must, however, revert to one part of my former communication, in order
to show that a statement I then made in reference to the geographical
distribution of the boomerang has since had some light thrown upon it
by the researches of one of our most eminent men of science. It will,
perhaps, be remembered by those who did me the honour of reading my
last lecture, which was printed in vol. xii of the _Journal_, that,
in describing the weapons of the Australians, I showed, by means of
numerous illustrations of the varieties of each class of weapon from
that country, that they all passed one into the other by connecting
links, so that where a sufficient number of them are arranged in such
a manner as to exhibit their continuity, it is often impossible to
determine any definite line of separation between them. I also showed
that the form of each weapon was determined by the form of the stem or
branch of the tree out of which it was made, the outline of all these
implements conforming to the grain of the wood; and the inference which
I drew from this was, that it showed a very low state of intellect on
the part of the constructors, the several classes of implements not
having been designed originally for their respective purposes, but
produced accidentally, and then applied during subsequent ages to the
several uses to which in practice they appeared most suited.
As we have no reason to suppose that the Australian continent was
peopled at a later date than other parts of the world, and as there
is no evidence upon that continent of the people inhabiting it having
ever been in a higher state of civilization than they are at present,
we have grounds for supposing that they must have remained stationary,
or have progressed very slowly, while the inhabitants of other parts
of the globe advanced more rapidly, and that their existing arts
and implements, simple and primitive though they be, nevertheless
represent the highest development of constructive power to which these
people have ever attained. Hence it follows, that if the inhabitants
of any other portions of the globe can be traced to a common origin
with the Australians, viewing the persistency of type observable as a
characteristic of the arts of these people, and of all other people
in a primitive state of culture, we must expect to find some traces
of similar implements in use amongst all such people to whom a common
origin can be assigned.
In my last lecture I mentioned that there were three countries in
which the boomerang is either still used, or is known to have been
used in ancient times, viz. Australia, the Deccan of India, and Egypt,
and I also showed some grounds for believing that the same weapon,
or something allied to it, may have spread from those countries over
Europe, as it is known to have done over a great part of Northern and
Central Africa.
Although the comparison of weapons from various parts of the globe
can have no other object than to trace out an original connexion,
I did not venture to build upon the coincidence of this weapon in
these regions, any argument for the common origin of the people by
whom it was used. Nor do I think that I should have been justified
in assuming such origin upon the grounds of the identity of a single
weapon. Such identity may have arisen in three ways:--(1) it may have
arisen independently by the spontaneous development of like weapons
under similar conditions of life; (2) the weapon itself may have been
communicated from some primal source; (3) the races using it may have
been themselves derived from a common origin. Of these, the first
view, viz. the independent origin of the weapon, would perhaps strike
any one at first sight, before having studied the conservatism and
persistency of type which is so especially characteristic of savages,
as the most probable; it appears so exceedingly simple in its form and
uses to our trained and educated minds, that it seems hardly necessary
to account for it in any other way; besides which, there are slight
differences between the Indian and Australian boomerangs, which have
been considered by some to distinguish the two weapons.
I will not here revert to the arguments which I have used to combat
this opinion. Suffice to say, that I have since been favoured with
much valuable information on the subject by Sir Walter Elliot, who
has frequently accompanied the natives of India in their hunting
expeditions with this weapon. He says that it is formed on the grain
of the wood, like the Australian boomerang, the curve varying with the
bend of the stem; it is whirled horizontally, with the end foremost,
like the Australian practice, and is used by two tribes in the Deccan,
viz. the Kolis of Guzerat and the Marawárs of Madura, but more
especially in its simplest form by the former, who are of the Dravidian
or black race of the Deccan. In a letter to me he says, speaking of
these tribes:--‘I have seen both, and, indeed, served ten years in the
latter district (Southern Mahratta), where the crooked stick is used
by all the lower orders every Sunday during the hot season, when all
agricultural labour is at a stand. The villagers turn out in large
numbers, and scour the jungle armed with these sticks. Everything that
rises is knocked over; deer, hares, birds, even the wild hog and the
tiger are occasionally (though rarely, of course) included in the bag.
I have seen a line of upwards of 100 men and boys, and the boomerang
whirling about in such numbers, and with such precision, that even
birds on the wing are brought down. I never met with any regularly
formed specimens, except in the South; those in the North were mere
angular sticks, of very various form, as natural branches occurred; the
favourite form was a rather obtuse angle--nearly a right angle.’ Thus,
whether we regard the purposes for which it is used, the material of
which it is constructed, the manner of throwing, or the varieties of
its form, the Indian and Australian boomerang is virtually the same
weapon; and I think those who dispute their identity appear rather to
have had in view the ‘collery stick’ of Madras and of the Marawárs than
the boomerang of the Kolis.
We may therefore, I think, fairly consider the causes which may have
led to the adoption of this weapon as sprung from a common source.
[Illustration: PLATE XVII.]
Since my last communication to this Institution, Professor Huxley has
given to the world, in a paper read at the meeting of the International
Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology--of which I had the honour to be
general secretary--in August, 1868, his views ‘on the distribution of
the races of mankind, as bearing on their antiquity’.[185] The paper
created a considerable sensation in the scientific world, owing to the
boldness of the generalizations contained in it, and, it may be added,
a certain amount of opposition. The accompanying map (Plate XVII) is
taken from one drawn by Professor Huxley himself for the Ethnological
Society, to illustrate this subject (_Journ. Ethno. Soc._ (1870) N. S.
ii. 404-12).
Basing his distribution of the human race on the principle that the
characters of the hair and complexion are more permanent, and of
greater value as a means of classification, than the bony structure
of man, Professor Huxley traces back the numerous varieties of tribes
and races into what, for the present, may be regarded as four primary
groups.
Commencing, for the convenience of my present subject, with the
highest, or those which have shown themselves most capable of
development--which, in all probability, is the wrong end of the scale
to begin with, if we regarded them in their natural succession--the
first of these groups is what he terms Xanthochroid type (the
distribution of which is marked [shading] in the map), a people
characterized by yellow hair and fair complexions, with blue eyes, who
form a strong element in the composition of the population of this
country and a great part of Europe, extending from thence through
Scandinavia and Central Europe eastward into Northern India. Next to
these he classes the great Mongoloid race (marked by various shades
of [shading] on the map), with yellow-brown complexions and black
hair and eyes, of which the Kalmucs and Tartars represent the purest
types, occupying the whole of Northern Europe and Asia, from Lapland
to Behring Strait, and down to the southernmost parts of China;
including also the Esquimaux, the Polynesians, and the whole of the
inhabitants of the two continents of America. Thirdly, the Negro race
(marked [shading] and [shading] in the map), long headed, with woolly
hair, which has its head quarters in all that part of Africa south of
the Sahara, but has outlying branches widely detached, and occupying
a broken line of islands extending in a belt, from the Andaman Isles
in the Bay of Bengal, to the peninsula of Malacca, New Guinea, New
Caledonia, and the adjoining isles, and having its southmost limits in
the distant island of Tasmania. Lastly, we come to the Australioid race
(marked [shading]), distinguished by dark chocolate complexions and
black eyes, with long heads and soft wavy hair; these the Professor,
upon physiological grounds, and after intimate acquaintance with these
people in the distant regions in which they are found, traces in
three distinct portions of the globe, viz. Australia, the Deccan of
India, and Egypt; the three identical countries, it will be observed,
in which, unconscious of Professor Huxley’s distribution of races, I
had traced the occurrence of the boomerang. I think, therefore, it is
not an unreasonable conjecture, assuming the correctness of Professor
Huxley’s premises, that this peculiar weapon may be a relic of the
original Australioid stock, which having been originally an effective
weapon for all purposes amongst the aborigines of this race, and
continuing still to be used as such in Australia, survived in India
and in ancient Egypt merely as an implement for the chase and for
amusement, much in the same way that, in Europe, bows and arrows have
survived amongst children to the present day.
[Illustration: PLATE XIX.]
In the remarks which I made (p. 127) upon the varieties of the African
boomerang, I drew attention to the peculiarly curved form of the Nubian
and Abyssinian sword, and I ventured an opinion that its form may have
been originally derived from that of the boomerang, of which weapon a
variety, constructed of wood, is still in use by the inhabitants of
the country; and I see no reason to doubt that the Abyssinian sword
may have been the prototype of those numerous allied forms of iron
weapons, the ‘hunga-munga’, &c., which throughout Africa are still used
as missiles, and thrown with a rotatory motion like the boomerang. My
conjecture on this subject appears to receive some confirmation from
the very peculiar construction of one of these swords, which has lately
been added to the museum of this Institution, and which is represented
in Plate XIX, figure 1. The angular form of the blade, swelling in the
middle, presents such a close affinity to the Australian boomerang, as
to strike even those who have not been led, by the considerations I
have mentioned, to look for a coincidence in these weapons. I noticed
at the same time the very great resemblance between the rudimentary
shields of the Australians and those of some of the inhabitants of the
valley of the Upper Nile, which may also perhaps be accounted for in
the same way. With a view of further connecting this primitive form
of shield with similar defensive weapons in India, it is worthy of
notice that the hand-shield, having antelopes’ horns projecting from
it, a representation of which was given in my first lecture, Plate X,
figs. 66, 67_a_, and 69 (many of which are furnished with a small iron
shield, or guard for the hand, though some are without this accessory),
is used--Sir Walter Elliot now informs me--precisely in the same way
as the Australian and African parrying-shields, viz. by catching the
arrows and darts of the assailant, and parrying them off with the
horns, thus favouring the conjecture that I ventured to put forward,
that the square, oblong, and circular targets are defensive weapons of
comparatively recent origin, being represented in a primitive stage of
culture by a simple parrying-stick, derived originally from the club.
The club is, as a general rule, the only defensive guard employed by
races in the lowest stages of culture. These seem to have been replaced
by parrying-sticks, held in the centre, and subsequently hollowed to
receive the hand, or furnished with hand-guards, forming rudimentary
shields; of which stage in the development of the weapon we are now
able to establish connected traces in the three countries under
consideration.
If the comparisons which I have made, and the conclusions I have
ventured to draw from them, are found to stand the test of further
investigation, as it appears to me reasonable to hope they will, the
importance of studying the forms and uses of these primitive weapons in
connexion with other sociological and biological phenomena, as a means
of tracing back the early history of mankind, will be well established.
Of this, however, we may feel certain, that if a connexion formerly
existed between the inhabitants of India, Australia, and Egypt, the
evidence of such connexion will not be limited either to the colour
of the hair and skin, or to the resemblance of their weapons, but
will be found in other customs and institutions which they brought
with them from their fatherland. The important generalizations of
Professor Huxley, whether or not they ultimately hold good, have had
the good effect of drawing attention to a comparison of the inhabitants
of these countries; and though it would be foreign to my present
purpose to anticipate the result of these investigations in other
branches not immediately connected with my present subject, I may
mention that officers acquainted with India and Australia have since
pointed out resemblances in the hymeneal and other customs of those
countries, which have not before been noticed, but which, when put
together and compared, making all due allowance for the variations
which are inevitable in the continuous development of all human arts
and institutions, will, I doubt not, tend to give confirmation to the
theory of races which the author of it has so ably advanced.
Having strayed thus far into the geological and biological aspect of
the question, it is necessary to go a step further in order to apply
the subject more generally to the origin of weapons, and at the same
time to point out some difficulties which stand in the way of accepting
this theory of races--difficulties of which Professor Huxley himself
appears by his paper to be fully sensible.
The detached portions of the Australioid race are separated from each
other by seas of considerable depth, and the same thing applies to the
Negroid race. The Australians, he points out, though possessing ample
materials for the construction of canoes, have never learnt to make
any that are capable of traversing the great seas which separate them
from their apparent kindred in other lands, and it is unlikely they
should have forgotten the art of navigation if they had once known it.
It is inconceivable, therefore, that they should have migrated from
Australia to the Deccan, and to Egypt, during the existing geographical
arrangement of sea and land, more especially as no trace of such
migration is found upon intervening isles. He points out, however, that
great geographical changes have probably taken place, and that those
changes, in so far as our knowledge of them goes, are of a nature to
account for the phenomena observed.
The region of the negro race in Africa is separated from Northern
Africa and from Europe by the desert of Sahara, of which there is
geological evidence to show that it was sea at a recent geological
period. The same applies to the Deccan of India, which is separated
from the Himalaya by the great alluvial plains of the Indus and the
Ganges, which, having probably formed a strait before the miocene
epoch, may have divided the black men inhabiting the Deccan from the
Xanthochroid and Mongoloid races to the north. At the same time large
tracts now occupied by the sea may then have been land, uniting or
connecting by a chain of easily accessible islands the regions in which
men of the same colour and physical peculiarities are now found. But it
will be seen by the map that the lines of distribution of two of the
races, the Negroid and the Australioid, cross each other, and this,
according to the theory of migration by land, appears to involve a
succession of submersions and upheavals during the human period, which
it is difficult to account for.
The distribution of races, according to supposed original distinctions
of colour and complexion, will be seized upon by polygenists as an
argument in their favour; for it will be said that, according to this
theory, the distinctions of race in the earliest times must have been
as great, or greater, than they are at present.
There are three ways in which it has been attempted to account for
these early distinctions of colour and persistency of type--(1) by
supposing the several races of man to have been separately created
upon distinct continents of land; (2) by assuming that on each
primaeval continent, man was evolved from the anthropoid apes of that
continent;[186] or (3), by supposing that these divisions of race,
remotely and immeasurably distant though they be, nevertheless carry us
only a short way back into the history of man, and that still earlier
ages, if we could penetrate them, would show the races of man united.
Now, with respect to the first assumption, that of creation, though
we are not, of course, in a position to deny the possibility of it,
I confess it appears to me unwarranted by any of the phenomena of
nature. We have no knowledge of the special creation of any organized
being; and how can we scientifically assume as probable, that, for the
probability of which there is no sort of evidence of a nature that
inductive science would be warranted in building upon? Continuity and
development are seen to be the order of the universe. Man is seen to
be, both mentally and physically, amenable to that law; and on what
grounds can we assume that he was ever an exception to it? I cannot
conceive how those who believe geological changes to have been brought
about by causes which are still in operation in our own day, and who
make great calls upon time in order to reconcile those causes to the
phenomena observed, can, in treating biological phenomena, advocate
belief in so great a break in the observed order of the universe as is
implied by the special creation of man. Still less willing am I, in
the absence of more cogent argument than has ever yet been advanced
in support of it, to assent to hypotheses of the separate development
of races, which appears to me equally at variance with nature. There
can be no doubt that all the existing races of man, whatever their
colour and physical peculiarities, have greater affinity to each other
than any of them have to the apes, or to any other class of animals.
The tendency of progress is from simplicity to complexity, from unity
to diversity, and it would be a complete inversion of the order of
nature that animals so various as the apes should independently
produce animals so much resembling each other as the races of man.
The recognized law that, with certain variations, like begets like,
appears to me to negative this assumption as fully as it would do
the notion, if it were put forward, that because the horse and some
other classes of the mammalia, say the rhinoceros, for instance, have
some affinities in their bony structure, therefore the black horse is
descended from the African rhinoceros, and the white horse from that
of India. Moreover, all the races of mankind interbreed, and I am at a
loss to understand how a circumstance like this, which throughout the
animal kingdom is regarded as a proof of unity of species, should be
discarded in its application to humanity. If, then, it is true that
diversity of colour is as old as the very earliest traces of man, and
there is evidence that the several coloured races were inhabitants of
distinct continents, which have disappeared through geological changes
dispersing and mixing the races, blending the colours and obliterating
the traces of their formerly isolated homes; then to the same causes,
which produced the mixing and the blending, we must also attribute the
original separation. According to the view I hold, we must ask for more
time, and still further geological changes, to bring them together
again in the primaeval cradle of the human race.
Now, to apply this reasoning to the origin of weapons. The only
vestiges of the primaeval tools of mankind now left to us are those
constructed of stone; others of the more perishable materials have
decayed, and their representatives only have remained in some few
cases as survivals. In my last lecture I showed how uniform in shape
and in development these stone implements are found to be in all parts
of the world, whether derived from the northern or southern continent
of America, from Siberia, Australia, India, Africa, or the surface
soils and river gravels of Europe. This uniformity of shape has been
used as an argument that mankind must have independently designed the
same forms of tools in various parts of the world, and that under
like conditions, like forms will be produced by men, however remotely
separated. I am not prepared to deny the possibility of some of these
forms having had an independent origin; but if the proof of it is to be
based upon the separation of continents, we see how entirely groundless
such an argument is when applied to the earliest ages of humanity. For
if, as has been conjectured, the races of man may have been dispersed
by geographical changes of land and sea, it is obvious they may have
carried with them, from some primal source, the art of manufacturing
stone weapons; the resemblance of which is far more satisfactorily
accounted for by this means[187] than by supposing such singular and
invariable coincidence in design to be the result of independent
discovery. As we contemplate man in his lower and lowest conditions,
we find the imitative faculty stands out more and more prominently by
the absence of those higher qualities which characterize civilized
races; and whatever power of originality for the invention of new arts
may have been possessed by the earliest inhabitants of the globe, its
results appear to have been spread over so vast a lapse of time that it
can scarcely be accounted at all as an element in the mental attributes
of primaeval man.
I now pass to what has been announced as the subject proper of my
present communication, viz. the origin and development of metal tools.
I use the word _metal_ intentionally, in preference to specifying
bronze, because, although we have good reason for supposing that in
Europe, Egypt, Assyria, and the central parts of America, bronze
preceded iron as a material for weapons, it is not so certain that this
was the case in all parts of Asia; and in Africa we know that iron was
the first metal employed by the negroes.
Perhaps no subject has given rise to so much difference of opinion
amongst archaeologists as this question of the origin of metal
implements, or has been accompanied with such uncertain results,
owing to the great mass of conflicting evidence to be dealt with,
and the great doubt which rests upon much of it, whether in regard
to the casual mention of the subject in ancient authors, or to the
often ill-directed researches of modern times. It would be hopeless,
in the brief time allotted me on the present occasion, to attempt
to throw fresh light on this intricate subject, even if I possessed
the materials for so doing. All I shall endeavour to do is, to put
together, in as intelligible a form as possible, some of the more
salient points upon which archaeologists are divided, and trace the
continuity observable in passing from the stone to the metal age.