used as an axe-blade with the broad end, became the celt of the
neolithic period, chipped only at first and subsequently polished. This
gave rise to the copper celt of the same form having convex surfaces,
which grew into the bronze celt with flat sides. Then the bronze celt
was furnished with a stop to prevent its being pressed too far into
the handle by the blow. Others were furnished with projecting flanges
to prevent them from swerving by the blow when hafted on a bent stick.
Others had both stops and flanges. By degrees the flanges were bent
over the stops and over the handle, and then the central portion above
the stops, being no longer required, became thinner, and ultimately
disappeared, the flanges closed on each other, and by this means the
weapon grew into the socket celt. On this socket celt you will see that
there is sometimes a semicircular ornamentation on each side. This
semicircular ornament, as I pointed out in a paper on primitive warfare
read some time ago, is a vestige of the overlapping flange of the
earlier forms out of which it grew, which, like the rings on our brass
cannon, are survivals of parts formerly serving for special uses (pp.
182-3 below).
In the vertical columns I have given, in the order of their
occurrence, the successive periods of prehistoric time, viz. the early
palaeolithic, late palaeolithic, early neolithic, late neolithic,
early bronze, late bronze and iron periods, beneath which I have placed
lines for two distinct phases of modern savage culture, viz. the
Australian and the American Indian. A cross beneath each form denotes
the periods in which they occur, and a vertical bar denotes that they
are of rare or doubtful occurrence; so that the sequence of development
may be seen at a glance, and it is only a glance that I ask you to take
at these diagrams on the present occasion. I have checked them with Mr.
Evans’ work and also with Sir William Wilde’s Catalogue,[10] and I do
not think that any of the statements made in them will be challenged;
but as these forms were not developed for the purpose of filling in the
spaces in rectangular diagrams, such diagrams only imperfectly convey
an idea of the evolution which has taken place, and must be regarded
only as provisional and liable to be improved.
In tracing the evolution of prehistoric implements, we are of course
limited to such as were constructed of imperishable materials. No doubt
our prehistoric ancestors used also implements of wood, but they have
long since disappeared; and if we wish to form an idea of what they
were, we must turn to those of his nearest congener, the modern savage.
In speaking of savages, the question of progression versus degeneration
is probably familiar to most of those present, through the writings of
Sir John Lubbock and Mr. E. B. Tylor. To the several weighty arguments
in favour of progression given by those writers I will add this one
derived from the sequence of ideas.
If the Australians, for example, were the degenerate descendants of
people in a higher phase of culture, then, as all existing ideas are
made up of previous ideas, we must inevitably find amongst their arts
traces of the forms of earlier and higher arts, as is the case amongst
some of the savages of South America who early came in contact with
Peruvian civilization; but the reverse of this is the case: all the
forms of the Australian weapons are derived from those of nature.
In the same way that we saw that the forms of the palaeolithic flint
implements were suggested by accidental fractures in the workshop, so
the several forms of the Australian wooden implements were suggested
by the various forms of the stems and branches out of which they were
made. These savages, having only flint tools to work with, cannot
saw out their weapons to any form they please; they can only trim
the sticks into a serviceable shape. All their weapons are therefore
constructed on the grain of the wood, and their forms and uses have
arisen from a selection of the natural curves of the sticks.
[Illustration: PLATE III.]
I have arranged, on Plate III, drawings of nearly all the weapons used
by the Australians, placing them together according to their affinities
in such a manner as to show hypothetically their derivation from a
single form. As all the forms given on this diagram are drawings of
weapons in use at the present time, and there are many intermediate
forms not given here, I have not arranged them in horizontal lines,
as in the previous diagrams, to show their place in time, but have
arranged them as radiating from a central point. We know nothing of
the antiquities of savage countries as yet, and therefore cannot trace
their evolution in time. The development has therefore been shown by
means of survivals of early forms existing at the present time.
In the centre I have placed the simple cylindrical stick, as being
the simplest form. By a gradual development of one end I have traced
upwards the formation of a sharp ridge and its transition into a
kind of mushroom form. To the right upwards I have traced the same
development of the mushroom head, the projecting ridge of which
is constantly liable to fractures by blows; and as savages always
systematize accidental fractures so as to produce symmetry, scollops
have been cut out of the ridge in different places for this purpose,
which had the effect of concentrating the force of the blow on the
projections. These were further developed; one of the pilei of the
mushroom head was made larger than the others, and this suggested the
form of a bird’s head, so that it was only necessary to add a line for
the mouth and a couple of eyes to complete the resemblance. To the
right we see that the plain stick held in the centre gave the first
idea of a defensive weapon, and was used to parry off the darts of the
assailant; an aperture was then made in the stick for the hand, and
the face of it became broader, developing into a shield, the narrow
ends, however, being still retained for parrying. Below I have shown
that the long stick simply pointed at one end became a lance; a row
of sharp flints were gummed on to one side to produce a cutting edge,
and these were then imitated in wood, and by pointing them obliquely
they were converted into barbs. To the right another kind of barb was
produced by binding on a piece of sharp-pointed wood. Between this
and the shields we see that the first idea of the throwing-stick,
employed to project these lances, was simply constructed like the
barbed point of the lance itself. The gradual expansion of the stick
arose from its being employed like a battledore, to fence off the
enemy’s lances. To the left below I have shown the gradual development
of a peculiar curved weapon, called the ‘malga’, formed from a stem
and the branch projecting from it at different angles. The part where
the continuation of the stem was cut off was trimmed to a kind of
ridge; this ridge developed, and suggested the crest of a bird’s head;
ultimately the eyes were added, in the same manner as in the club
on the opposite side of the diagram. To the left we see the plain
round stick first flattened, then curved. Savages are in the habit
of throwing all their weapons at their adversaries and at animals.
In throwing a flat curved stick it rotates of its own accord, and as
the axis of rotation continues parallel to itself, the thin edge is
presented to the resistance of the air in front; this increases the
range, and its peculiar flight must have forced itself on the attention
of the savage as the result of experience: but he has never had the
slightest knowledge of the laws of its flight. The different curves
of the boomerang are the natural curves of the sticks, and like all
the Australian weapons, they are made on the grain of the wood. Some
are thicker than others; some will fly in the curves peculiar to that
weapon, and others will not: scarcely two are alike.
To the left above, we see the mushroom-headed ‘waddy’, with its
projecting ridge flattened, then curved; one side becomes more
developed than the other, and this being thrown develops into the waddy
boomerang, the ridge of the earlier forms being still represented by a
mark on the flat head of the weapon; an intermediate link connects it
with the true boomerang.
Many other examples might be given to illustrate the continuity which
exists in the development of all savage weapons; but I only ask you
to glance at the sequence shown in this diagram and the preceding ones
in order to convince you of the truth of the statement which I made
at the commencement of this discourse, that although, owing to the
complexity of modern contrivances and the larger steps by which we
mount the ladder of progress in the material arts, their continuity
may be lost sight of, when we come to classify the arts of savages and
prehistoric men, the term ‘growth’ is fully as applicable to them as to
the development of the forms of speech, and that there are no grounds,
upon the score of continuity, history, or the action of free will, to
separate these studies generically as distinct classes of science.
But in dealing with evolution we have to speak not only of growth,
but, as in all other natural sciences, of the principle of decay. By
decay I do not mean the decay of the materials of the arts, but the
decomposition of the mental ideas which produced them.
As complex ideas are built up of simple ones, so there is also a
further process by which they become disintegrated, and the parts go to
form parts of other ideas.
This decay in the arts corresponds to what is called phonetic decay
in language; and in both cases it arises either from incapacity, the
desire to save trouble, or the necessity of abbreviating when ideas
originally evolved for one purpose come to form parts of other ideas to
which they are merely accessory and subordinate, as in the well-known
dialectic changes of speech. Every sound in language had originally a
distinct meaning of its own; gradually these sounds or roots came to
form parts of words in which the original meanings of the sounds were
lost.
I will now endeavour to draw a parallel to this in the arts, by means
of what may be termed realistic degeneration.
I will not say much as to the place of realism in culture. The
archaeological world has lately been somewhat startled by the
discovery of well-executed designs of elephants and other animals in
the French caves in association with the rude stone implements of the
palaeolithic age, and by the more recent discovery of Mariette Bey,
that the earliest Egyptian sculptures of the third dynasty are the most
truthful representations of the human form that are to be found in
that country. I see nothing surprising in this, when we consider the
power that is developed in many children of eight or nine years old of
making drawings of animals and other objects, which, when allowance is
made for the feeble hand of childhood, are often as truthful as those
of the cave-period men, at a time when their minds have acquired but
little power of reasoning or generalizing, or even of taking care of
themselves; all which goes to prove that this power of imitation, which
is a very different thing from ideal art, is one of the most early
developed faculties of the mind of man.
When the power of imitation had once been developed, it would
naturally be made use of as a means of intercommunication; thus the
drawing of a stag would be made to convey information to people at
a distance that there was a herd of deer in the neighbourhood to be
hunted; and as the object of the drawing was no longer to depict
truthfully the peculiarities of the beast, but merely to convey
information, the amount of labour expended upon it would be the
least that could be employed for the required purpose. All written
characters have originated in this way; and no one now requires to be
told how pictographic representations developed into hieroglyphic and
subsequently into phonetic characters.
But realistic degeneration would equally take place in all cases in
which pictorial representations came to be employed for other purposes
than those for which they were originally designed, as in the case of
ornamental designs.
[Illustration: PLATE XXI.
EVOLUTION OF TYPES ON ANCIENT BRITISH COINS.]
So also a coin receives upon its surface the image of a king or a god
as a stamp of authority. When from any cause the object of the original
design is lost, the object of the stamp being no longer to convey a
likeness, but being merely used as a test of genuineness, or perhaps
amongst an unlettered people to denote its value, the tendency to
realistic degeneration would be proportioned to the difficulties of
execution; no further labour would be expended on it than was necessary
for the object to be attained. Here I must again remind you of the
interesting discourse delivered in this Institution on May 14, 1875,
by Mr. Evans, on the evolution of British coins.[11] His examples are
figured in his _Coins of the Ancient Britons_, pp. 24-32. With his
permission I have introduced some of his diagrams (Plate XXI). You will
remember how the coin of Philip of Macedon having been introduced into
Britain, the head on the obverse gradually disappeared, leaving only
the wreath as a band across the coin, which was ultimately converted
into a cross; and how on the reverse, the chariot and two horses
dwindled into a single horse, the chariot disappeared, leaving only
the wheels, the driver became elevated, not elevated after the manner
unfortunately but too common amongst London drivers, but elevated
after the manner of the Spiritualists, except that you see he had the
precaution to take on a pair of wings, differing also both from the
London driver and the Spiritualists, inasmuch as instead of having lost
his head he has lost his body, and nothing but the head remains; the
body of the horse then gradually disappears, leaving only four lines to
denote the legs.
I will now show you an exact parallel to these transformations in a
collection of designs, supposed to be tribal marks, which are drawn
upon the paddle blades of the New Irelanders, a race of Papuan savages
inhabiting an island on the north-east coast of New Guinea.
Having noticed one or two allied varieties of design in specimens that
came into my possession, I determined to collect all that I could
find as they came to this country. In the course of several years I
succeeded in obtaining the series represented upon Plate IV.
[Illustration: PLATE IV.
ORNAMENTATION OF NEW IRELAND PADDLES, SHOWING THE TRANSITION OF FORM.]
The first figure you will see clearly represents the head of a Papuan:
the hair or wig is stuffed out, and the ears elongated by means of
an ear ornament, after the manner of these people; the eyes are
represented by two black dots, and the red line of the nose spreads
over the forehead. This is the most realistic figure of the series. In
the second figure the face is somewhat conventionalized: the line of
the nose passes in a coil round the eyes; there is a lozenge pattern
on the forehead, representing probably a tattoo mark; the body is
represented sitting in full. In the third figure the man is represented
sitting sideways, simply by lopping off an arm and a leg on one side.
In the fourth figure the legs have disappeared. In the fifth figure
the whole body has disappeared. In the sixth figure the nose has
expanded at the base, and the sides of the face are made to conform
to the line of the nose; the elongated ears are there, but the ear
ornament is gone: the nose in this figure is becoming the principal
feature. In the seventh figure nothing but the nose is left: the sides
of the face and mouth are gone; the ears are drawn along the side of
the nose; the head is gone, but the lozenge pattern on the forehead
still remains; the coil round the eyes has also disappeared, and is
replaced by a kind of leaf form, suggested by the upper lobe of the
ear in the previous figures; the eyes are brought down into the nose.
In the eighth figure the ears are drawn at right angles to the nose.
In the ninth figure the nose has expanded at the base; all the rest is
the same as in the last figure. In the tenth figure the lozenge pattern
and the ears have disappeared, and a vestige of them only remains, in
the form of five points; the base of the nose is still further expanded
into a half moon. In the last figure, nothing but a half moon remains.
No one who compared this figure with the first of the series, without
the explanation afforded by the intermediate links, would believe that
it represented the nose of a human face. Unfortunately we do not know
as yet the exact meaning of these designs, but when further information
is obtained about them it will throw considerable light on similar
transformations in prehistoric times.
My next and last illustration is taken from the relics of Troy,
recently brought to light by Dr. Schliemann.[12] In the valuable
work lately published by him he gives illustrations of a number of
earthenware vases and other objects, called by him idols, having on
them the representation of what he conceives to be the face of an owl,
and which he believes to represent Athena, the tutelary goddess of
Troy, called by Homer ‘Glaukopis Athene’, which signifies, according
to him, ‘with the face of an owl.’ Professor Max Müller has given his
opinion that the word ‘glaukopis’ cannot possibly be taken to mean
owl-faced, but can only mean large- or bright-eyed. On this point
I will venture no opinion, but accepting Professor Müller’s high
authority for the usually received interpretation of it being correct,
I shall in no way weaken the evidence in favour of Dr. Schliemann’s
discovery of the true site of Troy if I succeed in proving that,
according to the true principle of realistic degeneration, this figure
does not represent an owl but a human face.
[Illustration: PLATE V.
REALISTIC DEGENERATION.
ILLUSTRATED BY REPRESENTATIONS OF THE HUMAN FACE, FOUND BY DR.
SCHLIEMANN AT TROY.
[_The numerals in brackets give_--(1) _the number of the figure in
Schliemann’s_ Troy and its Remains, (2) _the depth at which the figure
was found, in metres_.]]
The figures on Plate V are all taken from Dr. Schliemann’s
representations, and as the depth of each is given it will be seen
that the different varieties of face occur in all the different strata
excavated by him except the highest, and therefore no argument as to
antiquity can be based upon the depth at which they were found. The two
first figures, it will be seen, are clearly intended to represent a
human face, all the features being preserved. In the two next figures
(3, 4) the mouth has disappeared, but the fact of the principal feature
being still a nose and not a beak, is shown by the breadth of the base
and also by the representation of the breasts. In the two succeeding
figures (5, 6) the nose is narrowed at the base, which gives it the
appearance of a beak, but the fact of its being still a human form
is still shown by the breasts. Had the idea of an owl been developed
through realistic degeneration in these last figures, it would have
retained this form, but in the two succeeding figures (7, 8) it will be
seen that the nose goes on diminishing.
In the remaining figures, some of which are (12-16) of solid stone,
not earthenware, and are believed by Dr. Schliemann to be gods, it is
clearly shown by the rude scratches representing the eyebrows, and
their want of symmetry, that this degeneration of form is the result of
haste.
What then are these solid stone objects? I cannot for a moment doubt,
from their resemblance to the vases, from the marks denoting the
junction of the cover with the vase, and from the representations of
handles, that they are votive urns of some kind, similar to those
Egyptian stone models of urns represented in the two figures above.
Urns of this kind were used by the Egyptians to contain the viscera of
the mummies; but with the cheaper form of burial, in which the viscera
were retained in the body, stone models of urns, of which these figures
are drawings from originals in the British Museum, were deposited in
the graves as vestiges of the earlier and more expensive process; these
objects therefore cannot be idols, but votive urns. The fact of human
remains having been found in some of the human-headed urns, and the
hasty scratches on the stone models, show that they are merely models
appertaining to the conventionalized survival of some earlier or more
elaborate system of urn burial.
We see from these facts that both growth and decay, the two component
elements of evolution, are represented in the study of the material
arts.
My object in this discourse has been not, as I fear it may have
appeared to you from the brief time at my disposal and my imperfect
treatment of the subject, to extol the material arts as being
intrinsically of more interest or importance than other branches
of culture, but to affirm the principle that it is by studying the
psychology of the material arts alone that we can trace human culture
to its germs.
The theory of degradation is supported only by the study of those
branches of culture of which the early history is lost.
The tree is the type of all evolution: all trees are seedlings,
but they differ in their mode of growth. Some, like the beech and
oak, throw their branches upwards, and these are typical of the
development of the material arts; others, like the straight-stemmed
pine, throw off their branches downwards, and these are typical of the
development of some other branches of culture. It is quite true, as
stated by mythologists, that the history of myths is one of continued
degeneration in so far as they can be traced, and that the element
of decay enters far more into their composition than that of growth.
But the whole accessible history of these myths represents drooping
branches from the upward-growing stem of free thought out of which they
sprang. What is the space of time which separates us from the Vedas, as
compared with the whole upward growth of humanity before and since!
There are huge gaps in our knowledge of the history of the human race,
and it has been the pleasure of mankind in all ages to people these
gaps with jugglers and bogies; but surely, if slowly, science will open
up these desert places, and prove to us that, so far as the finite mind
of man can reach, there is nothing but unbroken continuity to be seen
in the present and in the past.
FOOTNOTES:
[7] A Lecture delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on
Friday, May 28, 1875, and published in _Proc. Roy. Inst._, vol. vii.
pp. 496-520, Pl. i-iv.
[8] _Lectures on the Science of Language_ (London, 1861), i, Lecture 1.
[9] John Evans, _The Ancient Stone Implements, Weapons, and Ornaments
of Great Britain_ (London, 1872^1), 1897^2, p. 641.
[10] Sir W. Wilde, _Catalogue of the Antiquities of the Museum of the
Royal Irish Academy_ (Dublin, 1863).
[11] John Evans, ‘On the Coinage of the Ancient Britons and Natural
Selection,’ _Journal of the Royal Institution_, vii. p. 476 ff.; with a
Plate, which is reproduced, by permission, in Plate XXI.
[12] For illustrations, see _Troy and its Remains_, by Dr. Henry
Schliemann (Murray, 1875). The figures may be taken in the following
order: No. 185, No. 74, No. 132, No. 13, No. 173, No. 207, No. 12, No.
11, No. 133, No. 141, No. 165. [Plate V has been compiled from the
references here given.]
PRIMITIVE WARFARE[13]
I
Although it is more in accordance with the purposes for which this
establishment has been organized, that the Lecture-room should be
devoted chiefly to subjects of practical utility connected with the
improvement of our military system and the progress of the mechanical
appliances, the organization, and general efficiency of our Army and
Navy, than to the efforts of abstract science, yet the fact of your
possessing in the three large apartments that are devoted to your
armoury, one of the best assortments of semi-civilized and savage
weapons that are to be found in this country, or, perhaps, in any
part of the world, is sufficient to prove that it is not foreign to
the objects of the Institution that the science of war should be
ethnographically and archaeologically, as well as practically, treated.
The requirements of our advancing age demand that every vein of
knowledge should be opened out, and, in order to make good our title
to so interesting a collection of objects as that comprised in what
may very properly be called our ethnographical military department, it
should be shown that, whether or not the subject may be considered to
fall within the ordinary functions of the Society, our Museum is made
available for the purposes of science.