility.[260] For this there is no good evidence

and the best authorities definitely assert that it is not so.[261]

Another assertion has been made for which there is even less foundation;

it is said, for instance, that ‘in some tribes we find it a custom that

every man submits to this operation after the birth of his second or

third child’.[262] It would appear that as a matter of fact the

operation is performed at puberty and at no other time.

5. The three further factors to be considered which may have a bearing

upon fecundity are all connected with marriage. It has been shown by

Westermarck that marriage exists as an institution among all races,

however primitive.[263] What we have to ask is whether there is any

postponement of marriage, whether, that is to say, there is any

temporary or permanent celibacy and, so far as fecundity is concerned,

the age of women at marriage alone is relevant. The evidence points to

the fact that marriage of women takes place almost universally among

these races if not before, then at or very soon after, puberty. This is

Westermarck’s conclusion, after a wide survey of the races belonging

both to this and the next group. It will be sufficient to give some

examples of the evidence and then to note a few cases in which some

postponement is reported.

Summing up the evidence with regard to the Australians, Malinowski says

that in general it is true that there are no unmarried girls under

sixteen and no widows under forty-five, though there is some evidence

with regard to the existence of unmarried females;[264] thus Smyth,

speaking of the inhabitants of Victoria, records that girls were married

between the ages of ten and twelve,[265] and similar evidence is given

by Taplin of the inhabitants of South Australia.[266] In Australia there

is no evidence worth mentioning of either temporary or permanent

celibacy. Apart from the instances to be given below the evidence with

regard to other races in this group is very similar to that given before

of the Australians. Thus the average age for a girl to marry in

Vancouver Island was sixteen.[267] among the Californians generally

between twelve and fourteen,[268] and among the Stseelis and Skaulits

tribes fifteen.[269] Veddah girls married between eleven and

twelve.[270]

There is no doubt that, generally speaking, postponement of marriage is

rare, though occasionally some slight delay is reported, as in the

instances given in what follows. It should be mentioned, however, that

from time to time there is quite a considerable delay upon the part of

the man amongst these races; to this point we shall return later. As

regards women, Crantz states that sometimes Eskimo girls do not marry

until they are twenty.[271] Hill Tout, speaking of the Salish and the

Tinneh, says ‘with the exception of the Carrier tribes early marriages

were everywhere the custom’.[272] The same author mentions that among

the Thompson tribes girls did not marry until seventeen or

eighteen,[273] and this is confirmed by Teit.[274] The latter author

gives somewhat similar evidence for the Shushwap,[275] and also says

that among the Lillooet Indians girls are isolated for two years after

puberty, and only marry when from sixteen to twenty years old.[276] As

regards South America we are told by Musters that among the Tehuelches

the girls ‘often remain several years spinsters’,[277] and by

Dobrizhoffer that among the Abipones girls do not marry before their

twentieth year.[278]

There is one other matter to which reference may be made here. There is

often very considerable disparity in age between husband and wife at

marriage among primitive races. It is frequently the practice for the

girls on reaching the age of puberty to be taken in marriage by the

older men, while the young men marry women twice their age.[279] Since,

however, as pointed out in Chapter IV the age of the husband has little

or no effect upon fertility, this practice is of no importance from our

present point of view. The important fact which results from the

evidence is that almost universally among these races the women are

married at or soon after puberty and remain married throughout the

mature period.

6. Among almost every uncivilized race there are numerous occasions upon

which sexual intercourse is tabooed. Common instances are those of taboo

during the preparations for a hunting party or a military expedition. It

is not worth while to enumerate these occasions, because with one

exception it does not seem that they can, even when considered together,

have any marked effect upon fertility.[280] The exception referred to is

the prohibition upon intercourse that follows the birth of a child. This

taboo is of very great importance among certain races that we shall

consider in the eighth chapter. As regards hunting and fishing races

there is no record of its existence in Tasmania, Australia, among the

Bushmen, the Eskimos, or any other people of importance with the

exception of the American Indians. The evidence in this case is scanty;

there are certain difficulties and the matter is better left for

discussion in the next chapter when we come to deal with the

agricultural races of this part of the world. It is enough to say here

that certain early observers, speaking generally of the American

Indians, refer to this custom, and that two early observers speaking

specifically of two hunting tribes—one in North and one in South

America—record this custom. Cabeça de Vaca says that the Yguazas abstain

from intercourse for two years after child-birth,[281] and Dobrizhoffer

records of the Abipones that ‘the mothers suckle their children for

three years, during which time they have no conjugal intercourse with

their husbands’.[282]

7. At this point we may refer to the remarkable fullness and unanimity

of the evidence with regard to the number of children observed among

these races. The evidence is to the effect that the number of children

is always small.[283] Bonwick says that ‘families were never large with

the Tasmanians’,[284] and that ‘the native woman as a rule had very few

children, and fewer still were ... permitted to live’;[285] he

attributes this to the fact that women did not begin to bear children

until after several years of marriage,[286] and that women ceased to

bear at or soon after the age of thirty-five.[287] Abundant evidence is

forthcoming from Australia. ‘Large families of children are unusual

among the aborigines,’ says Dawson, ‘however many may be born, rarely

more than four are allowed to grow up.’[288] Lumholtz remarks that there

are seldom more than three or four children.[289] Mathew referring to

two Queensland tribes records that ‘the number of children in a family

was small on the average. Six would be rare. I know of no aboriginal

family with more than five who survived infancy.’[290] Grey obtained

some statistics in Western Australia with reference to the average

number of children born by women who had passed child-bearing age.

‘Forty-one females, of whose families I have obtained (from themselves

and others) lists upon the accuracy of which I can rely, had 188

children, or about 4·6 children each.’[291] Among the native tribes of

Central Australia the number of children in a family rarely exceeds four

or five, and is generally two or three;[292] at the same time sterility

is common; the greatest fertility is noticed among the stout and the

strong, whereas the thin and weak have scarcely any children.[293] Eyre

quotes some observations of Moorehouse, also made in Central Australia,

and says that ‘his investigations have led to the conclusion that each

woman has on an average five children born (nine being the greatest

number known)’;[294] Eyre adds that he agrees with this estimate.

Schürmann records that ‘the number of children reared by each family is

variable, but in general very limited, rarely exceeding four’. He adds

the interesting information that in spite of early marriage he has not

observed that they have children at an earlier age than is common among

the Europeans, and says that it is rare for a mother to have children

‘in rapid succession’.[295] Wilhelmi’s evidence is similar; with

reference to the aborigines of the Port Lincoln district he states that

‘the number of children in a family varies considerably; but, on the

whole, it is limited—seldom exceeding four’; he also adds that it seldom

happens that ‘children are born in a family quick after one

another’.[296]

Stow remarks that ‘the Bushmen seldom had large families’;[297] Theal,

on the other hand, says that ‘the earliest Dutch colonists observed that

they were remarkably prolific’[298]—one of the very few statements which

attribute a high fertility to any of these races. Passing now to the New

World we find a similar abundance of evidence pointing to the same

conclusion. ‘The Greenlanders are not very prolific. A woman has

commonly three or four children, but at most six; they generally bear

but one child in two or three years.’[299] Writing more than a hundred

years later than Crantz, Nansen gives very similar testimony, which has

already been quoted,[300] as has that of Murdoch for the Port Barrow

Eskimos.[301] The latter adds that ‘they do not commonly bear children

before the age of twenty’.[302] According to Bessels the number in an

Eskimo family near Smith Sound is on the average two; this low figure is

due to infanticide, he goes on to say.[303] In the Ungava district ‘the

number of children born varies greatly, for, although these Eskimo are

not a prolific race, a couple may occasionally claim parentage of as

many as ten children. Two or three is the usual number.’[304] Armstrong

notes of the Eskimos generally ‘that they are not a prolific race from

all that I could learn’.[305] Of the Aleutes Ritter says that the

average number in a family is two or three.[306]

Writing of the neighbourhood of Hudson Bay, Hearne says: ‘Providence is

very kind in causing these people to be less prolific than the

inhabitants of civilized nations; it is very uncommon to see one woman

have more than five or six children; and these are always born at such a

distance from one another, that the younger is generally two or three

years old before another is born into the world.’[307] Among the Eastern

Tinneh to be confined once every three years is ‘a high average’.[308]

The author responsible for this statement goes on to say that ‘the women

are capable of bearing children from fourteen to forty-five—a long

period of their lives—but in it very few infants are produced. Families

on an average contain three children ... and ten is the greatest number

I have seen.’ In Alaska ‘the females of the coast tribes are not

fruitful, and to see four children of one mother is quite a rare

occurrence, one or two being the common number of children to a

family’.[309] The evidence of Sproat for the Ahts and of Bancroft for

the Nootkas and the Chinooks has already been quoted.[310] Among the

Omahas ‘the usual number of children may be stated at from four to six

in a family’.[311] Of the Sound Indians Bancroft states that ‘the women

are not prolific, three or four being ordinarily the limit of their

offspring’.[312] The woman of the interior of the Pacific Coast ‘is not

prolific’,[313] and the number in a Chepewayan family is on the average

four.[314] In California ‘barrenness was not infrequent, twins very

uncommon, and the general average of families did not exceed two

children’.[315] Of the same people Baegert states that ‘it is certain

that many of their women are barren and that a great number of them bear

not more than one child’.[316] Of the Comanches we read: ‘they are not a

prolific race; indeed it is but seldom that a woman has more than three

or four children.’[317] Among the Puelches of South America ‘children

are not nearly so numerous as might be imagined’; this is due in part,

however, according to the author, to infanticide.[318] According to

Bridges, in Tierra del Fuego ‘few women have more than six children

owing to the great length of time between the several births’.[319] Of

the same people, Hyades and Deniker record their opinion that four is

the average number of children to a married woman.[320] They add that in

spite of early marriage very few young couples of eighteen to twenty

years of age had any children, although sterility was rare.[321]

Of the other races which belong to this group the evidence points to a

similar conclusion.[322] Man thinks that three or four is an average

number of children in an Andamanese family, and six is the largest

number he met with.[323] Portman mentions three as an average.[324] The

Sarasins are of opinion that Veddah women are fairly prolific and that

the small families recorded are due to infant mortality.[325] Of the

Tuski tribes Dall says ‘they are not prolific’,[326] and according to

Deniker ‘the Ghiliak women do not have many children; it is rare to find

more than two or three to a family’.[327]

8. We now come to the consideration of the factors of elimination. The

first practice, the extent of which we have to investigate, is that of

abortion. The methods employed need not be specified in each case; the

use of violent physical means is perhaps the most common; among other

methods the drinking of various decoctions is frequently referred to.

Doubt is sometimes expressed as to the efficacy of some of these

means—especially that of the last named. It may be that in some cases it

is of the nature of a magical ceremony without any practical result; as

a general rule, however, there is no doubt that the methods used are

effective.

Among the Tasmanians ‘abortion was frequently practised’.[328]

Statements are sometimes made which seem to imply that abortion was not

uncommon among the Australians.[329] A survey of the literature does not

support this view; the practice is indeed mentioned occasionally, but it

is clearly negligible in comparison with the universal presence of

infanticide. Curr says that it is occasionally employed.[330] In

Collins’s account of the aborigines in the neighbourhood of Port Jackson

there is a reference to ‘the horrid and cruel custom of endeavouring to

cause a miscarriage’.[331] Palmer records the practice as occurring

among the Mythuggadi tribe,[332] and Roth says it is common among

certain districts of North-west and Central Queensland.[333] Abortion

has been noticed among the Eskimos, but never as a common practice.[334]

It is among the Indian tribes of the North and the Pacific Coast that we

find the most numerous references to this custom.[335] Speaking of the

tribes near Hudson Bay, Ellis mentions ‘a very strange maxim of policy

which prevails much amongst them, which is that of suffering rather than

of obliging their women to procure frequent abortions by the use of a

certain herb common in that country’.[336] Similar facts are recorded of

the Knisteneaux.[337] Abortion is not ‘uncommon among the Haidahs’.[338]

The Nootkas ‘frequently prevent the increase of their families by

abortion’.[339] Lord says that the ‘causing of abortion’ is ‘not

uncommon’ among the natives of Puget Sound,[340] while we find this

practice spoken of as ‘common’ in Vancouver Island.[341] Teit mentions

abortion as being ‘rarely practised’ among the Thompson Indians,[342]

and as ‘rare’ among the Shushwap.[343] Gibbs speaks of abortion as being

‘almost universal’ among the tribes of Western Washington and

North-western Oregon.[344] According to Bancroft abortion is of

‘frequent occurrence’ among the Chinooks, and ‘not uncommon’ among the

inland tribes.[345] Powers also records the practice among the Kabinapek

of California,[346] and Castelnau among the Guaycurus[347] and Rengger

among the Payaguas.[348] Cooper, who has reviewed the evidence so far as

the Fuegians are concerned, states that ‘deliberate abortion is

common’.[349]

9. There is one common form of infanticide—the killing of deformed

children—which can have no importance so far as numbers are concerned.

But this practice may be noted here because of its bearing upon quality.

We may also note in particular when the killing is said to be of female

children.[350]

Bonwick states that infanticide was fairly prevalent in Tasmania.[351]

Ling Roth, who summarizes the evidence of several authors, finds it

somewhat conflicting; but it would seem that infanticide undoubtedly

occurred though it is not known with any certainty whether it was

practised on a large scale or not.[352] In Australia infanticide is

practised on a very large scale. Parker states that it was very frequent

and that deformed children were always killed.[353] Lumholtz’s testimony

is similar,[354] while, according to Dawson, no matter how many children

are born, ‘rarely more than four are allowed to grow up’—the deformed

children apparently always being destroyed.[355] According to an

estimate made by Curr of conditions in Victoria ‘nearly one-half [of the

children born to any one married woman] fell victims to

infanticide’[356], and more girls than boys perished.[357] According to

Wilhelmi, if, as rarely happens, births follow one another quickly among

the aborigines of the Port Lincoln district, ‘the youngest is generally

destroyed’;[358] Beveridge says that the practice prevails in Victoria

and Riverina ‘to a very considerable extent’.[359] This last statement

is supported by that of Mathews to the effect that ‘infanticide is

common’ in New South Wales and Victoria.[360] Among the inhabitants of

the River Darling region ‘it seems to have been the custom to kill many

of the children directly after birth’,[361] and in Southern Australia

infanticide was very prevalent.[362] According to Howitt infanticide was

practised ‘to some extent’ among the Mining Tribe,[363] in the

Tongeranka tribe it was ‘common’;[364] in the Mukjarawaint tribe ‘the

grandparents had to decide whether a child was to be kept alive or

not’;[365] in all the tribes of the Wotjo nation and also the Tatuthi

and other tribes of the Murray River frontage, when a child was weak and

sickly they used to kill its infant brother and sister and feed it with

the flesh to make it strong;[366] in the Wadthaurung tribe the practice

was evidently not uncommon;[367] in the Narrinyeri tribe infanticide

appears to have been very prevalent, so that ‘more than one-half of the

children fell victims to this atrocious custom’,[368] whilst deformed

children seem always to have been killed both in this case[369] and

among the aborigines of Encounter Bay.[370] Infanticide was common among

the tribes of Port Lincoln—girls being less often spared than

boys[371]—among the Dieyerie tribe, where deformed children were never

spared,[372] among two Queensland tribes,[373] in the neighbourhood of

Port Darwin,[374] in Central Australia,[375] and among the Northern

tribes of Central Australia.[376] In Western Australia deformed children

were always killed.[377]

Our information with regard to the Bushmen suggests that infanticide was

prevalent, though not confined to new born children. ‘The Bushmen will

kill their children without remorse on various occasions; as when they

are ill-shaped, when they are in want of food, when the father of a

child has forsaken its mother, or when obliged to flee from the fathers

of others.’[378] Infanticide is more common than abortion among the

Eskimos.[379] Nelson says that in the neighbourhood of Behring Straits

even girls of four to six years of age are at times killed.[380] Among

the Central Eskimos ‘it is practised to some extent’, though apparently

only girls and the children of widows and widowers are destroyed.[381]

Murdoch never heard of infanticide in the Port Barrow region,[382] but

says that it is reported to be ‘frequently practised among the Eskimo of

Smith Sound without regard of sex’ and that female infanticide occurs

among the people of King William Land.[383] It is also recorded of the

inhabitants of Smith Sound by Bessels that, after two children have been

born, any others that may come are more often than not killed.[384] In

Greenland ‘the heathen Eskimo killed deformed children, and those that

seem too sickly to live, as well as those that lose their mothers at

birth, when no one else can be found to take charge of them’.[385]

Killing of deformed children is also reported by Smith,[386] and that of

children who have lost their parents by Rink.[387] Among the Aleuts

infanticide is said to be rare,[388] but among the Malemutes

infanticide, especially of girls, was not infrequent.[389]

Infanticide is frequently practised among the Kutchins[390] and the

killing of deformed children by the inhabitants of the Copper River

District is especially mentioned in the account of Jacobsen’s

journey.[391] Among the Chinooks Lord says it is ‘not uncommon’[392] and

Bancroft that it is of ‘frequent occurrence’.[393] The Thompson Indians

seldom kill their children, and a woman who did so was reprimanded.[394]

With the Haidahs, on the other hand, infanticide is reported to be ‘not

uncommon’,[395] and among the tribes between the Frazer and Columbia

Rivers it was formerly common.[396] The same impression is gained from

accounts of the Chepewayans.[397] The Koniagas ‘prize boy babies, but

frequently kill the girls’.[398] Powers, referring generally to the

Californians, speaks of ‘the prevalence of the crime of

infanticide’;[399] in particular he records that it was common among the

Gallinomero, who never spared deformed children,[400] that among the

Kabinapek[401] and the Nishinan[402] children who had lost their mother

were killed, and that deformed children were destroyed by the

Woruk.[403] Among the Yguazes infanticide was fairly frequent.[404] The

Abipones of South America ‘do not bring up more than two children to a

family, the others being killed to save trouble;’[405] According to

another observer ‘they seldom rear but one child of each sex, murdering

the rest as fast as they come into the world, till the eldest are strong

enough to walk alone’.[406] This practice, on the other hand, is said to

be ‘extremely rare’ among the Botocudos.[407] It occurs among the

Guaycurus.[408] Among the Puelches infanticide is common and deformed

children are always killed.[409] In spite of what has sometimes been

said, infanticide ‘only occurs occasionally’ among the Fuegians.[410] In

the literature with regard to the Veddahs reviewed by the Sarasins,

there is only one author who mentions infanticide.[411]

10. Wars[412] were apparently common between the Tasmanian tribes, but

we have no trustworthy information as to their character.[413] Of

conditions in Australia we have abundant evidence; the literature has

been recently studied by Wheeler.[414] He distinguishes between

regulated and unregulated warfare, of which the latter is rare.[415] By

regulated warfare is meant not only that the use of heralds, messengers,

and preliminary negotiations is recognized, but also that the fighting

itself is regulated in such a manner as to restrict bloodshed. Most

commonly, if it comes to fighting, the two opposing sides meet and throw

boomerangs until one or two men are knocked down. Then, before further

damage is done, fighting stops and peace is re-established—not a single

life perhaps having been lost.[416] Unregulated warfare is a more

serious matter; a war party may attack and destroy a local group of some

other tribe without observing any of the formalities described

above.[417] In the latter case women are sometimes slain, although this

never happens in regulated warfare.[418] On the whole the loss of life

owing to warfare in Australia must be very small.

The Bushmen gained the reputation of being vigorous fighters during the

wars with the colonists and managed to inspire terror throughout a large

part of Africa. We have, however, but little information as to their

habits before they were so rudely disturbed and, it must be said, so

barbarously treated. ‘They never appear’, says Stow, ‘to have had great

wars against each other; sudden quarrels among rival huntsmen, ending in

lively skirmishes, which owing to their nimbleness and presence of mind,

caused little damage to life or limb, appear to have been the extent of

their individual and tribal differences.’[419] Of the Eskimos about the

Behring Strait Nelson says that ‘an almost continuous inter-tribal

warfare’ formerly existed;[420] such a state of things is clearly

uncommon; in Greenland, for instance, we are told that war is rare,[421]

whereas among the Central Eskimos real wars have never happened.[422]

Nevertheless a good deal of fighting seems often to occur between the

Eskimos and the Tinneh, whom they hate and fear. ‘Along the line of

contact with the Tinneh tribes of the Interior a bitter feud was always

in existence,’ says Nelson,[423] who is confirmed by Bancroft,[424]

Hall,[425] and Ellis.[426] Of the Malemutes we are told that ‘the

occupants of the several islands are almost constantly at war’.[427]

It is among the American Indians both in the North and South that we

find war to be more frequent and sanguinary than elsewhere. Certain

tribes are more peaceful than others, but in the lives of only a few did

war play an unimportant part. In addition to the evidence of actual

fighting we have, what is suggestive in this connexion, many accounts of

the large part which martial training played in the upbringing of these

races. ‘The whole force of public opinion in our Indian communities’,

says Schoolcraft, ‘is concentrated upon this point, its early Lodge

teachings, its dances, its religious rites, the harangues of prominent

actors made at public assemblies, all, in fact, that serves to awaken

and fire ambition in the mind of the savage, is clustered about the idea

of future distinction in war.’[428] ‘They are’, says an

eighteenth-century traveller, ‘early possessed with the notion that war

ought to be the chief business of their lives.’[429] And war does play a

very large part in their lives. ‘All Indian tribes are frequently at war

with one another,’ says Harmon.[430] The Thlinkeet are often at war[431]

and the same applies to all the tribes of the Pacific Coast, including

the Haidahs,[432] the Ahts,[433] and the Kwakiutl.[434] Among some of

these tribes, however, as, for example, the Chinooks,[435] frequent as

fighting may be, it is not very sanguinary. The Northern tribes of the

interior we have seen to be at war with the Eskimos from time to time,

and we are told that among themselves it is practically continuous.[436]

The Inland tribes are perhaps somewhat less warlike,[437] though the

accounts of the Shushwap,[438] Lillooets,[439] and Thompson Indians[440]

give the impression of tribes among whom fighting—and fighting of a

severe kind—is by no means infrequent. The Crees and the Blackfeet, for

instance, waged ‘unceasing war’;[441] the warlike instinct of the

Chepewayans is well known.[442] The tribes of Western Washington and

Northern Oregon engaged in constant warfare, though the actual

encounters did not result in any great loss of life.[443] In Central

California ‘battles, though frequent, were not attended with much loss

of life’.[444] In Southern California we hear of ‘frequent and deadly

wars’[445] from one author and of ‘continual wars’ from another,[446]

the last laying stress upon warfare as an important factor in the

population question. The Seri Indians of Tiburon Island engage in

practically continuous warfare,[447] and the Comanches ‘highly honour

bravery on the battlefield’. From early youth they are taught the art of

war.[448] ‘In consequence of continual hostilities’ the Ygauzas ‘cannot

travel the country nor make many exchanges’.[449] Among the Puelches war

is both common and sanguinary,[450] and the same is the case with regard

to the Guaycurus[451] and the Charruas.[452] The Fuegians are ‘almost

always at war with adjoining tribes; they seldom meet, but a hostile

encounter is the result’.[453]

11. Passing to the consideration of feuds it is found that they

originate largely from motives of blood revenge. The expression blood

revenge suggests retribution for a murder actually committed, but among

primitive races the origin of blood revenge is far more often the

natural death of some member of the tribe. Owing to the almost universal

belief among these races that death is never natural in our sense of the

word, the loss of a relation or fellow-tribesman is attributed to

magical influence, and the guilt fastened upon some individual by a

process of magical divination. It appears that women are judged to be

equally capable with men of causing death, and that therefore

elimination from this cause falls equally upon both sexes.

‘No such thing as natural death is recognized by the [Australian]

natives; a man who dies has of necessity been killed by another man or

perhaps even by a woman.’[454] ‘If an Abipon die from being pierced by

many wounds, or from having his bones broken, or his strength exhausted

from extreme old age, his countrymen all deny that wounds or weakness

occasioned his death, and anxiously try to discover by which of the

jugglers and for what reason he was killed.’[455] I Among different

races the holding of this belief has different results. With regard to

Australia, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen in the passage quoted above

continue as follows: ‘sooner or later that man or woman will be

attacked. In the normal condition of the tribe every death meant the

killing of another individual’—the guilty person being indicated by a

medicine man.[456] The avenging party is at times merely directed by the

medicine man to proceed in a certain direction and after a march, it may

be of a considerable distance, discovers another local group which it

entirely wipes out.[457] At other times an individual near by is

indicated and at once dispatched. It is obvious that if such results

commonly followed upon the death of every tribesman the population would

rapidly diminish, and, as a matter of fact, serious as the consequences

of this belief are, there are many indications that blood revenge is not

carried out with the extreme rigour that the above passage would seem to

indicate. Probably most deaths go unavenged,[458] yet in spite of this

blood revenge must be accounted as a factor of importance in

Australia,[459] especially as it affects women as well as men.[460]

Among the races belonging to the second group we shall meet with a

somewhat similar state of affairs. But, widespread as this belief is, it

does not appear to provoke bloodshed among the other races belonging to

this group on any large scale. We hear of feuds among the Eskimos and

the punishment of witchcraft by death. Murder is also reported as

occurring among the Eskimos. ‘It is not a rare occurrence that a man who

is offended by another man takes revenge by killing the offender,’ and a

feud then follows which may last for generations.[461] Blood feuds

originating in actual murder are also recorded of various Indian

tribes;[462] but it does not appear that bloodshed, owing to belief in

witchcraft, occurs on any significant scale either in North or South

America. Of the Haidahs we are told that ‘death is ascribed to the

ill-will and malign influence of an enemy and one suspected of causing

the death of a prominent individual must be ready to die’.[463] Niblack,

speaking of the Coast tribes from Southern Alaska to British Columbia

and thus including the Haidahs, says: ‘all severe diseases or illnesses

are ascribed to the evil influence of enemies, and in the case of the

death of an important personage, a victim is usually found who has

presumably charmed away the life of the deceased.’[464] The implication

is, of course, that a victim is only sought on rare occasions, as on the

death of a prominent man.

12. The custom of killing the old and the sick is of sufficient

importance to deserve mention. Among these races it is not uncommon and

is connected with the nomadic nature of their existence.[465] The

Tasmanians would seem to have been in the habit of abandoning the sick

and infirm.[466] There is some evidence of this habit in Australia,[467]

but on the whole sick and aged are well looked after in that

country.[468] ‘The Bushmen frequently forsake their aged relations when

removing from place to place for the sake of hunting. In this case they

leave the old person with a piece of meat and an ostrich egg-shell full

of water; as soon as this little stock is exhausted, the poor deserted

creature must perish by hunger or become the prey of wild beasts.’[469]

The aged are not treated well by the Eskimos. In the Ungava district

they are put to death,[470] and among the Central Eskimos a man may kill

his aged parents.[471] ‘On the East coast (of Greenland) it sometimes

happens that old people, who seem likely to die are drowned, or else

drown themselves.’[472] For the most part the Indians treat their sick

and aged well; but there are some instances to the contrary. The Queka

Indians abandon the sick and aged.[473] The Ahts,[474] the tribes of

Washington,[475] and the Chepewayans[476] did the same. The Central

Californians killed the old people,[477] and, according to MacGee the

Seri ‘often abandoned the sick and aged who cannot keep up with them in

their constant wanderings to and fro’.[478] In some of the accounts of

the Fuegians similar habits are attributed to them; there is, however,

some reason to doubt their accuracy.[479] These practices certainly

occur among the Zaporos.[480]

13. We have now to mention certain other modes of elimination. That form

of elimination, which we saw to be of great importance among animals in

a state of nature whereby the young perish on a large scale because they

are consumed by other species, is of little importance among men who

have reached the stage of the lowest races known to us.[481]

The subject of elimination from disease can be approached from different

aspects. We can ask what evidence there is regarding the prevalence of

disease among primitive races when they first came under the observation

of Europeans. This evidence is of somewhat doubtful value. It is also of

assistance to ask how far these races were immune from diseases

prevalent in Europe; for it is in general to be inferred that marked

liability to disease is a sign that no immunity has been evolved against

disease because it was previously absent. We can further consider the

question of the evolution of disease in general and ask to what

conclusions it points. The latter aspect of the matter can be taken

first.

The organisms which cause disease do not belong all to one class. Some,

such as the bacteria, are plants, others are animals. Further, those

species which cause disease are closely related to other quite innocuous

species. Non-virulent diphtheroid bacteria are, for instance, found in

the throat. What has happened has been that certain species, belonging

to different groups in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, have taken to

a parasitic mode of life. It is not very difficult to imagine how this

could occur. It is to be presumed that organisms now parasitic were once

free-living and saprophytic. There is a bacillus which lives on grass;

it is closely related to the tubercle bacillus but is harmless. Such an

organism might be frequently swallowed; if liable to destruction,

resistance might be evolved.[482] Its presence might be innocuous, or it

might not be so and a new disease might be the consequence. The invasion

of a host by a parasite appears usually to be followed by a struggle—on

the part of the host to get rid of the parasite, and on the part of the

parasite to maintain itself within the host—in the course of which

struggle the parasite may develop activities noxious to the host. To

this struggle there are different possible solutions. But, when we find

the struggle in progress, it is a fair assumption that the association

of host and parasite is recent. The very fact of disease, therefore,

suggests that it is of relatively recent origin.

There are two further facts which are relevant in this connexion.

Diseases are very rare among species in a state of nature. Such diseases

as we know of among animals and plants occur for the most part among

domesticated species. Again, there are certain conditions which favour

the evolution of disease; these conditions are found among domesticated

species and also among civilized man. There are many ways in which

disease can be transmitted—by insects, by liquid particles in the air,

by drinking water, by water used for bathing, by water introduced within

the tissues, and so on. Transmission by all these means, with the

partial exception of transmission by insects, is obviously very greatly

favoured by the aggregation of the members of the host species. In fact

only when such aggregation occurs can we understand how disease on a

large scale could be evolved. The aggregation of men, such as occurred

within the third period, into villages and towns, gave rise to

conditions under which bacteria could flourish in close proximity to

man; under these conditions there was far more opportunity for bacteria

and other micro-organisms to become parasitic than before. The

suggestion, therefore, is that most diseases evolved in that relatively

recent period when, owing to the increase in skill, men came to live in

close proximity under settled conditions.

This suggestion is supported by two other lines of evidence. It would

appear that Australia and America were upon their discovery free from

most of the diseases known in Europe. With regard to the former Davidson

says: ‘Australia presents us with a spectacle of a continent, from the

pathology of which entire classes of diseases, prevalent in other

divisions of the globe, were, until comparatively recent times,

completely absent. Thus the whole class of eruptive fevers—small-pox,

scarlet fever, and measles—so fatal elsewhere, were unknown. Epidemic

cholera, relapsing fever, yellow fever, whooping cough, and diphtheria

were equally absent, as also was syphilis.... Leprosy was absent from

the southern continent.’[483] The facts with regard to America are very

similar. It has been asserted that the only lethal disease of importance

present in America before the visit of Columbus was malaria, and it is

worthy of note that malaria is an insect-born disease. The question

whether tuberculosis was known in America before the discovery has been

studied by Hrdlicka, who concludes that, though it cannot be affirmed

that it did not exist, it is highly improbable that it did.[484] Again,

the marked liability on the part of primitive races to common European

diseases points strongly to the fact that no immunity had been evolved

against these diseases because they were formerly unknown. Since contact

with Europeans has been established, these races have been swept by

epidemics, such as the epidemic of measles which carried off a large

proportion of the population of Fiji in 1875.

It is not to be concluded that most diseases are recent in the ordinary

sense of the word, but only when a broad view is taken of human history.

It is known, for instance, that tuberculosis, plague, leprosy, and

bilharzia existed in ancient Egypt. Where and when diseases originated

we cannot say, but the fact that certain widely-spread diseases can be

traced to a previously limited and localized incidence—cholera, for

instance, to the Ganges Valley—suggests that such diseases originated in

those places in relatively recent times and spread thence. But in spite

of such indications the place of origin of most diseases is obscure;

syphilis was often said to have been introduced from America; the

evidence, however, that it was apparently present in Germany in 1495 is

against this view.[485] It is further of great interest to note that

certain diseases may have evolved in very recent days. Diphtheria may

date from the beginning of the last century and trench fever may be a

new disease.

Little as we may know regarding the facts concerning any one disease,

the general conclusion is not doubtful. It was not until the third

period, and, therefore, only among the races of the third group, that

disease became a factor of the first importance in elimination. Some

diseases may have reached the African races through Egypt; and to the

extent to which this has occurred they are not typical representatives

of the time preceding the last of the three periods.[486]

14. In further support of this conclusion some passages may be quoted

regarding the races in this group when they had been little influenced

by contact with Europeans. Such passages are perhaps not of great weight

as evidence of the former absence of disease; they are, however, worth

notice because they also bear upon another subject that will come up for

discussion in the ninth chapter. According to Bonwick ‘there are strong

reasons to believe that, before connexion with the whites, the

aborigines [Tasmanians] were a healthy as well as a happy people’.[487]

Of the Australians Curr says that ‘as a rule the health of the blacks in

their wild state was excellent’.[488] Longevity may be considered as

evidence of good health, and of the presence of aged people in Australia

many observers speak. ‘From numerous instances it would appear that the

former generations were fairly long aged. Almost every small community

would have in it two or three men or women over seventy years of age,

and here and there some centenarians would be met with.’[489] So, too,

Burchell records having noticed many old people among the Bushmen.[490]

Writing of the Eskimos in a medical journal Smith calls them ‘uncommonly

healthy’.[491] This is the opinion that one gains from other

accounts,[492] some of which specially mention longevity as a

characteristic.[493] ‘The North Americans are in general robust and of a

healthful temperament, calculated to live to an advanced age.’[494]

Another author says that the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains are ‘in

general subject to few diseases’.[495] Krause quotes the opinion of a

doctor who lived among the Thlinkeets in the year 1836 to the effect

that they were a strong, healthy people.[496] Of the Shushwap we are

told that they were formerly healthy and lived to a great age.[497] Hill

Tout sums up the situation with regard to the Salish as follows: ‘the

great age, to which both men and women formerly lived, shows the vigour

of the race and the general wholesomeness of their lives and

condition.’[498] ‘The Nootkas are generally a long-lived race, and from

the beginning to the failing of manhood undergo little change in

appearance. Jowitt states that during his captivity of three years at

Nootka Sound, only five natural deaths occurred, and the people suffered

scarcely any disease except the cholic.’[499] Powers, referring to the

Californians as a whole, calls them ‘a healthy, long-lived race’,[500]

and Baegert speaks of them as ‘strong, hardy, and much healthier than

the many thousands who live in daily abundance’[501] [in civilized

countries]. Among the Abipones ‘the diseases which in Europe fill houses

with sick persons and graves with the dead bodies are unknown here....

You scarce hear once in three years of any of them dying of a fever,

pleurisy, or consumption.’[502] Hardt mentions the good health of the

Botocudos[503] and King and Fitzroy consider the Patagonians to be very

healthy.[504]

15. There remains one other matter to be mentioned. There is abundant

evidence that the rate of child mortality is very high amongst all these

races. The causes of death are various; disease is seldom mentioned, and

death is most often due to exposure as the result of improper treatment

or of certain customs, or to want of suitable food. In Tasmania it was

difficult to rear children largely owing to the fact that suitable food

was not available.[505] Turner says of the Eskimos of the Ungava

District that ‘many die in early childhood’,[506] and this would seem to

be generally true of this race. The reason usually given is the absence

of proper food;[507] and it is not difficult to understand that the

peculiar Eskimo diet should be unsuitable for children. Child mortality

is heavy among the Indians, ‘only a small proportion coming to

maturity’.[508] The reason given in this case is generally the absence

not only of knowledge with regard to the simplest requirements of

children, but of any reasonable care of them.[509] To this we may add—as

the evidence will show—the practice of extraordinary customs which seem

designed to eliminate all but those with the strongest constitutions.

‘With all the affection of the mother, the women are almost completely

ignorant of ordinary sanitary rules as to feeding, exposure, &c., with

the result that infant mortality is something terrible in almost every

tribe.’[510] Heriot speaks of ‘incredible fatigues, whose excess

occasions the death of many long before the age of maturity’.[511]

According to Domenech: ‘many Indians die in infancy; their mothers, to

inure them to suffering and to strengthen their constitution, do not

take all the necessary care of them.... Till the age of ten or twelve

years they are kept quite naked, having only in winter a garment which

we would hardly call such in the warmest summer.’[512] Throughout

America it is a common custom to bathe even new-born children in cold

water at all seasons of the year, and to this Krause attributes the high

child mortality that he records among the Thlinkeet.[513] ‘Many children

[of the Eastern Tinneh] die at an early age,’ according to one

author,[514] whilst from another we hear that ‘the infant is not allowed

food until four days after birth, in order to accustom it to fasting in

the next world’.[515] Nootka mothers ‘roll their children in the snow to

make them hardy’,[516] and the Thompson Indians take small care of their

children, allowing them to run about without any protection.[517] Of the

Californians the Jesuit missionary Baegert, who dwelt long among them

when they were almost uninfluenced by European culture, says: ‘that many

infants die among them is not surprising: on the contrary, it would be a

great wonder if a great number remained alive. For when the poor child

first sees the light of day, there is no other cradle provided for it

but the hard soil, or the still harder shell of a turtle, in which the

mother places it, without much covering, and drags it about wherever she

goes. And in order to be unencumbered and enabled to use her limbs with

greater freedom while running in the fields, she will leave it sometimes

in charge of some old woman, and thus deprive the poor creature for ten

hours or more of its natural nourishment. As soon as the child is a few

months old the mother places it, perfectly naked, astraddle on her

shoulders, its legs hanging down on both sides in front, and it has

consequently to learn how to ride before it can stand on its feet. In

this guise the mother roams about all day, exposing her helpless charge

to the hot rays of the sun and the chilly winds that sweep over the

inhospitable country.’[518] Conditions seem to be much the same in South

America. Dobrizhoffer tells us that the Abipones plunge their new-born

babies into a cold stream,[519] and Guinnard says that very few diseases

occur among the children of the Puelches, though child mortality is

high.[520] ‘Few [Fuegian] women save all their children; most die in

early infancy.’[521] So, too, among the Andamanese child mortality is

said to be excessive[522] and is ascribed to injudicious management on

the part of the parents.[523] According to the Sarasins it is the high

death-rate that is the cause of the small size of the Veddah families

which they observed.[524] New-born Ghiliak children are bathed ‘often

when it is 40° below zero. The children who can survive such an

experience are necessarily very strong.’[525] ‘According to Schrenck,

the Ghiliak woman never dares “to give birth to a child at home; she

must, in spite of severity of season or of stormy weather, go out of the

hut for the purpose. In late autumn or in winter they build a special

hut for the woman, but a very uncomfortable one, so that the mother and

the child suffer the cold and feel the wind”.’[526]

This concludes our survey of the races of the first group. Before we

consider what conclusions are to be drawn from these facts, we have to

deal in the same fashion with the races of the second group. This will

form the subject-matter of the next chapter.

VIII

PRIMITIVE AGRICULTURAL RACES