_Jardine’s Naturalist’s Library_, Entomology vi. _Bees_ (Edinb.,
1840), p. 40.
XI.
90. Point of Bushman’s Arrow, barbed with an iron head, which is
constructed to come off in the wound. (Author’s Coll.)
XI.
91. Malay Blowpipe-arrow, iron-headed; similarly constructed. 1/4.
(Author’s Coll.)
XI.
92. Arrow of the wild tribes of Assam, copper-headed, and similarly
constructed. 1/4. (Author’s Coll.)
XI.
93. Arrow-head of the Shoshones of North America, of flint;
constructed to come off in the wound. Schoolcraft, l. c., vol. i.
pp. 212-3, pl. lxxvi. 5.
XI.
94. Arrow-point of the Macoushie Indians of S. America; similarly
constructed. 1/4. (Author’s Coll.; pres. by Rev. J. G. Wood.)
XI.
95. Arrow-heads of flint, from the north of Ireland. 1/4. (Author’s
Coll.)
XI.
96. Part of the Blade of an Italian Dagger, serrated and pierced.
Full size. Meyrick (Skelton), l. c., vol. ii. pl. cxiii. 14.
XI.
FOOTNOTES:
[13] A Lecture delivered at the Royal United Service Institution,
Friday, June 28, 1867; illustrated by specimens from the Museum of the
Institution: and published in the _Journal of the R. U. S. Inst._ xi
(1867).
[14] Beechey, _Voyage to the Pacific_ (London, 1831), vol. i. p. 298;
Oldfield, ‘Aborigines of Australia,’ _Trans. Ethno. Soc._, N. S.
(London, 1865), vol. iii. p. 227.
[15] Oldfield, ‘On the Aborigines of Australia,’ _Trans. Ethno. Soc._,
N.S., vol. iii. pp. 261-7.
[16] Meyrick (Skelton), _Engraved Illustrations of Ancient Arms_, &c.
(1830), vol. ii. pl. cxlix. 11.
[17] Klemm, _Werkzeuge und Waffen_ (Sondershausen, 1858), p. 159.
[18] Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_ (London, 1861), p. 262.
[19] Williams, _Fiji and the Fijians_ (London, 1858), vol. i. pp. 78-9.
[20] Crawfurd, _History_ (Edinburgh, 1820), vol. i. p. 224.
[21] Tylor, _Anahuac_ (London, 1861), p. 70.
[22] Hdt. vii. 69: Rawlinson, _Herodotus_, vol. iv (2nd ed., 1862, p.
55).
[23] Petherick, _Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa_ (Edinb. and
London, 1861), p. 360.
[24] Le Sieur de Folard, _Nouvelles Découvertes sur la Guerre_ (Paris,
1724), p. 48.
[25] In adopting the nomenclature of phrenology, I am not to be
understood as advocating strictly the localization of the faculties
which phrenology prescribes. The mind doubtless consists of a congeries
of faculties, and phrenology affords the best classification of them
that has yet been devised.
[26] Pope, _Essay on Man_, Epistle iii. 172-80.
[27] Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_ (London, 1829), vol. i. pp. 302-3.
[28] Crawfurd, _History of the Indian Archipelago_ (1820), vol. i. pp.
113-4.
[29] Beckman, _History of Inventions_ (London, 1814), pp.
503-4.--Cock-fighting.
[30] Stanley, _History of Birds_ (London, 1848), p. 389.
[31] Darwin, _Origin of Species_ (London, 1859), p. 88.
[32] Williamson, _Oriental Field Sports_ (London, 1807), p. 94.
[33] Swainson, _Habits and Instincts of Animals_ (London, 1840), p. 142.
[34] Thuc. i. 5 (but what Thucydides says is, that they were the last
to discard it.--ED.).
[35] Beechey, _Voyage to the Pacific_ (London, 1831), vol. i. p. 248.
[36] Dobrizhoffer, _An Account of the Abipones_ (from the Latin;
London, 1822), vol. i. p. 262; ii. 361.
[37] Barth, _Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa_
(London, 1857), vol. iii. p. 198.
[38] Low, _Sarawak_ (London, 1848), p. 328.
[39] Pigafetta’s _Voyage Round the World_, Pinkerton, vol. ix. p. 349.
[40] William de Rubruquis, _Travels into Tartary and China in 1253_;
Pinkerton (London, 1811), vol. viii. p. 89.
[41] _An Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Chile_, by Alonso de
Ovalle, of the Company of Jesus, 1649 (London, 1752), p. 71.
[42] Herodotus, vii. 70; Meyrick’s _Ancient Armour_, vol. i. Introd. p.
iv.
[43] Herodotus, iv. 189; Meyrick’s _Ancient Armour_, vol. i. Introd. p.
iii.
[44] Herodotus, vii. 65 εἵματα ... ἀπὸ ξύλων πεποιημένα.
[45] Duarte Barbosa, _The Coasts of East Africa and Malabar_,
translated from the Spanish, by the Hon. H. E. Stanley (Hakluyt
Society, 1866), p. 55. Since publication, the translator has
ascertained that the authorship of this work should be ascribed to
Magellan.
[46] The _Saturnia mylitta_ is the caterpillar from which the
Tusseh-silk is obtained; the cocoon is of an oval shape when suspended
upon the tree, and of exceedingly firm texture; it is figured in Sir
Wm. Jardine’s _Naturalist’s Library_ (Edinb. 1841), _Entomology_, vol.
vii. pl. xiv. 2, pp. 146-53. The _Eriodendron anfractuosum, D.C._,
is an Indian Bombax. The woolly cotton which envelops the seed is
remarkable for its softness, and is much and deservedly esteemed for
making cushions and bedding, owing to its freedom from any tendency to
become lumpy and uneven by getting impacted into hard knots. Various
attempts have been made to fabricate it into cloth, but hitherto
without success, except as a very loose material, fit only for quilting
muffs, for which it is superior to cotton or woollen stuffs, the
looseness of its texture rendering it an excellent non-conductor,
whilst at the same time it is extremely light.--Wight, _Illustrations
of Indian Botany_ (Madras, 1840), vol. i. p. 68; Roxburgh, _Flora
Indica_ (Serampore, 1832), vol. iii. p. 165 (= _Bombax pentandrum_).
Both the caterpillar and the plant are found in the jungle in the
neighbourhood of Seringapatam. For the identification of the vegetable
substance, I am indebted to W. Carruthers, Esq., F.L.S., British Museum.
[47] Schoolcraft, _Information concerning the History, &c., of the
Indian Tribes of the U. S. A._ (Philadelphia, 1851-9), part iii. p. 69.
[48] Meyrick, l. c., vol. i. Introduction.
[49] Denham and Clapperton, _Travels in Northern and Central Africa_
(London, 1826), p. 328 (Denham).
[50] See _Critical Enquiry into Ancient Armour_, by Sir Samuel R.
Meyrick, vol. iii. p. 21, and pl. lxviii.
[51] Bollaert, ‘Observations on the Indian Tribes of Texas,’ _Journ.
Ethno. Soc._, vol. ii. pp. 262-83.
[52] Du Chaillu, _Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa_
(London, 1861), p. 80.
[53] Homer, _Iliad_, vii. 244-8.
[54] Casalis, _The Basutos_ (London, 1861), pp. 135-6.
[55] Barth, l. c., vol. i. p. 355.
[56] Meyrick (Skelton), l. c, pl. cxli (text).
[57] Bosman, _Guinea_, Pinkerton (1811), vol. xvi. p. 414.
[58] Barth, l. c., vol. ii. pp. 410, 526; ii. 116 (plate); Denham and
Clapperton, l. c., p. 166 (Denham).
[59] Meyrick, l. c., vol. i. Introd. pp. i-ii.
[60] Meyrick, l. c., vol. i. Introd. p. xxiv.
[61] At Fernando Po.--Cuming, ‘Weapons and Armour of Horn,’ _Journal of
Archaeological Association_ (London, 1848), vol. iii. p. 30.
[62] Fig. 32 is from a rough sketch taken about two years ago, and has
no pretension to accuracy of detail.
[63] Meyrick, l. c, vol. i. pl. iv. 10.
[64] Schoolcraft, _Information concerning the History, &c., of the
Indian Tribes of the U. S. A._ (Philadelphia, 1851-9), vol. iii. p. 67.
[65] Grant, _Walk across Africa_ (London, 1864), p. 47.
[66] Smith, _Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antiq._, s. v.; Meyrick, l. c., vol.
i. Introd. p. xiv; Amm. Marc. xvii. 12. 2; Pausanias, i. 21. 6; Tac.
_Hist._ i. 79 (_praeduro corio_).
[67] Kitto, _Pictorial Bible_ (London, 1838-9), note to 1 Sam. xvii.
[68] Cuming, _Journal of the Archaeological Association_, vol. iii. p.
31.
[69] Kitto, _Pictorial Bible_, note to 1 Sam. xvii.
[70] Skene, ‘On the Albanians,’ _Journ. Ethno. Soc._, vol. ii. pp.
159-81.
[71] Casalis, _The Basutos_ (London, 1861), p. 172.
[72] Maunder, _Treasury of Natural History_ (London, 1862), p. 573.
[73] Williamson, _Oriental Field Sports_ (London, 1807), p. 46.
[74] Atkinson, _Oriental and Western Siberia_ (London, 1858), p. 495.
[75] Williamson, _Oriental Field Sports_ (London, 1807), p. 94.
[76] Thompson, _Passions of Animals_ (1851), p. 225. The American
hunter avails himself of this peculiarity to entrap the crane by
presenting the barrel of his firelock to the animal; supposing it to be
an eye, the crane immediately strikes at the hole, and fixes its beak
firmly in the muzzle.
[77] Beechey, _Voyage to the North Pole_ (London, 1843), pp. 93-4.
[78] Bates, _Naturalist on the Amazons_ (3rd ed. London, 1873), p. 230.
[79] _Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China, Siam, Cambodia, and
Laos in 1858-9_, by the late M. Henri Mouhot (London, 1864), vol. ii.
p. 147.
[80] It is to be observed that this is not the rhinoceros’s usual mode
of attack.
[81] Cranz, _Historie von Grönland_ (2nd ed. Barby and Leipzig, 1770),
p. 196, pl. v. 8.
[82] Beechey, _Voyage to the North Pole_ (London, 1843), p. 252.
[83] Cuming, _Journal of the Archaeological Association_, vol. iii. p.
25.
[84] Ibid., p. 26.
[85] Swainson, _Habits and Instincts of Animals_ (London, 1840), p. 141.
[86] Gregory, ‘Expedition to the North-west Coast of Australia,’ _Royal
Geographical Society’s Journal_, vol. xxxii (1862), p. 417.
[87] Denham and Clapperton, _Travels_ (1826), p. 20 (Denham).
[88] Hind, _Narrative of the Canadian Exploring Expedition_ (London,
1860), vol. i. p. 316.
[89] Captain John Smith, _Sixth Voyage to Virginia_ (1606); Pinkerton
(1811), vol. xii. p. 35.
[90] Cuming, _Journal of the Archaeological Association_, vol. iii. p.
27.
[91] Turner, _Nineteen Years in Polynesia_ (London, 1861), p. 276.
[92] Beechey, _Voyage to the Pacific_ (London, 1831), vol. i. p. 143.
[93] Williams, _Fiji and the Fijians_ (London, 1858), vol. i. p. 57.
[94] Wilson, _Pellew Islands_ (ed. Keate, London, 1788), pl. v, fig. 1,
p. 310.
[95] Klemm, _Werkzeuge und Waffen_ (1858), p. 50.
[96] Owen, _Comp. Anatomy and Physiology of Vertebrates_ (1846), vol.
ii. 1. p.
[97] Klemm, l. c., p. 31 (‘die Schwanzstachel eines Roches,’ i.e. ‘the
caudal spine of a ray.’--ED.).
[98] Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_ (London, 1862), vol. i. p. 146.
[99] Cuming, _Journal of the Archaeological Association_, vol. iii. p.
26.
[100] The probability of the aboriginal man having derived his first
lessons from this source may be judged of by the accounts given by
travellers of the effects produced by the large thorns of trees in
South Africa, of which there is a good account in Routledge’s _Natural
History of Man_, by Rev. J. G. Wood (1868-70), vol. i. p. 235. Large
animals are said to be frequently destroyed, and even to have impaled
themselves, upon the large, strong spines of the thorny Acacia.
Throughout Central Africa a pair of tweezers for extracting thorns is
an indispensable requisite in the equipment of every native.
[101] Beechey, _Voyage to the Pacific_ (London, 1831), vol. i. pp. 47-8.
[102] Strabo, p. 155.
[103] Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_ (London, 1829), vol. i. chap. viii.
[104] Clapperton, _Travels_, p. 58.
[105] I exclude from this category all nippers, cross-bills, and
prehensile implements.
[106] Jardine’s _Naturalist’s Library_ (Edinb. 1843): _Ichthyology_
(Hamilton), vol. vi, part 2, p. 335.
[107] Choris, _Voyage Pictoresque autour du Monde_ (Paris, 1822),
‘Isles Radak,’ pl. ii. 1 and 4.
[108] Cook, _Third Voyage_ (London, 1842), vol. ii. p. 251.
[109] Klemm, l. c., pp. 63-4; Wilkes, _United States Exploring
Expedition_ (Philadelphia, 1845), vol. v. ch. ii. pp. 49, 79.
[110] King, ‘The Industrial Arts of the Esquimaux,’ _Journ. Ethno.
Soc._ (1848), vol. i. p. 290.
[111] Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, vol. ii. p. 497.
[112] Nieuhoff, ‘Travels in Brazil’; Pinkerton (1813), vol. xiv. p. 874.
[113] Tylor, _Anahuac_, p. 332, Appendix.
[114] Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_ (1862), vol. i. pp. 226, 227.
[115] Lloyd Stephens, _Incidents of Travel in Central America_, p. 59.
[116] Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_ (1862), vol. i. pp. 226, 227.
[117] Lewis Morgan, _The League of the Ho-De-No-Sou-Nee or Iroquois_
(Rochester, N.Y., 1851), p. 359.
[118] Thunberg, _Travels in Europe, Africa, and Asia_, 1770-9 (3rd ed.,
London, 1795), vol. i. p. 156; ii. p. 162; Livingstone, _Missionary
Travels and Researches in South Africa_ (London, 1857), p. 171.
[119] Meyrick (Skelton), _Ancient Arms and Armour_, vol. ii. pl. cxiii,
fig. 14, cf. fig. 13.
[120] _Times_ newspaper, Dec. 24, 1866.
[121] Humboldt, _Aspects of Nature_ (London, 1849), vol. i. pp. 25,
203-4.
[122] Klemm, l. c., p. 53.
[123] ‘On the Wild Tribes in the Interior of the Malay Peninsula,’ by
Père Bourien. _Trans. Ethno. Soc._, N.S., vol. iii (1865), p. 78.
[124] Darwin, _Journal of Researches into Nat. Hist. and Geology_
(London, 1845), p. 8.
[125] Hall, C. F., _Life with the Esquimaux_ (London, 1864), vol. ii.
pp. 329-30.
PRIMITIVE WARFARE
II
ON THE RESEMBLANCE OF THE WEAPONS OF EARLY MAN, THEIR VARIATION,
CONTINUITY, AND DEVELOPMENT OF FORM.[126]
_General Remarks._
In June, 1867, I had the honour of reading a paper at this Institution,
which has since been published in the _Journal_, the object of which
was to point out the resemblance which exists between the weapons of
savages and early races and the weapons with which nature has furnished
animals for their defence.
In continuation of the same subject, my present communication will
relate to the resemblance to each other of the weapons of races
sometimes widely separated, and of which the connexion, if it ever
existed, has long since been consigned to obscurity. I shall endeavour
to show, how in these several localities, which are so remote from
one another, the progress of form has been developed upon a similar
plan, and, though to all appearance independently, yet that under like
conditions like results have been produced; and that the weapons and
implements of these races will sometimes be found to bear so close a
resemblance to each other, as often to suggest a community of origin,
where no such common origin can have existed, unless at the very
remotest period.
We shall thus be brought to the consideration of the great problem of
our day, viz. the origin of mankind, or rather the origin of the human
arts; for the question of man’s origin, whether he was himself created
or developed from some prior form, whether since the period of his
first appearance he has by variation separated into distinct races,
or whether the several races of mankind were separately created, are
questions which, however closely allied, do not of necessity form part
of our present subject. It has to deal solely with the origin of the
arts, and more particularly with the art of war, which in the infancy
of society belonged to a condition of life so constant and universal
as to embrace within its sphere all other arts, or at least to be so
intimately connected with them as to require the same treatment; the
tool and the weapon being, as I shall presently show, often identical
in the hands of the primaeval savage.
These prefatory remarks are necessary because it will be seen that the
general observations I am about to offer on the subject are fully as
applicable to the whole range of the industrial arts of mankind as to
the art of war. My illustrations, however, will be taken exclusively
from weapons of war.
Is not the world at the present time, and has it not always been, the
scene of a continuous progress? Have not the arts grown up from an
obscure origin, and is not this growth continuing to the present day?
This is the question which lies at the very threshold of our subject,
and we must endeavour to treat it by the light of evidence alone, apart
from all considerations of a traditional or poetic character.
I do not propose here to enter into a disquisition upon the functions
of the human mind. But it must I think be admitted, that if man
possessed from the first the same nature that belongs to him at the
present time, he must at the commencement of his career in this world
have been destitute of all creative power. The mind has never been
endowed with any creative faculty. The only powers we possess are those
of digesting, adapting, and applying, by the intellectual faculties,
the experience acquired through the medium of the senses. We come into
the world helpless and speechless, possessing only in common with the
brutes such instincts as are necessary for the bare sustenance of
life under the most facile conditions; all that follows afterwards is
dependent purely on experience.
Whether we afterwards become barbarous or civilized, whether we follow
a hunting, nomadic, or agricultural life, whether we embrace this
religion or that, or attain proficiency in any of the arts, all this
is dependent purely on the accident of our birth, which places us in a
position to build upon the experience of our ancestors, adding to it
the experience acquired by ourselves. For although it is doubtless true
that the breeds of mankind, like the breeds of our domestic animals,
by continual cultivation during many generations, have improved, and
that by this means races have been produced capable of being educated
to a higher degree than those which have remained uncivilized, this
does not alter the fact that it is by experience alone, conscious or
unconscious, self-imposed or compulsory, and by a process of slow and
laborious induction, that we arrive at the degree of perfection to
which, according to our opportunities and our relative endowments, we
ultimately attain.
The amount, therefore, which any one individual or any one generation
is capable of adding to the civilization of their age must be
immeasurably small, in comparison with what they derive from it.
I could not perhaps appeal to an audience more capable of appreciating
the truth of these remarks than to the members of an Institution, the
object of which is to examine into the improvements and so-called
inventions which are from time to time effected in the machinery and
implements of war.
How often does any proposal or improvement come before this Institution
which after investigating its antecedents is found to possess
originality of design? Is it not a fact that even the most ingenious
and successful inventions turn out on inquiry to be mere adaptations of
contrivances already existing, or that they are produced by applying
to one branch of industry the principles or the contrivances which
have been evolved in another. I think that no one can have constantly
attended the lectures of this or any similar Institution, without
becoming impressed, above all things, with the want of originality
observable amongst men, and with the great calls which, even in this
age of cultivated intellects and abundant materials to work upon, all
inventors are obliged to make upon those who have preceded them.
Since, then, we ourselves are so entirely creatures of education, and
derive so little from our own unaided resources, it follows that the
first created man, if similarly constituted, having no antecedents from
which to derive instruction, could not, without external aid, have made
any material or rapid advance towards the initiation of the arts.
So fully has the truth of this been recognized by those who are not
themselves advocates for the theory of development, that in order to
account for the very first stages of human progress they have found
it necessary to assume the hypothesis of supernatural agency: such
we know was the belief of the classical pagan nations, who attributed
the origin of many of the arts to their gods; such we know to be the
tradition of many savage and semi-civilized nations of modern times
that have attained to the first stages of culture. But we have already
disposed of this hypothesis at the commencement of these remarks, by
deciding that our arguments should be based solely upon evidence. We
are, therefore, under the necessity of assuming, in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary, that none but the agencies which help us
now were at the disposal of our first ancestors, and the alternative
to which we must have recourse is that of supposing that the progress
of those days was immeasurably slower than it is at present, and that
vast ages must have elapsed after the first appearance of man before he
began to show even the first indications of a settled advance.
Yet the complex civilization of our own time has been built on the
foundations that were laid by these aborigines of our species, while
the brute creation may be said to have produced little more than was
necessary to their own wants or those of their immediate offspring.
Man has been the agent employed in a work of continuous progression.
Generation has succeeded generation, and race has succeeded race, each
contributing its quota to the fabrication of the edifice, and then
giving place to other workmen. But the progress of the edifice itself
has never ceased; it has gone on, I maintain (contrary to the opinion
of some writers of our day), always in fulfilment of one vast design.
It is a work of all time.
To study it comprehensively, we must devote ourselves to the
contemplation of the edifice itself, and set aside the study of mankind
for separate treatment, for it is evident that man has been fashioned,
not as the designer, but simply as the unconscious instrument of its
erection. Each individual has been impelled by what--viewed in this
light--may be regarded as instincts sufficient to stimulate him to
labour, but falling immeasurably short of a comprehensive knowledge of
the great scheme, towards which he is an unconscious contributor. Of
this he knows no more than the earthworm knows it to be its function
to cover the crust of the earth with mould, or the small coral polypus
knows that it is engaged in the erection of a barrier reef. No
comprehensive scheme of progress need be searched for in the pigmy
intellect of man, and if we are ever destined to acquire any knowledge
of the laws which influence the growth of civilization, we must look
for them in an investigation of the phenomenon itself, by studying its
phases and the sequence of its mutations. In short we must apply to the
whole range of human culture, to the arts, whether of peace or war, the
same method which has already been applied with some success to the
history of language.
It has been shown that the speech of our own day has been the work
of many generations and of innumerable distinct races; its roots are
traceable in the utterances of the untutored savage. No nation ever
consciously invented a grammar, and yet language has been shown to be
capable of being treated as a science of natural growth, having its
laws of mutation and development, never dreamt of by any of the many
myriads of individuals that have unconsciously contributed to the
formation of it. May not all the products of human intellects in the
aggregate be made amenable to the same treatment, and, like language,
be found to be influenced by laws of evolution and progress?
That these remarks are not merely speculative, that the progress of
civilization has been continuous and connected, while the races which
have been engaged in the formation of it, like individuals, have had
their periods of birth, maturity, and decay, is sufficiently proved by
history.