Transcriber's Note
Superscript text is indicated by caret signs.
THE
EVOLUTION OF CULTURE
AND OTHER ESSAYS
BY THE LATE
LT.-GEN. A. LANE-FOX PITT-RIVERS
D.C.L., F.R.S., F.S.A.
EDITED BY J. L. MYRES, M.A.
STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
HENRY BALFOUR, M.A.
FELLOW OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD
CURATOR OF THE PITT-RIVERS MUSEUM
TWENTY-ONE PLATES
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1906
HENRY FROWDE, M.A.
PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
LONDON, EDINBURGH
NEW YORK AND TORONTO
PREFACE
These Essays, or rather Lectures, contain the first-fruits of the
earliest systematic attempt to apply the theory of Evolution to the
products of human handiwork. In their original form they have long been
difficult to obtain; and they are reprinted now to supply the needs of
candidates for the Oxford Diploma in Anthropology, and of the numerous
visitors to the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford. But they will certainly
appeal to a far wider public also, as a brief and authentic statement
of their author’s discoveries.
The four Essays are reprinted substantially as they were first
delivered and published. But verbal errors and actual misquotations
have been corrected; and allusions to specimens or diagrams exhibited
during the original discourses, but not published, have been replaced
so far as possible by references to similar objects figured in the
Plates.
The Plates are photographic reproductions of the original
illustrations, with the exception of Plates V, XIII, XVII, XVIII. Of
these, Plate XIII has simply been re-drawn, from a faded original;
Plates XVII and XVIII have been translated, without loss of detail,
from colours to monochrome shading; Plate V has been reconstituted
from illustrations quoted in the text, with the permission of their
publisher, Mr. Murray. Plate XXI is reproduced, by permission of Sir
John Evans, from the paper which it illustrated originally.
The footnotes demand a word of explanation. The author, as the original
publications show, was not precise in indicating his sources: he
frequently gave, as a quotation, the general sense rather than the
exact words of his authority; and occasionally his memory played him
false. In the reprint, the precise references have been identified,
and are given in full, and obvious errors in the text have been either
amended or corrected in a footnote. The editor desires to acknowledge
much valuable help in the search for references from Miss C. M. Prior,
of Headington.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE iii
INTRODUCTION v
PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION (1874) 1
ON THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE (1875) 20
WITH PLATES I-V, AND XXI
PRIMITIVE WARFARE. I (1867) 45
WITH PLATES VI-XI
PRIMITIVE WARFARE. II (1868) 89
WITH PLATES XII-XVI
PRIMITIVE WARFARE. III (1869) 144
WITH PLATES XVII-XX
EARLY MODES OF NAVIGATION (1874) 186
INTRODUCTION[1]
It was about the middle of last century that an officer in Her
Majesty’s Army began to apply the lessons which he had learnt in
the course of some of his professional experimental work to studies
pursued by him as a hobby in a far wider field of science. The story
of the famous ethnographical collection of Colonel Lane Fox is well
known, and I need but briefly refer to it. During his investigations,
conducted with a view to ascertaining the best methods whereby the
service firearms might be improved, at a time when the old Tower musket
was being finally discarded, he was forcibly struck by the extremely
gradual changes whereby improvements were effected. He observed that
every noteworthy advancement in the efficiency, not only of the whole
weapon, but also of every individual detail in its structure, was
arrived at as a cumulative result of a succession of very slight
modifications, each of which was but a trifling improvement upon the
one immediately preceding it. Through noticing the unfailing regularity
of this process of gradual _evolution_ in the case of firearms, he
was led to believe that the same principles must probably govern the
development of the other arts, appliances, and ideas of mankind. With
characteristic energy and scientific zeal Colonel Lane Fox began at
once, in the year 1851, to illustrate his views and to put them to
a practical test. He forthwith commenced to make the ethnological
collection with which his name will always be associated, and which
rapidly grew to large proportions under his keen search for material
which should illustrate and perhaps prove his theory of progress by
evolution in the arts of mankind.
Although as a collector he was omnivorous, since every artefact
product fell strictly within his range of inquiry, his collection,
nevertheless, differed from the greater number of private ethnological
collections, and even public ones of that day, inasmuch as it was built
up _systematically_ with a definite object in view. It is unnecessary
for me to describe in detail the system which he adopted in arranging
his collection. His principles are well known to ethnologists, either
from the collection itself or from his writings, more especially from
the series of lectures which he gave at the Royal United Service
Institution, in the years 1867-9, upon ‘Primitive Warfare’; from
his paper read before the Anthropological Institute in 1874 on ‘The
Principles of Classification, as adopted in the arrangement of his
Anthropological Collection’, which was then exhibited at the Bethnal
Green Museum; from that portion of the _catalogue raisonné_ of his
collection which was published in 1877; and from numerous other
papers dealing with special illustrations of his theory. Suffice it
to say that, in classifying his ethnological material, he adopted
a _principal_ system of groups into which objects of like form or
function from all over the world were associated to form series, each
of which illustrated as completely as possible the varieties under
which a given art, industry, or appliance occurred. Within these main
groups objects belonging to the same region were usually associated
together in _local_ sub-groups. And wherever amongst the implements or
other objects exhibited in a given series there seemed to be suggested
a _sequence of ideas_, shedding light upon the probable stages in
the evolution of this particular class, these objects were specially
brought into juxtaposition. This special grouping to illustrate
sequence was particularly applied to objects from the same region as
being, from their local relationships, calculated better to illustrate
an actual continuity. As far as possible the seemingly more primitive
and generalized forms--those simple types which usually approach most
nearly to _natural_ forms, or whose use is associated with primitive
ideas--were placed at the beginning of each series, and the more
complex and specialized forms were arranged towards the end.
The primary object of this method of classification by series was
to demonstrate, either actually or hypothetically, the origin,
development, and continuity of the material arts, and to illustrate the
variations whereby the more complex and specialized forms belonging
to the higher conditions of culture have been evolved by successive
slight improvements from the simple, rudimentary, and generalized forms
of a primitive culture.
The _earlier_ stages in these sequence series were more especially the
object of investigation, the later developments being in the greater
number of cases omitted or merely suggested. It was necessary for
Colonel Lane Fox to restrict the extent of the series, any one of
which, if developed to the full extent, would easily have filled a
good-sized museum. The earlier stages, moreover, were less familiar,
and presented fewer complications. The general principles of his theory
were as adequately demonstrated by the ruder appliances of uncivilized
races as by the more elaborate products of peoples of higher culture;
and, moreover, there was doubtless a great attraction in attacking
that end of the development series which offered a prospect at least
of finality, inasmuch as there was always a chance of discovering
the absolute origin of a given series. Hence the major part of his
collection consisted of specimens procured from savage and barbaric
races, amongst whom the more rudimentary forms of appliances are for
the most part to be found.
The validity of the general views of Colonel Lane Fox as to evolution
in the material arts of Man was rapidly accepted by a large number of
ethnologists and others, who were convinced by the arguments offered
and the very striking evidence displayed in their support. I have heard
people object to the use of the term ‘evolution’ in connexion with
the development of human arts. To me the word appears to be eminently
appropriate, and I think it would be exceedingly difficult to find one
which better expresses the succession of extremely minute variations
by means of which progress has been effected. That the successive
individual units of improvement, which when linked together form the
chain of advancement, _are_ exceedingly small is a fact which any one
can prove for himself if he will study _in detail_ the growth of a
modern so-called ‘invention’. One reason why we are apt to overlook
the greater number of stages in the growth of still living arts is
that we are not as a rule privileged to watch behind the scenes. Of
the numberless slight modifications, each but a trifling advance upon
the last, it is but comparatively few which ever meet the eye of the
public, which only sees the more important stages; those, that is to
say, which present a sufficiently distinct advance upon that which has
hitherto been in use to warrant their attracting attention, or, shall
we say, having for a time a marketable value. The bulk of the links in
the evolutionary chain disappear almost as soon as they are made, and
are known to few, perhaps none, besides their inventors. Even where the
history of some invention is recorded with the utmost care it is only
the more prominent landmarks which receive notice; the multitude of
trifling variations which have led up to them are not referred to, for,
even if they be known, space forbids such elaborately detailed record.
The smaller variations are, for the most part, utterly forgotten,
their ephemeral existence and their slight individual influence upon
the general progress being unrecorded at the time, and lost sight of
almost at once. The immediately succeeding stage claims for the moment
the attention, and it again in its turn becomes the stepping-stone upon
which the next raises itself, and so on.
Before proceeding further, let me give as briefly as I can an example
of a development series worked out, in the main, upon the general line
of inquiry inaugurated by Colonel Lane Fox. It is commonly accepted as
a fact, which is borne out by tradition, both ancient and modern, that
certain groups of stringed instruments of music must be referred for
their origin to the bow of the archer. The actual historical record
does not help us to come to a definite conclusion on this point, nor
does the direct testimony of archaeology; but from other sources very
suggestive evidence is forthcoming. A comparative study of the musical
instruments of modern savage and barbaric peoples makes it very clear
to one that the greater portion of the probable chain of sequences
which led from the simple bows to highly specialized instruments of
the harp family may be reconstructed from types still existing in use
among living peoples, most of the well-defined early stages being
represented in Africa at the present day[2]. The native of Damaraland,
who possesses no stringed instrument proper, is in the habit of
temporarily converting his ordinary shooting-bow into a musical
instrument. For this purpose he ties a small thong loopwise round
the bow and bow-string, so as to divide the latter into two vibrating
parts of unequal length. When lightly struck with a small stick the
tense string emits a couple of notes, which satisfy this primitive
musician’s humble cravings for purely rhythmic sound. Amongst many
other African tribes we find a slight advance, in the form of special,
rather slightly made bows constructed and used for musical purposes
only. In order to increase the volume of sound, it is frequently the
custom amongst some of the tribes to rest the bow against some hollow,
resonant body, such as an inverted pot or hollow gourd. In many parts
again, we find that the instrument has been further improved by
_attaching_ a gourd to the bow, and thus providing it with a permanent
resonating body. To achieve greater musical results, it would appear
that somewhere in Africa (in the West, I suspect) two or more small
bows were attached to a single gourd. I have, so far, been unable to
trace this particular link in Africa itself, but, curiously enough,
this very form has been obtained from Guiana. It may be thought that I
am applying a breaking strain to the chain of evidence when I endeavour
to work an instrument from South America into an African developmental
series. But, when we recall the fact that evidence of the existence of
_indigenous_ stringed instruments of music in the New World has yet to
be produced, coupled with the certain knowledge that a considerable
number of varieties of musical instruments, stringed and otherwise,
accompanied the enforced migration of African natives during the days
of the slave trade, and were thus established in use and perpetuated
in many parts of the New World, including the north-east regions of
South America, we may, I think, admit, with some confidence, that, in
this particular instance, from Guiana to Guinea is no very far cry,
and that the more than probable African origin of this instrument
from South America gives it a perfect claim to take its place in the
African sequence. I still anticipate that this type of instrument will
be forthcoming from some hinterland region in West Africa. Were _no_
evidence at all forthcoming of such a form, either in past or present,
we should be almost compelled to infer that such a one had existed,
as this stage in the sequence appears to be necessary to prevent a
break in the continuity of forms leading to what is apparently the
next important stage, represented by a type of instrument common in
West Africa, having five little bows, each carrying its string, all of
which are fixed by their lower ends into a box-like wooden resonator.
This method of attaching the bows to the now improved body of the
instrument necessitates the lower attachment of the strings being
transferred from the bows to the body, so that the bow-like form begins
to disappear. The next improvement, of which there is evidence from
existing types, consists in the substitution of a single, stouter,
curved rod for the five little ‘bows’, all the five strings being
serially attached to the upper end of the rod, their lower ends to
the body as before. This instrument is somewhat rare now, and it may
well be a source of wonder to us that it has survived at all (unless
it be to assist the ethnologist), since it is an almost aggressively
inefficient form, owing to the row of strings being brought into
two different places at right angles to one another. The structure
of this rude instrument gives it a quaintly composite appearance,
suggesting that it is a banjo at one end and a harp at the other. This
is due to the strings remaining, as in the preceding form, attached
to the resonating body in a line disposed _transversely_, while the
substitution of a single rod for the five ‘bows’ has necessitated the
disposal of their upper attachments in a _longitudinal_ series as
regards the longer axis of the instrument. Inefficient though it be,
this instrument occupies an important position in the apparent chain
of evolution, leading on as it does through some intermediate types to
a form in which the difficulty as regards the strings is overcome by
attaching their _lower_ ends in a longitudinal series, and so bringing
them into the same plane throughout their length. In this shape the
instrument has assumed a harp-like form--a rude and not very effective
one, it is true, but it is none the less definitely a member of the
harp family. The modern varieties of this type extend across Africa
from west to east, and the harps of ancient Egypt, Assyria, Greece,
and India were assuredly elaborations of this primitive form. The
Indian form, closely resembling that of ancient Egypt, still survives
in Burma, while elsewhere we find a few apparently allied forms. In
all these forms of the harp, from the rudest Central and West African
types to the highly ornate and many-stringed examples of Egypt and
the East, one point is especially noteworthy. This is the invariable
_absence of the fore-pillar_, which in the modern harps of Western
Europe is so important, nay, essential a structural feature. In spite
of the skill and care exercised in the construction of some of the
more elaborate forms, none were fitted with a fore-pillar, the result
being that the frame across which the strings were stretched was
always weak and disposed to yield more or less to the strain caused by
the tension of the strings. This implied that, even when the strings
were not unduly strained, the tightening up of one of them to raise
its pitch necessarily caused a greater or less slackening of all the
other strings, since the free end of the rod or ‘neck’ would tend
to be drawn slightly towards the body of the instrument under the
increased tension. The mere addition of a simple, strut-like support
between the free end of the ‘neck’ and the ‘body’ would have obviated
this difficulty and rendered the instrument relatively efficient and
unyielding to varying tension. And yet, even in Western Europe, this
seemingly obvious and invaluable addition did not appear, as far as I
can ascertain, until about the seventh or eighth century A.D.; and even
then it seems to have been added somewhat half-heartedly, and a very
long time had yet to elapse before the fore-pillar became an integral
part of the framework and was allotted its due proportion in the
general design.
I have purposely selected this particular series for my illustration,
not because it is something new--indeed, it is already more or less
familiar, and, maybe, has even some merit in its lack of newness,
since, in accordance with a popular dictum, it may urge a greater
claim to be regarded as true--nor because it is specially striking,
but rather for the reason that it illustrates suitably several of
the points upon which I wish briefly to touch. Even in the severely
condensed form in which I have been obliged to present this series of
developments from bow to harp, there is, I think, demonstrated the
practical application of several of the general principles upon which
is based the theory whereby Colonel Lane Fox sought to elucidate the
phenomena of human progress.
A series of this kind serves, in the first place, to demonstrate
that the absence of historical and archaeological evidence of the
_actual_ continuity in development from simple to complex does not
preclude investigations into the early history of any product of human
ingenuity, nor prevent the formation of a suggestive and plausible
if largely hypothetical series, illustrating the probable chain of
sequences along which some highly specialized form may be traced back
link by link to its rudimentary prototypes, or even to its absolute
origin, which in this particular instance is the ordinary shooting bow
_temporarily_ converted into a musical instrument. Where an actual
chronological series is not forthcoming, a comparative study of
such types as are available, even though they be _modern_ examples,
reveals the fact that, if classified according to their apparent
morphological affinities, these types show a tendency to fall into
line; the gap between the extreme forms--that is, the most simple and
the most advanced--being filled by a succession of intermediate forms,
more or less completely linked together, according to the number of
varieties at our disposal. We are thus, at any rate, in possession of
_a_ sequence series. Is it unreasonable for us to conclude that this
reflects, in great measure, _the_ actual chronological sequence of
variations through which in past times the evolutionary history of the
instrument was effected, from the earliest rudimentary form?
It is difficult to account, at all, for the existence of many of the
forms, such as I have briefly described, except on the supposition
that they are _survivals_ from more or less _early stages_ in a
series of progressive evolution; and, for myself, I do not believe
that so inefficient and yet so elaborate an instrument, as, to take
an example, the harp of ancient Egypt, Assyria, and India, could have
come into being by any sudden inventive process, by ‘spontaneous
generation’, as it were, to use a biological term; whereas, the innate
conservatism of the human species, which is most manifest among the
lower and more primitive races (I use the term conservatism, I need
hardly say, in a non-political sense), amply accounts for such forms
having been arrived at, since the rigid adherence to traditional types
is a prevailing characteristic of human culture, and only admits
of improvement by very slight and gradual variations upon existing
forms. The difficulty experienced by man, in a primitive condition of
culture, of emancipating himself from the ideas which have been handed
down to him, except by a very gradual and lengthy process, causes him
to exert somewhat blindly his efforts in the direction of progress, and
often prevents his seeing very obvious improvements, even when they are
seemingly forced upon his notice. For instance, the early Egyptian,
Assyrian, and Greek harps, as I have already stated, were destitute of
a fore-pillar, and this remained the case for centuries, in spite of
their actually existing in an environment of other instruments, such
as the lyre and _trigonon_, which in their rigid, unyielding frames
possessed, and even paraded, the very feature which was so essential
to the harp, to enable it to become a really efficient instrument. The
same juxtaposition of similar types, without mutual influence, may be
seen in modern Africa among ruder forms of these instruments.
And yet, in spite of instances such as this--where a valuable feature
suggested by one instrument has not been adopted for the improvement
of another, even though the two forms are in constant use side by
side--we must recognize that progress, in the main, is effected by a
process of bringing the experience gained in one direction to bear upon
the results arrived at in another. This process of grafting one idea
upon another, or, as we may call it, the hybridization of ideas and
experience, is a factor in the advancement of culture whose influence
cannot be overestimated. It is, in fact, the main secret of progress.
In the animal world hybridization is liable to produce _sterile_
offspring; in the world of ideas its results are usually far different.
A fresh stimulus is imparted, which may last through generations
of fruitful descendants. The _rate_ at which progress is effected
increases steadily with the growth of experience, whereby the number of
ideas which may act and react upon one another is augmented.
It follows, as a corollary, that he who would trace out the
phylogenetic history of any product of human industry will speedily
discover that, if he aims at doing so _in detail_, he must be prepared
for disappointments. The tangle is too involved to be completely
unravelled. The sequence, strictly speaking, is not in the form of
a simple chain, but rather in that of a highly complex _system_ of
chains. The time-honoured simile afforded by a river perhaps supplies
the truest comparison. The course of the _main stream_ of our evolution
series may be fairly clear to us, even as far as to its principal
source; we may even explore and study the general effect produced
by the more important tributaries; but to investigate in detail the
contributions afforded in present and past of the innumerable smaller
streams, brooks, and runlets is clearly beyond any one’s power, even
supposing that the greater number had not changed their course at
times, and even, in many cases, run dry. While we readily admit that
important effects have been produced by these numberless tributary
influences, both on the course and on the volume of the river, it is
clear that we must in general be content to follow the main stream. A
careful study of the series of musical instruments, of which I gave but
a scanty outline, reveals very clearly that numberless ideas borrowed
from outside sources have been requisitioned, and have affected the
course of development. In some cases one can see fairly clearly whence
these ideas were derived, and even trace back in part their own
phylogenetic history; but a complete analysis must of necessity remain
beyond our powers and even our hopes.
It will have been observed that, in the example of a sequence series
which I have given, the early developmental stages are illustrated
entirely by instruments belonging to _modern savage races_. It was a
fundamental principle in the general theory of Colonel Lane Fox that in
the arts and customs of the still living savage and barbaric peoples
there are reflected to a considerable extent the various strata of
human culture in the past, and that it is possible to reconstruct in
some degree the life and industries of Man in prehistoric times by a
study of existing races in corresponding stages of civilization. His
insistence upon the importance of bringing together and comparing the
archaeological and ethnological material, in order that each might
serve to throw light upon the other, has proved of value to both
sciences. Himself a brilliant and far-seeing archaeologist as well as
ethnologist, he was eminently capable of forming a conclusion upon this
point, and he urged this view very strongly.
The Earth, as we know, is peopled with races of the most heterogeneous
description, races in all stages of culture. Colonel Lane Fox argued
that, making due allowance for possible instances of degradation from
a higher condition, this heterogeneity could readily be explained by
assuming that, while the progress of some races has received relatively
little check, the culture development of other races has been retarded
to a greater or less extent, and that we may see represented conditions
of at least partially arrested development. In other words, he
considered that in the various manifestations of culture among the less
civilized peoples were to be seen more or less direct _survivals_ from
the earlier stages or strata of human evolution; vestiges of ancient
conditions which have fallen out at different points and have been left
behind in the general march of progress.
Taken together, the various living races of Man seem almost to form a
kind of living genealogical tree, as it were, and it is as an epiphyte
upon this tree that the comparative ethnologist largely thrives; while
to the archaeologist it may also prove a tree of knowledge the fruit of
which may be eaten with benefit rather than risk.
This certainly seems to be a legitimate assumption in a general way;
but there are numerous factors which should be borne in mind when we
endeavour to elucidate the past by means of the present. If the various
gradations of culture exhibited by the condition of living races--the
savage, the semi-civilized or barbaric, and the civilized races--could
be regarded as accurately typifying the successive stages through
which the higher forms of culture have been evolved in the course of
the ages; if, in fact, the different modern races of mankind might
be accepted as so many sections of the human race whose intellectual
development has been arrested or retarded at various definite stages
in the general progression, then we should have, to all intents and
purposes, our genealogical tree in a very perfect state, and by its
means we could reconstruct the past, and study with ease the steady
growth of culture and handicrafts from the earliest simple germs,
reflecting the mental condition of primaeval man, up to the highest
manifestations of the most cultured races.
These ideal conditions are, however, far from being realized.
Intellectual progress has not advanced along a single line, but, in its
development, it has branched off in various directions, in accordance
with varying environment; and the tracing of lines of connexion
between different forms of culture, as is the case with the physical
variations, is a matter of intricate complexity. Migrations, with the
attendant climatic changes, change of food, and, in fact, of general
environment, to say nothing of the crossing of different stocks,
transmission of ideas from one people to another, and other factors,
all tend to increase the tangle.
Although in certain instances savage tribes or races show obvious signs
of having _degenerated_ to some extent from conditions of a higher
culturedom, this cannot be regarded as the general rule, and we must
always bear in mind the seemingly paradoxical truth that degradation
in the culture of the lower races is often, if not usually, the direct
result of contact with peoples in a far higher state of civilization.
There can, I think, be little doubt that Colonel Lane Fox was well
justified in urging the view that most savage races are in large
measure strictly _primitive_, survivals from early conditions, the
development of their ideas having from various causes remained
practically stationary during a very considerable period of time. In
the lower, though not degenerate, races signs of this are not wanting,
and while few, possibly none, can be said to be absolutely in a
condition of arrested development, their normal progress is at a slow,
in most cases at a _very_ slow, rate.
Perhaps the best example of a truly primitive race existing in recent
times, of which we have any knowledge, was afforded by the native
inhabitants of Tasmania. This race was still existing fifty years ago,
and a few pure-blooded survivors remained as late as about the year
1870, when the race became extinct, the benign civilizing influence
of enlightened Europeans having wiped this extremely interesting
people off the face of the earth. The Australians, whom Colonel Lane
Fox referred to as being ‘the lowest amongst the existing races of
the world of whom we have any accurate knowledge’, are very far in
advance of the Tasmanians, whose lowly state of culture conformed
thoroughly with the characteristics of a truly primitive race, a
survival not only from the Stone Age in general, but from almost the
earliest beginnings of the Stone Age. The difference between the
culture of the Tasmanians and that of the Australians was far greater
than that which exists between man of the ‘River Drift’ period and
his Neolithic successors. The objects of everyday use were but slight
modifications of forms suggested by Nature, involving the exercise of
merely the simplest mental processes. The stone implements were of
the rudest manufacture, far inferior in workmanship to those made by
Palaeolithic man; they were never ground or polished, never even fitted
with handles, but were merely grasped in the hand. The _varieties_ of
implements were very _few in number_, each, no doubt, serving a number
of purposes, the function varying with the requirements of the moment.
They had no bows or other appliances for accelerating the flight of
missiles, no pottery, no permanent dwellings; nor is there any evidence
of a previous knowledge of such products of higher culture. They
seem to represent a race which was isolated very early from contact
with higher races; in fact, before they had developed more than the
merest rudiments of culture--a race continuing to live under the most
primitive conditions, from which they were never destined to emerge.
Between the Tasmanians, representing in their very low culture the one
extreme, and the most civilized peoples at the other extreme, lie races
exhibiting in a general way intermediate conditions of advancement or
retardation. If we are justified, as I think we are, in regarding the
various grades of culture, observable among the more lowly of the still
existing races of man, as representing to a considerable extent those
vanished cultures which in their succession formed the different stages
by which civilization emerged gradually from a low state, it surely
becomes a very important duty for us to study with energy these living
illustrations of early human history, in order that the archaeological
record may be supplemented and rendered more complete. The material
for this study is vanishing so fast with the spread of civilization
that opportunities lost now will never be regained, and already even
it is practically impossible to find native tribes which are wholly
uncontaminated with the products, good or bad, of higher cultures.
The arts of living races help to elucidate what is obscure in those
of prehistoric times by the process of reasoning from the known
to the unknown. It is the work of the zoologist which enables the
palaeontologist to reconstruct the forms of extinct animals from such
fragmentary remains as have been preserved, and it is largely from the
results of a comparative study of living forms and their habitats that
he is able, in his descriptions, to equip the reconstructed types of a
past fauna with environments suited to their structure, and to render
more complete the picture of their mode of life.
In like manner, the work of the ethnologist can throw light upon the
researches of the archaeologist; through it, broken sequences may be
repaired, at least suggestively, and the interpretation of the true
nature and use of objects of antiquity may frequently be rendered
more sure. Colonel Lane Fox strongly advocated the application of the
reasoning methods of biology to the study of the origin, phylogeny, and
etionomics of the arts of mankind, and his own collection demonstrated
that the products of human intelligence can conveniently be classified
into families, genera, species, and varieties, and must be so grouped
if their affinities and development are to be investigated.
It must not be supposed--although some people, through misapprehension
of his methods, jumped at this erroneous conclusion--that he
was unaware of the danger of possibly mistaking mere accidental
resemblances for morphological affinities, and that he assumed that
_because_ two objects, perhaps from widely separated regions, appeared
more or less identical in form, and possibly in use, they were
necessarily to be considered as members of one phylogenetic group.
On the contrary, in the grouping of his specimens according to their
form and function, he was anxious to assist as far as possible in
throwing light upon the question of the monogenesis or polygenesis of
certain arts and appliances, and to discover whether they are exotic
or indigenous in the regions in which they are now found, and, in
fact, to distinguish between mere analogies and true homologies. If
we accept the theory of the monogenesis of the human race, as most of
us undoubtedly do, we must be prepared to admit that there prevails a
condition of unity in the tendencies of the human mind to respond in a
similar manner to similar stimuli. Like conditions beget like results;
and thus instances of independent invention of similar objects are
liable to arise. For this very reason, however, the arts and customs
belonging to even widely separated peoples may, though apparently
unrelated, help to elucidate some of the points in each other’s history
which remain obscure through lack of the evidence required to establish
_local_ continuity.
I think, moreover, that it will generally be allowed that cases of
‘independent invention’ of similar forms should be considered to have
established their claim to be regarded as such only after exhaustive
inquiry has been made into the possibilities of the resemblances being
due to actual relationship. There is the alternative method of assuming
that, because two like objects are widely separated geographically, and
because a line of connexion is not immediately obvious, therefore the
resemblance existing between them is fortuitous, or merely the natural
result of similar forms having been produced to meet similar needs.
Premature conclusions in matters of this kind, though temptingly easy
to form, are not in the true scientific spirit, and act as a check
upon careful research, which, by investigating the case in its various
possible aspects, is able either to prove or disprove what otherwise
would be merely a hasty assumption. The association of similar forms
into the same series has therefore a double significance. On the
one hand, the sequence of related forms is brought out, and their
geographical distribution illustrated, throwing light, not only upon
the evolution of types, but also upon the interchange of ideas by
transference from one people to another, and even upon the migration
of races. On the other hand, instances in which two or more peoples
have arrived independently at similar results are brought prominently
forward, not merely as interesting coincidences, but also as evidence
pointing to the phylogenetic unity of the human species, as exemplified
by the tendency of human intelligence to evolve independently identical
ideas where the conditions are themselves identical. Polygenesis in
his inventions may probably be regarded as testimony in favour of the
monogenesis of Man.
I have endeavoured in this review to dwell upon some of the main
principles laid down by Colonel Lane Fox as a result of his special
researches in the field of Ethnology, and my object has been twofold.
First, to bear witness to the very great importance of his contribution
to the scientific study of the arts of mankind and the development
of culture in general, and to remind students of Anthropology of the
debt which we owe to him, not only for the results of his very able
investigations, but also for the stimulus which he imparted to research
in some of the branches of this comprehensive science. Secondly, my
object has been to reply to some criticisms offered in regard to points
in the system of classification adopted in arranging his ethnographical
collection. And, since such criticisms as have reached me have appeared
to me to be founded mainly upon misinterpretation of this system, I
have thought that I could meet them best by some sort of restatement of
the principles involved.
It would be unreasonable to expect that his work should hold good
in all details. The early illustrations of his theories were to
be regarded as tentative rather than dogmatic, and in later life
he recognized that many modifications in matters of detail were
rendered necessary by new facts which had since come to light. The
crystallization of solid facts out of a matrix which is necessarily
partially volatile is a process requiring time. These minor errors and
the fact of our not agreeing with all his details in no way invalidate
the general principles which he urged, and we need but cast a cursory
glance over recent ethnological literature to see how widely accepted
these general principles are, and how they have formed the bases
of, and furnished the inspiration for, a vast mass of research by
ethnologists of all nations.
HENRY BALFOUR.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Extracted from Mr. Henry Balfour’s address to the Anthropological
Section of the British Association at Cambridge in 1904.
[2] _The Natural History of the Musical Bow_, by H. Balfour: Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1899.
PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION
(1874)[3]
I gladly avail myself of the opportunity that has been afforded me of
explaining the principles of classification that I have adopted in the
arrangement of my collection, in the hopes that, by offering them to
the consideration of anthropologists, their soundness may be put to the
test, and that they may elicit criticism on the part of those who have
devoted their attention to the subject of primitive culture.
The collection is divided into four parts. The first has reference
to physical anthropology, and consists of a small collection of
typical skulls and hair of races. This part of the collection, as it
relates to a subject that has received a large amount of attention
from anthropologists, and has been frequently treated by abler hands
than mine, I do not propose to enter into. The remainder of the
collection is devoted to objects illustrating the development of
prehistoric and savage culture, and consists of--Part II. The weapons
of existing savages. Part III. Miscellaneous arts of modern savages,
including pottery and substitutes for pottery; modes of navigation,
clothing, textile fabrics, and weaving; personal ornament; realistic
art; conventionalized art; ornamentation; tools; household furniture;
musical instruments; idols and religious emblems; specimens of the
written character of races; horse furniture; money and substitutes for
money; fire-arms; sundry smaller classes of objects, such as mirrors,
spoons, combs, games, and a collection of implements of modern savages,
arranged to illustrate the mode of hafting stone implements. Part IV
refers to the prehistoric series, and consists of specimens of natural
forms simulating artificial forms, for comparison with artificial
forms; a collection of modern forgeries for comparison with genuine
prehistoric implements; palaeolithic implements; neolithic implements;
implements of bronze, iron, and bone.
The collection does not contain any considerable number of unique
specimens, and has been collected during upwards of twenty years, not
for the purpose of surprising any one, either by the beauty or value
of the objects exhibited, but solely with a view to instruction. For
this purpose ordinary and typical specimens, rather than rare objects,
have been selected and arranged in sequence, so as to trace, as far as
practicable, the succession of ideas by which the minds of men in a
primitive condition of culture have progressed from the simple to the
complex, and from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous.
Many ethnological museums exist in this country and elsewhere, and
therefore, in claiming to have accomplished a useful purpose in forming
this collection, I am bound to endeavour to show that it performs some
function that is not performed by the majority of the other museums
that are to be found. I propose, therefore, to consider, in the first
place, what the defect of an ethnological museum usually is.
The classification of natural history specimens has long been a
recognized necessity in the arrangement of every museum which professes
to impart useful information, but ethnological specimens have not
generally been thought capable of anything more than a geographical
arrangement. This arises mainly from sociology not having until
recently been recognized as a science, if indeed it can be said to be
so regarded by the public generally at the present time. Travellers, as
a rule, have not yet embraced the idea, and consequently the specimens
in our museums, not having been systematically collected, cannot be
scientifically arranged. They consist of miscellaneous objects brought
home as reminiscences of travel, or of such as have been most easily
procured by sailors at the seaports. Unlike natural history specimens,
which have for years past been selected with a view to variety,
affinity, and sequence, these ethnological _curiosities_, as they have
been termed, have been chosen without any regard to their history or
psychology, and, although they would be none the less valuable for
having been collected without influence from the bias of preconceived
theories, yet, not being supposed capable of any scientific
interpretation, they have not been obtained in sufficient number or
variety to render classification possible.
This does not apply with the same force to collections of prehistoric
objects, which during the last ten or fifteen years have received
better treatment. It is to the arts and implements of modern savages
that my remarks chiefly relate.
Since the year 1852 I have endeavoured to supply this want by selecting
from amongst the commoner class of objects which have been brought to
this country those which appeared to show connexion of form. Whenever
missing links have been found they have been added to the collection,
and the result has been to establish, however imperfectly, sequence in
several series.
The primary arrangement has been by form--that is to say, that the
spears, bows, clubs, and other objects above mentioned, have each
been placed by themselves in distinct classes. Within each there is a
sub-class for special localities, and in each of these sub-classes, or
wherever a connexion of ideas can be traced, the specimens have been
arranged according to their affinities, the simpler on the left and the
successive improvements in line to the right of them. This arrangement
has been varied to suit the form of the room, or of the screens, or the
number of specimens, but in all cases the object kept in view has been,
as far as possible, to trace the succession of ideas.
This is the distinctive difference between my collection and most
others which I have seen, in which the primary arrangement has been
geographical, that is to say, all the arts of the same tribe or
nation have been placed together in one class, and within this there
may perhaps have been in some cases a sub-class for special arts or
special forms. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
By a geographical or racial arrangement the general culture of each
distinct race is made the prominent feature of the collection, and it
is therefore more strictly _ethnological_, whereas in the arrangement
which I have adopted, the development of specific ideas and their
transmission from one people to another, or from one locality to
another, is made more apparent, and it is therefore of greater
_sociological_ value. Different points of interest are brought to
light by each, and, in my judgement, a great National Anthropological
Collection, should we ever possess such a desideratum, can never be
considered complete until it embraces two series, arranged upon these
two distinct systems.
Following the orthodox scientific principle of reasoning from the known
to the unknown, I have commenced my descriptive catalogue with the
specimens of the arts of existing savages, and have employed them, as
far as possible, to illustrate the relics of primaeval men, none of
which, except those constructed of the more imperishable materials,
such as flint and stone, have survived to our time. All the implements
of primaeval man that were of decomposable materials have disappeared,
and can be replaced only in imagination by studying those of his
nearest congener, the modern savage.
This being the system adopted, one of the first points to which I
desire to invite your attention is the question, to what extent the
modern savage truly represents primaeval man, or rather to what extent
may we take the arts of modern savages to represent those of the first
progenitors of our species?
In order to do this it is necessary to view the question in its
psychological aspects. This I shall touch upon as lightly as possible,
avoiding all technicalities, which in a cursory view of the matter,
might tend to confuse, and confining myself to those parts of the
subject which appear to have a direct bearing on evolution.