CHAPTER XII

THE COMING OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS

Said Max Müller in his _Biographies of Words_: "I have declared again

and again that, if I say Aryan, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor hair

nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language. The same

applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts, and Slavs. When I

speak of them I commit myself to no anatomical characteristics. The

blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or

conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or

their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their

language.... To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood,

Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a

dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar."

We may well take this warning to heart, and remember that the first and

most noticeable, if not the one essential, characteristic of the Aryans

was their language. For the sake of convenience and clearness, and of

avoiding misunderstanding or prejudice, we will use the word

Indo-European for the whole group of languages to which Müller applied

the word Aryan. These languages fall into two great divisions or

branches: (1) the Indian and Iranian (Persian), which we will call

Aryan; and (2) the European branch, including Greek, Latin, German,

Slavic, and others. Our first question is: what inferences can we safely

draw from a study and comparison of these different European and Asiatic

languages? Evidently they have all sprung from a parent language no

longer adequately represented by any one of them. They have all been

considerably or greatly modified during the lapse of time. They, and

others whose names we have omitted, are all sister languages descended

or developed from a parent language which must once have been spoken by

a people, very probably representing a mixture of races, having a

definite local habitation, cradle, or home. Here the language originated

as the expression of a certain culture or civilization, and from this

region, large or small, it spread into Persia and India and throughout

Europe. The wide spread of the language testifies to the superiority in

some important respects of either language, culture, people, or all

three. We may well recognize two homes, the first, original cradle of

the language and culture, and the second homeland, far more extensive,

over which the original language, probably with well-marked dialects,

was used just before the final separation and dispersal.

In its distribution from India to western Europe it must often have

wandered far from its original home. Its introducers must often have

been few compared with the large and dense populations among which they

came. The Aryans could have been hardly more than a handful among the

peoples of India. Something similar may be said of its introduction into

Europe about the close of the Neolithic period. Middle Europe was at

this time fairly well populated, at least in its more fertile regions.

The bearers of the new language must have represented a ruling,

conquering, or otherwise very influential class, else it would never

have been accepted by the mass of the people.

When the original or modified Indo-European language, perhaps in several

distinct dialects, was introduced into Europe, it was carried to peoples

of several or many stocks and languages. These had to learn and acquire

it as we acquire a foreign language, but only as a spoken, unwritten

language. Probably no one of them acquired it exactly in its original

form. It was almost impossible for them to pronounce all its consonants

or combinations, its "shibboleths." They retained much of the stress and

accent and more of the cadence of their own tongue. Similarly at a far

later date Latin developed into the various Romance Languages of modern

Europe.

Under the new conditions content and meanings changed as well as forms

of language. Words little used in the new home, especially names of

objects, might easily be lost, while others would be replaced by

favorite apt words from the aboriginal language. A name might be applied

to a new object and thus change its meaning. To cite a familiar modern

instance, the robin redbreast of America is quite a different bird from

that of England. For a long time it was supposed that the occurrence of

the root of the word "beech" in the European languages proved beyond

doubt that the language must have originated in a region where the

beech-tree was common. But the Greek word derived from the same root

means oak; a similar, perhaps not the same, root word in Kurdish means

elm. Our knowledge of the original meaning of the word is very

uncertain. Through all the languages there runs a single word for

weaving or plaiting, but whether the original word referred to the

weaving of cloth or to the plaiting of mats or baskets we do not know.

The work of discovering and restoring the original language is difficult

and far from finished. But the comparative philologists or "linguistic

paleontologists" have established certain facts, or at least theories,

on which we may rely with a fair degree of confidence. We find names for

all the most important domestic animals, including the horse. There are

words for the wagon, its wheels, and various other parts. Words for

tillage and land cultivation agree in the Western branch, but are far

less noticeable in the Aryan languages. Here the vocabulary is rather

that of the herdsman. This seems to allow us to conclude that, when

Eastern and Western branches separated, and probably long before that

time, the Eastern people were herdsmen paying slight attention to

agriculture: the Western predominantly tillers of the ground.

The linguist, as we have already seen, is frequently or usually unable

to discover the exact meaning of the word in the original language, and

hence is uncertain as to the degree of development of any art or

technique. But the culture, as far as discovered, seems to be that of

the average of Neolithic peoples, perhaps fairly well represented by

that of the Swiss lake-dwellers. It may have varied in different areas

or provinces. The language seems to represent most clearly features of

the undivided life and settlement of the people or peoples when it had

spread over a wide territory and become the property of a large

population, otherwise it would be impossible to explain the successive

great waves of Indo-European migration. The cradle where the language

originated and took form must have been far more limited and the culture

simpler.

The original language contains words for summer and winter, ice and

snow; it tells of a fairly cold climate. They had a common word for

metal, probably copper, hence they were living together after the

introduction of this metal. They lived in villages apparently surrounded

by a hedge or wall, or some sort of fortification.

The family was decidedly patriarchal. Of the older mother-right scarcely

more than traces remain, survivals from an older alien culture. The

goddess is no longer supreme. A new divinity, a sky-god, or sun-god, or

manifestation of light or brightness had already appeared--the Greek

Zeus, Latin Ju-piter, with the same root appearing in all the languages.

The earth-goddess is not banished, but remains as consort of the male

divinity. The supreme divinity of the religious cult is no longer local.

There is in it an element or germ of universality overleaping all

provincial boundaries, in many respects a vast improvement over the old

Neolithic religions. It generally held its own, but only by adopting

much from the older native religions on which it was superimposed, as

was the case in Greece.

Indo-Europeanism must have had something to recommend it and make it

highly attractive to enable it to spread so fast and far. The language

itself, while apparently somewhat clumsy, was certainly rich in

conceptions and shades of expression. The clearness and beauty of the

religious cult may have attracted some, though this seems doubtful. All

these features are inadequate to explain the rapidity and extent of its

spread. We must leave this problem for the present.

Even the original language frequently describes the same object or even

action by words having very different roots. It shows great variety in

synonyms and inflections. Feist compares it with English and considers

it a "mixed language" almost from the start, and many facts seem to

favor this view. This does not surprise us when we remember that its

growth and development were late, during the latter half of Neolithic

time, when great movements and minglings of people were taking place and

long routes of trade and communication had opened.

The date of the earliest migrations of Indo-European peoples is roughly

indicated by the presence of a word for metal, probably copper, in the

original undivided language. Aryan names appear in western Asia about

1400 or 1500 B. C. Meyer says that the Achæans had arrived in the

southern Balkans as early as 2000 B. C. and reached Greece about 1200 or

1300 B. C.; the Dorians followed about 1100 B. C. We can hardly be far

from the truth if we consider that they were in their original home

until about 2000 B. C., and that the separation began very soon after.

Their development was a product of the Neolithic period, their spread

was the striking event of earliest historic times.

Inasmuch as their migrations are so recent, especially when compared

with those of the Semites, it ought to be possible for us to discover

certain traits which they brought with them from the homeland. The

Achæans had apparently marched southward from Hungary or thereabouts

through the Balkans into Greece, arriving there not far from 1200 B. C.

They did not come in one invading horde but in successive waves, each

crowding the other before it. Behind the Achæans came the Dorians,

behind them were the Thracians and other wayfarers. Their unit of

organization was the band, brotherhood, or clan, each with its own

leader, reminding us of the Scotch clans of a century or two ago. They

came with their horses and carts, perhaps with war-chariots. They were

the "horse-taming" Achæans. They were youthful, red-blooded,

irresponsible and irresistible, careless, untamed barbarians, swaggering

in from hard battles and long campaigns, having seen the manners and

tested the might of many peoples. They came in contact with ancient,

settled, staid, conservative Pelasgic wealth and culture. They were the

rough riders of their day. They were hard drinkers and fighters; loud,

boastful talkers, good-natured if not opposed; good "mixers."

Their chieftains married the princesses of the old régime, who seem to

have held the right of succession in the kingdom or city-state. The

wooing was rough and more or less forceful; but I suspect that the

princesses yielded not altogether unwillingly, even if the course of

true love did not always continue to run smooth in after years. They

married their gods to the goddesses of the land, and made little

further interference with the old Ægean religion or popular life.

In comparison with the native peoples who had builded Tiryns and Mycenæ

the Achæans were probably few, scattered over Greece. They probably

robbed the subject peoples with one hand, but with the other they

defended them against the forays of sea-pirates and other enemies. They

were no worse than former native rulers, far better watch-dogs of the

city, attractive leaders of an admiring crowd, the best possible

missionaries of a new culture and language. They turned the old

Neolithic world upside down. Evolution had brought revolution: old

things passed away and, for a time, all things became new. We cannot

easily overestimate the extent and importance of the change.

The leaders, and naturally their followers to a less degree, show

clearly the characteristics of the new era, which Wundt has called the

Age of Heroes in distinction from the Age of Totemism and the iron

supremacy of tribal custom. The chief feature was the rise, development,

and dominance of individual personality in the leaders and the

enthusiastic, individual loyalty of the members of the brotherhood or

clan. Up to this time the individual has been entirely submerged in the

customs and culture of the tribe, whose control has been mostly in the

hands of the old men and the priests; now the young warrior and champion

has grasped the reins. In all Homer's pictures the ranks of the common

people, however firm, count for little. The battle is won in single,

hand-to-hand combat by the leader--a dour giant of an Ajax, a dashing

Menelaus, "good at the rescue," a crafty Ulysses, a heroic Hector. The

wisdom of old Nestor is endured with kindly tolerance, hardly with

enthusiasm. It is an age of young men with all their virtues and vices.

But every leader is a distinctly marked individual; no two are alike.

City-states are beginning to appear, but their success depends very

largely on the wisdom and power of the ruler, who seems at first to be

largely irresponsible, a despot in the ancient sense of the word. It is

anything but a true democracy, but it is government by the élite of

their day and world. The new era or _Zeitgeist_ is putting its stamp on

all its peoples. Homer's description of the Achæans would apply almost

equally well to the Celts when they first appear in history; and kindred

spirits are marching and fighting in India and Persia. All seem to

represent a new type which all brought from the common homeland.

The chieftains, with this clan or brotherhood of warlike followers, came

into a country occupied by agriculturists or peasants unused and

untrained to war, such as we have found in the Mediterranean region and

in most of northern Europe. Conquest was usually easy and left little

bitterness. There was no national consciousness or pride to arouse

resistance. It was a totally different kind of invasion from that of

nomadic Semites in Asia, or of Mongols into Europe. It came almost as a

new movement, a renaissance for which the people were ready. Celt and

Greek alike were usually absorbed and lost in the masses of the people

to whom they came. Physically they produced little permanent change in

the people with whom they mingled. They seem to have accepted fully as

much as they contributed, and may often have received credit for many

improvements which they really had little share in bringing about.

We have already seen that Greek philosophy and religion, while retaining

much of the Olympian or Indo-European form, sprang essentially from the

old Pelasgic cults with their greater vitality. How far were Achæans and

Dorians responsible for the glory of Greek art, especially in "Pelasgic

Athens"? The answer can hardly be as obvious and sure as it has appeared

to some.

How far was Roman government and law due to Indo-European influence?

Neither Greeks nor Celts seem to have been very successful in founding

great or permanent states. Italy was far less easy of access from the

north than from Greece, and Rome lay well southward beyond the

Apennines. Some of its most important political features seem to have

sprung from uprisings of the _Plebs_, the common people, probably mostly

of native stock; others, perhaps, from the Etruscans. I cannot attempt

to answer this question or any one of many similar ones. The

Indo-Europeans brought in a new era and started a new world; but just

what was their definite and permanent contribution to European culture?

Europe had been long enough in the school of Neolithic discipline.

Agriculture and settled home life had trained peasants to do many things

which they disliked to do, to observe taboo and to obey ancient custom,

to march in rank and file, and even in lock-step. It was a hard school

in which savage man had been tamed, home-broken, and socialized, and he

had learned its lessons thoroughly. It was high time that men should be

promoted to a higher grade of education the aim of whose training should

be the development of free and vigorous personality. The crust or cake

of custom must yield or be broken and allow the individual to enter upon

the possession of his rights.

It was a critical and revolutionary change. It had been rendered easier

by the accumulation of wealth, and of a certain amount of personal

property in cattle and other goods. In centres of trade the individual

was thrown more and more on his own resources and initiative. With

exchange of goods came exchange of knowledge, ideas, and methods

undermining the ancient customs and traditions. Movements or migrations

of peoples or smaller bands called for leadership by the most capable.

And those became more and more numerous about the close of the Neolithic

period. Neolithic culture had been largely the product of peace and

isolation; it was inadequate to the new conditions. Matriarchy and the

cult of the goddess were unsuited to times of struggle and migration;

with the rise of the chieftain comes the worship of the war-god.

Where did this change or revolution and the rise of this new language

and culture and remarkable people take place? All agree that the cradle

or original homeland must have been somewhere on our third route of

migration, the great zone of steppe and parkland stretching from western

Turkestan westward along the Caspian and Black Seas into the valley of

the Danube, and from the Hungarian extension of the Asiatic steppe

northward to the great plain of North Germany and to Scandinavia. In our

study of racial migrations we found that the great Mongoloid branch went

eastward from the neighborhood of the Iranian plateau, while successive

waves of migration turned westward into Europe, both following a zone of

steppe and parkland enjoying unusually favorable climatic conditions in

early Post-glacial times.

The discovery of Sanskrit and the belief that it represented the parent

of the Indo-European languages led students to place the original centre

of their dispersal far toward the eastern end of this zone. When it

became evident that this view of Sanskrit was untenable, they began to

locate the centre in Europe. Finally some or many students have sought

it in the extreme west and north in Germany or also in Scandinavia. When

careful and thorough scholars have arrived at so many and so different

conclusions, we may well be cautious and remember that new discoveries

may necessitate a change in our own views.

The chief argument in favor of the North German homeland is

anthropological. The earliest Indo-Europeans both in Europe and Asia

were apparently blonds, with light hair and eyes; and such people have

lived along the shore of the Baltic since early Neolithic times.

The claim that the ancient Celts and Achæans were physically more like

Germans and Scandinavians than any other European people is certainly

not without foundation. It has been urged that the Indo-Europeans were

acquainted with the sea and with the eel, which is said to be unknown in

the tributaries of the Black and Caspian Seas, as also their

acquaintance with the beech. Other arguments can be found in special

articles. We have seen that arguments based on the meaning of words like

beech, eel, and sea, rest on a very insecure foundation. The Finns are

almost as blond as the Germans, and Kossina[178] places them with the

Germans as ancestors of the Indo-Europeans. There are in Europe also

blond brachycephals, generally acknowledged to have been of western

Asiatic origin. The arguments for a Germanic origin are attractive, but

hardly convincing, and anything but conclusive.

The objections to this view are weighty. One marked feature of

Indo-European culture was the use of the horse, which held the highest

rank among their domestic animals. But the domestic horse seems to have

been introduced into Europe from the East. The few traces of its

presence in northern Europe during Neolithic times are usually explained

as remains of wild animals killed in the hunt. If they played so large a

part in Indo-European culture, it is strange that they have left so few

remains.

Kossina, in one of his studies, places the cradle of Indo-European

culture in "Scandinavia, Denmark, and northwest Germany, wherever

megalithic monuments with their characteristic pottery occur." Wherever

such monuments occur we find incineration coming in late in Neolithic

time, or more exactly with the Bronze period, except in Brittany and

England, of which later. But incineration seems to accompany the

progress of the European branch, and must have come into use among these

peoples well back in their history to explain its wide occurrence.

The word town, in the original language, seems to signify a settlement

surrounded by a hedge or wall, or some sort of defense. But fortified

towns are hardly known in North Germany at this time. All these cultural

features seem to appear somewhat or considerably too late in North

Germany to suit Kossina's theory.

A second feature of Indo-European culture is the rise of the chieftain.

But the Germans seem to have borrowed the name for king and other

expressions for military organizations, as well as many culture-words,

from the Celts. This fact has led some good authorities to declare that

the Germans received their Indo-European language from the Celts.

The homeland of the Indo-Europeans must have supported a large

population to send out all the tribes which went out from it. Only such

a region can satisfy our requirements, and such was Germany, an

_Officina gentium_, some 2,000 years later. But we notice that the

migrations of peoples have always set westward into Europe, not in the

reverse direction. Similarly the new discovery or idea has come westward

or northward from western Asia or from the Mediterranean region. The

north has almost never been a centre of origination of new ideas and

movements. It has borrowed from the richer south. We would not expect

that the Indo-European movement would form an exception to this rule.

Moreover, the peoples of the banded pottery who had filled southeastern

Europe, coming in, as is generally acknowledged, from the East, had

brought with them a good knowledge of agriculture which could support a

large population.

Now Kossina finds evidence of the spread of the corded pottery southward

at the close of the Neolithic period, and infers that it was carried by

a migration from the north. I am inclined to think that his conclusion

is correct, though it may be doubtful whether the invasion went so far

into the province of the banded pottery as he thinks. He sees in this

the first stage of the Indo-European movement which was to sweep

eastward as far as India. The people of the banded pottery apparently

retreated eastward before this movement, and thus tended still further

to increase the density and power of resistance in these regions.

Furthermore, had this southeastward movement continued, it would have

met the first of a series of waves of invasion which would surely have

turned it backward.

We have seen that all through the Neolithic period brachycephals of the

Furfooz or Grenelle race have been spreading from Belgium and the rough

eastern part of France. At the end of the Neolithic period they are

being crowded by the long-heads. During the Bronze Age the cephalic

index rises all over middle and western Europe. At its very beginning we

find a new people in England--tall, rugged, heavy-faced round-heads, who

burned their dead and deposited the ashes in round barrows. They seem to

have come from the Rhine valley, and may well have introduced

incineration into Brittany, where it appears early. They differ markedly

in stature and features from the Furfooz people. They have quite

certainly come from the east, perhaps from the region of the Armenian

highlands. They have crossed Europe in sufficient numbers and

compactness to retain their anthropological characters until they strike

England and crowd back the old Iberian or Mediterranean peoples. The

movement looks like an invasion in mass, not like a quiet, slow

infiltration. They were the forerunners of a general advance and spread

of the broad-heads.

Were these people Celts or at least partially celticized? To express an

opinion on a Celtic question is to accept an invitation to a Donnybrook

fair. Anthropologically they differ markedly from the later Celtic

invaders. But their custom of incineration is certainly suggestive, and

it is not at all impossible that they spoke a Celtic dialect. They

certainly seem to prove that the westward migration from the region of

the Black Sea or from farther eastward had not ceased or been turned

backward at this time. The spread of North German people southward at

this time would have brought them where they would mingle with Celts

coming westward and receive their first lesson in Indo-European language

and culture, if it came from the east.

There is at present a strong tendency to seek the original Indo-European

homeland neither in the extreme east or extreme west or north, but

somewhere in the open country of southern Russia lying to the north of

the Black Sea or farther eastward toward the Caspian. Here they locate

them mainly in a long zone of parkland extending along the southern edge

of the forest zone and in the valleys of the great rivers. Here at a

much later date Scythians were settled who raised large quantities of

wheat, while others were nomadic. We remember that Neolithic

trade-routes followed mainly rivers and seashore. The islands of the

Mediterranean were occupied early and sea commerce found a centre in

Crete. A great centre of trade arose very early at Troy (Hissarlik), on

the highway between the Ægean and the settlements along the shores of

the Black Sea and in the valleys of the rivers descending from the

interior.

Déchellette has called attention to the striking analogies in form of

settlement, in primitive idols, in pottery with painting and spiral

ornament between the villages of the Balkans, Troy (Hissarlik) and of

the Troad and Phrygia, and of the pre-Mycenæan culture of Crete and

Greece. "Between Butmir and Hissarlik these discoveries mark the routes

which already undoubtedly connected pre-Hellenic peoples and pre-Celtic

tribes."

Meyer tells us that the banded pottery shows the same motives in

ornament in Butmir and Tordos as in Troy and the Ægean, and spreads

thence northward and westward; and that painted pottery in Europe starts

at the end of the Neolithic (2500-2000 B. C.) in the great plain east of

the Carpathians in the region of the Dniester and Dnieper, a region of

high culture in other respects. "Here the connection with the Ægean

world is evident (_augenfällig_)." This people was agricultural. They

burned their dead, and Meyer thinks that incineration spread northward

and westward from this centre. They show no use of metal. Their culture

breaks off suddenly at the end of the Neolithic period.

Here is a region which stands in free communication with the

agricultural population of the parkland zone, open to influences from

the steppe, accepting the higher civilization of Phrygia and the Ægean.

It is a people of advanced agriculture, hence probably of rapidly

increasing population, open to trade and commerce. Here wide and free

communications would be likely to prevent the formation of an unyielding

cake or crust of custom. People meeting from all lands and cultures

might well make and use a language capable of expressing a great variety

of shades of thought peculiar to a variety of peoples and cultures; we

might safely call it a mixed language springing from a mixture of

peoples. Here, as in the Ægean region, the more or less fortified town

or village would be a necessity. Here the horse and wagon would be early

introduced from the east. Here the patriarchate, so characteristic of

nomadic tribes, would be early imported from the steppe, or may have

been developed independently.

There is a universality in the Indo-European religion, a sanity and

proportion in their whole mode of thought, a broad sympathy, a

willingness to accept new ideas and conditions--in general, a breadth of

mind which could hardly be the product of isolation but rather of men

who had "seen the customs of many men and many cities," and could look

with tolerance and charity on alien cultures and fully appreciate their

worth and advantages. Our Teutonic ancestors carried their mental and

cultural environment with them wherever they went. They were apostles of

purity of blood and hence of isolation. They were never good mixers, as

were Celt and Achæan. All three migrated and conquered far and wide, and

both usually disappeared in the alien population. But the Teuton left

little impression on the alien culture, while Achæan and Celt leavened

the whole mass. Here, as in other respects, Celt and Teuton show an

incompatibility and oppositeness which strongly suggest difference of

origin.

But we must carefully avoid too great certainty and definiteness of

assertion. The weight of probability seems to be against any theory

which locates the first, original homeland in the far east or in the far

northwest. But we deal only with probabilities, and may well "carry our

theories on our finger-tips." If the cradle was somewhere in southern

Russia north of the Black Sea, or somewhat farther east or west, its

second homeland just before the great dispersal was vastly larger. Myres

thinks that it extended far to the eastward of the Volga, which perhaps

was the boundary between the eastern and western branches, and whose

upper waters drained a very early home of the Finns.

The Indo-Europeans were settled in a goodly land capable with their

improved agriculture of supporting a very large population. Why did they

migrate in all directions? Here, again, we are left much in the dark.

But Pumpelly, in his explorations at Anau, found the settlement deserted

during the Bronze period about the same time when we find the

Indo-Europeans leaving the homeland. At Anau there are signs that the

desertion was due primarily to aridity or to disturbances accompanying

such a change. It seems highly probable that climatic changes may have

played a most important part in this movement, as they seem to have done

in the later historical migrations from this region or from farther

eastward.

We may close this chapter of uncertainties with one deduction which

seems fairly evident. If the Germans were the first and original

Indo-Europeans, the movement developed here directly out of preceding

Neolithic conditions. If, as seems more probable, it originated farther

to the southeast, and was introduced by the Celts, or in connection with

the amber trade, it made little marked interruption in the development

of the Germans. They and the Scandinavians continued to take from the

south whatever they would, but their development was largely

independent. A complete conquest of Germany and Scandinavia by the Celts

seems very improbable.

The Teutonic and Scandinavian peoples were not precocious, and appear in

history very late. But here apart, in the misty northland, a people was

very slowly developing who, after the decadence and fall of Rome, could

come forward and slowly and wearily rebuild a civilization better than

that which had fallen, and a government of, by, and for the people,

guaranteeing to the individual the right of free action and development,

the grandest feature of Indo-European culture. This, rather than any

precocity, is the glory of the northern peoples. Once again we find

history in the making in an inconspicuous people during an apparently

dormant period.

He that believeth will not despise the day of small things, neither will

he make haste. If the vision tarries long, he will wait for it. "It

shall come and shall not tarry." It will probably come by the way which

he least suspects.

There seems to be a wide-spread opinion that the rise of the

Indo-Europeans was the first dawn of day in a benighted world. Their

migrations were a missionary movement on a grand scale. They dispelled

darkness, ignorance, and superstitions, broke the crust of a stagnant

conservatism, overthrew outworn customs, brought an entirely new

culture, and revolutionized life and the world. We might call attention

to the fact that Indo-European culture and life were a product of

Neolithic experience, that it was the blossoming of Neolithic growth,

that it represented only one part or phase of Neolithic attainment. "The

best traditions make the best rebels."[179] The question remains: Was

Neolithic thought and feeling destroyed by their coming, or did it still

persist, like a river flowing underground, and is most of our deepest

life to-day a fairly direct continuation of the older current only

somewhat modified by the revolution?

We notice first of all the commonness or community of Neolithic feeling

and life, its almost monotonous uniformity, over Europe, eastern Asia,

and probably even far wider areas. We may easily exaggerate this. The

cultures of the Mediterranean basin, of Spain and France, of the Danube

valley, of northern Germany and Scandinavia, not to mention smaller,

more isolated provinces, showed well-marked differences. There was

probably more diversity in the people of every one of these provinces,

especially at centres of trade, even in every larger village, than our

hasty study would lead us to suspect. But in fundamental characters

there was wide-spread and marked similarity; and this, like the wide

range of dominant genera and species of animals, is a sign of vitality

and fitness.

The Neolithic period coincides roughly with the latter part of Wundt's

Totem Age: the Bronze period ushered in his Age of Heroes.?[180]

During the first period the individual counted for very little,

everything was tribal. In the second period the great leaders of

popular migrations emerge, young, vigorous, hot-blooded. With the

appearance of these "kings of men" comes the rise of nations. Tribal

control wanes, and the slow development of individual, personal

judgment and conscience, self-control, and responsibility replaces it

to a great extent.

We read in the history of Israel that the long Egyptian bondage of a

stiff-necked nomad people, being broken to the rudiments of order and

civilization, was followed by an exodus and a period of judges or

popular leaders, when "there was no king in Israel, but every man did

that which was right in his own eyes." It was a period of lawlessness

and anarchy; recovery was slow and painful, and finally only partially

attained by the appointment of a king. A similar education, on a vastly

larger scale both of area and time, was going on all over Europe.

Prehistoric man was guided and controlled by feelings usually expressing

the dictates of a long experience out of which instincts had

crystallized. His feelings were his instinctive responses to new

emergencies. He could not analyze them, reason or argue about them; he

was spared the "malady of thought." He had little or no logic or

science; his philosophy, as we have seen, was a _way_ smoothed by the

feet of his ancestors. He was a man of taste in the literal sense of the

word. He knew what he liked and what he disliked; probably he could not

have explained the reason for either feeling. He was wise in following

these instinctive feelings and tastes; they represented the accumulated

and assimilated experience of millennia.

Of course the experience had been that of individuals. Neolithic man's

school and laboratory of education was mostly the family and the

neighborhood. Here he had to learn to get on with other individuals, to

live and let live, to practise co-operation and mutual aid. Here he

learned the first and grandest lessons in morals; that he would be done

by as he did, and hence that it was best to do as he would be done by.

He has never lost or forgotten the lessons learned in this excellent

"dame's school."

Most of his higher education--and hence of his feeling, conscience,

religion, and life--was tribal. Laws, or rather customs, were propounded

by the elders of the tribe or priests, an exceedingly conservative

court. The chief aim was not rapidity of progress, but confirming and

practising that which long experience had proved to be good. Slowly but

surely the fund of wisdom increased. "It is the three-per-cent man who

gets all the money in the end."

Responsibility was tribal. The man who tried experiments or "fooled"

with the forbidden thing was a common nuisance summarily and thoroughly

abated by the tribe.

Land was common property, though the individual had probably gained some

rights of use. It is doubtful whether he could use the whole or any

part of it entirely as he would. Even at a much later date his use was

largely limited and controlled by ancient custom.

The ritual which still made up most of his religion was also

tribal.[181] Dance and song were practised by the whole community. His

creed, so far as he had one, was a belief in spiritual beings, dæmons,

of great power and marvellous efficiency. Some or many were beneficent;

more were probably maleficent; but those might be appeased, mollified,

bribed, won over, or controlled, if rightly approached through magical

rites or ceremonies.

These dæmons seem to have been supposed to be almost innumerable. No one

was supreme, but some were more important than others. Here then was

room for variety of opinion, of ritual, of the spirit occupying the most

important place; hence also of change and development. The gods in one

country were those of the hills; in another, those of the plains; in a

third, of the forest. Fishing and agricultural tribes had different

dæmons. The wandering trader, passing from tribe to tribe, in his own

heart respected or neglected all alike. Every land had its own gods or

goddesses. When a man migrated to another country he usually left his

old gods at home. If he was adopted into the brotherhood of another

tribe, he changed his religious allegiance also.

A religious hierarchy seems to have grown up during the Neolithic period

headed by the goddess-mother of life. Her rise seems to have accompanied

the introduction of agriculture, which must have brought great changes

in religious ritual and belief. Dæmons who had heretofore held a high

place in the fear or affection of hunting tribes gradually lost their

supremacy or were neglected.

The dethronement of gods or dæmons was usually not sudden or

revolutionary. The new mode of life and its accompanying cult gained

ground slowly. Probably it was at first an extension or modification of

some older one. The dethroned divinity long retained his hold on the

fears or affections of many of the tribe. Finally he was remembered only

by certain old wives in remote or isolated settlements. With the rest of

the people he, or she, was fast becoming an imp, kobold, or fairy--the

subject of fascinating stories, still tinged with mystery, joy, or fear,

but not to be taken too seriously.

Here, apparently, is one, by no means the only, source of folk-lore and

fairy-tale. Folk-lore is an exceedingly wide field and our path leads

through only a little corner of it. It was the growth of millennia. It

preserves for us remnants of ancient beliefs and practices, whose

original meaning had been forgotten long before the birth of the

story-teller. Fossil beliefs of the most widely separated ages may be

found jumbled together in the same story.

It was always intended to be told to a group of sympathetic listeners or

to the whole community. It is genuine literature, but when reduced to

writing or cold print it chills and dies. The story-teller must feel at

once the sympathy or coldness of his listeners. The substance may remain

unchanged, but the shading and emphasis must vary with the feeling and

temper of the audience. Thus in a very true sense it was moulded by the

people. If a story survived with certain forms and content, it was

because it was essentially common and human, appealing to that which is

not individual but at least tribal or racial.

Says Mr. Chesterton: "Our modern novels, which deal with men as they

are, are chiefly produced by a small and educated section of the

society. But this other literature (the kind now called folk-lore, the

literature of the people) deals with men greater than they are--with

demigods and heroes--and that is far too important a matter to be

trusted to the educated classes. The fashioning of these portents is a

popular trade, like ploughing or bricklaying; the men who made bridges,

the men who made ditches, were the men who made deities. Men could not

elect their kings, but they could elect their gods. So we find ourselves

faced with a fundamental contrast between what is called fiction and

what is called folk-lore. The one exhibits an abnormal degree of

dexterity, operating within our daily limitations; the other exhibits

quite normal desires extended beyond those limitations. Fiction means

the common things as seen by the uncommon people. Fairy-tales mean the

uncommon things as seen by the common people.

"As our world advances through history toward its present epoch, its

becomes more specialist, less democratic, and folk-lore turns gradually

into fiction. But it is only slowly that the old elfin fire fades into

the light of common realism. For ages after our characters have dressed

up in the clothes of mortals they betray the blood of the gods."[182]

The charm and wisdom of folk-lore and fairy-tale are mostly due to the

commonness, in the best sense, of their subject, thought, and feeling.

They suit all times and places, and are immortal and timeless like

their heroes. When we attempt to reclothe them in modern form or

language to suit "private interpretation" their strength is departed

from them.

Neolithic feeling, belief, ritual, religion; its music, art, and

literature; its customs, institutions, morals, ways, and life--all these

sprang from the life and experience of the tribe or community. They were

essentially growths in and from the mass of the people, usually owing

comparatively little to the genius of any individual inventor or

discoverer. We have called them Neolithic, but some or many of them were

old far back in Paleolithic time. Like the tree Ygdrasil their roots lay

hold on the foundations of the world.

So deeply rooted a growth or culture is almost ineradicable, though it

has a marvellous adaptability and possibilities of growth and

modification. It could never have been destroyed by its own

Indo-European children, however rebellious. It must survive somewhere

though probably changed for the better. We have found reasons to doubt

whether Roman capacity for discipline and government, Roman laws and

institutions, were predominantly of Indo-European origin. We were still

more doubtful whether the glory of Teutonic or Scandinavian history is

due to its being Indo-European, or whether it was the result of a

continuous, unbroken development from Neolithic times. If ever any

culture seems largely native and indigenous, responsive to outside

influences but always retaining its independent self-determination and

power of selection and choice as to what and how far it will assimilate,

that culture is to be found in northern Germany and Scandinavia.

We have seen the fate of Olympian religion and Achæan thought in Greece.

The Achæans were a small minority completely outnumbered by an

exceedingly conservative native population. They were absorbed and

became a part of the Greek people, and their contribution must not be

underestimated. We have noted the marvellous vitality of the old

Neolithic thought, its re-emergence, its influence on Greek philosophy.

We remember that the great seat of progress was not in Dorian Sparta but

in "Pelasgic Athens," almost unknown to Homer.

The Celt was, if anything, a better "mixer" and more adaptable than even

the Achæan. His prejudices and zeal in regard to morals and religion

seem not to have been deep or strong. The Celts were finally absorbed,

affecting the temper of the people far more than their daily life.

Through all these revolutions, as well as those which were to follow,

family and neighborhood retained their compact unity, perhaps with all

its mutual attractions strengthened by the pressure of the conquerors.

They were still the controlling influence in the life and education of

the individual, as they probably remain to this day. The power of these

smaller communities may have waxed, as tribal control waned. What they

had lost in the mutual support within the tribe they made good by

leaning more closely on their neighbors.

This solidarity makes the common people very stiff-necked, in an

excellent sense of the word. Like the Neolithic folk of Scandinavia,

they select and accept from their more cultured neighbors only that

which they can assimilate to the stores of experience and instincts

which they already possess. The fickleness, of which they are often

accused, is characteristic of a very different class or stratum of the

population, and of far later origin and development. Their own

development is naturally slow, gradual, and continuous.

We have ventured the opinion that the essentials of Neolithic culture

survived the conquests of the Indo-Europeans in a but slightly modified

form. If this is granted, we have every reason to think that the effects

of all succeeding invasions and conquests, changes of dynasties and

governments, international or national policies, internal legislation

and reforms, have been even more temporary, slight, and superficial.

Modern revolutions have been more and more uprisings of the people

asserting the inalienable rights and privileges of their dignity as men.

The trend of popular life and feeling has resembled the flow of a river

or the incoming of the tide. It turns or winds as it meets obstacles in

its path, but keeps in the main to a fairly clear course and direction.

The people may not be against the government, they merely go their way

regardless of it. But we must not trespass on the field of the

historian.

During the Neolithic period everybody, except perhaps certain priests

and elders, belonged to the common people. But accumulation of wealth,

the rise of leaders, the conquest of new lands developed a distinct

aristocracy of birth, wealth, prowess, leadership, and genius. The

common people of to-day, whom, as Mr. Lincoln said, "God must have loved

or he never would have made so many of them," seem to be the whole

population minus the uncommon aristocracy. It is not easy to see just

where we ought to draw the line between mass and class.

All the virtues, brains, and possibilities of progress can hardly be

confined to this upper stratum. Can we define or describe our common

people? They are a very mixed multitude. There is probably more

individual variety than among the conventional refined and cultured, and

this makes them more original and interesting. Hence any composite

picture is usually a blur; a definite picture of any group or part would

be partial and one-sided, very possibly a caricature of the whole. We

dare not try to offer one.

Men and women like Mr. Robert Woods, of Boston, and Miss Jane Addams, of

Chicago, have set themselves patiently, persistently, sympathetically,

respectfully, and wisely to study and help these people. They can and

will describe them, if we will listen. Their faith in the people seems

to be deep and strong.

We all recognize that in times of trial and emergency, when great

testing moral issues are at stake, the people are practically unanimous

in recognizing and supporting the cause of justice and right, unless

befogged, divided, or misled by statesmen. Their taste for right ends

is keen and reliable. Their feelings ring true, and they act

accordingly, whatever the cost.

They are not inarticulate, though their speech is often interjectory.

They are only beginning to produce a large number of spokesmen. Now and

then their demands are voiced by a prophet, asserting that what Jehovah

demands is "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy

God"; or the prophecy is sung by a poet, like Burns. They may sometimes

or often be misled; but if their heart and feeling is not healthy we may

well despair of the republic.

But the true prophet is very rarely a statesman. His feeling and taste

for ends is marvellously good. Here his word, like the feeling of the

people from whom he sprang, is almost infallible. But the choice of

means and policy, the selection of the next step toward the attainment

of the end, is the real business of the statesman.

The _élite_ of wealth, learning, and culture to-day have generally given

up the search for ends in life. The old question: "What is man's chief

end?" sounds archaic. We are doubtful as to the existence or

desirability of such a thing. We are, in the language of the broker,

very "long" on means, but terribly "short" on ends, for which there is

no market. Some day we shall again find a place for end and purpose in

our philosophy and science, as in the systems of Paul, Plato, and

especially of Aristotle, with his "passion for the obvious," but at

present these thinkers are back numbers. Yet we must have ends of life

beyond mere survival, comfort, or luxury, and getting a living. Some

scale of values, not solely and purely mercantile, would also be useful.

If the aristocracy of wealth, learning, and culture can provide us no

adequate system of ends and values in life, would it not be well for us

to borrow temporarily a few from the people? Might we not to good

advantage even go into partnership with them, cordially accepting their

ends, and loyally and honestly attempting to find the means of attaining

them? The result might be a solidarity of thought, feeling, action, and

final attainment superior even to those of our Neolithic ancestors.

You may possibly say: "We in America are already living under a

democratic form of government--'of the people, by the people, and for the

people.'" Is this the statement of an accomplished fact or the

definition of a dim, far-off event toward which we hope we are moving?

How far did the framers of our Constitution desire or intend that the

will of the people should govern? Was the method of choosing and

electing the President of the United States, as originally devised,

intended to make that election popular or not? We have changed that. Did

they intend that the Senate of the United States should be a means of

carrying out the will of the people, or rather that it should defer or

check its becoming the law of the land? Does our governmental action

to-day represent the will of the people? Is it truly representative?

Perhaps our ancestors were wise in their caution. Perhaps a change has

become advisable. We are asking how far government changes or modifies

the people; how far governmental action, change of President or

controlling party, their legislation and policies, affect the deeper

currents of character and life. The people seem to me to be still

continuing to go their own way and to follow quietly but firmly their

own line of development, largely regardless of the votes of national

Congress or State legislature, perhaps sometimes with a slight sigh of

relief at their adjournment. It may be best that it is so. The

independence and continuity of popular development is still maintained

to-day as throughout prehistoric times.

How far do our vast accumulations of learning and discovery, our deep

or superficial systems of philosophy, our splendid or decadent _fin de

siècle_ art and literature reach and affect these people? Their chief

characteristic is an attempt at distinction, an artificial uncommonness,

a self-consciousness entirely foreign to the thinker of the common mind.

The institution which has the widest and deepest influence on their

feeling, thought, and life is the church. They generally love it, for

they are "incurably religious." It is conservative in the best sense of

the word. It represents, of course imperfectly, the feelings,

aspirations, and hopes of all men everywhere in all ages--in one word, of

humanity. It stands for the worth, dignity, and brotherhood of man, and

the fatherhood of God. It is almost alone to-day in recognizing that

there are ends in life. It offers a way of progress and a reasonable

ground of hope in a somewhat weary age inclined to indulge in criticism,

fault-finding, and pessimism. The fact that it is generally roundly

abused for its defects, mistakes, and sins of omission, for its

inability to accomplish the impossible, is a sign of the great hope and

confidence which we have rightly reposed in it.

The discordant chorus of mutually destructive criticisms arising from

the cultured and intellectual classes seems to show that it is

following fairly well a straight, right, and wise course, as Mr. Lincoln

is said to have suggested concerning his own experience, plans, and

leadership in a similar situation. "Wisdom is justified of her

children," but the families of the elect are small. That the church does

not conform to all the theories--not to say vagaries and fads--of to-day

is no discredit. Most of them will be very unfashionable to-morrow. "The

fashion of this age passeth away."

The existence of our nation evidently depends far more upon the

fundamental and essential, nay obvious, old and common human virtues of

very common people than upon our art and learning, the shrewdness of our

politicians and profiteers, the amount of our wealth and exports, our

inventions or luxuries, the winning of an election, or the defeat of any

party. In one word, which we have already repeated _ad nauseam_, our

chief business to-day is to continue the line of development clearly

marked out by our benighted ancestors of prehistoric days--to exercise,

develop, and strengthen the best instincts and feelings crystallized out

of millennia of experience; to see to it that they are expressed in the

law and practices of the land and commonwealth; and that they are not

smothered under a mass of inventions of yesterday and of conventions of

to-day. The fact that all this is entirely obvious should not conceal

its importance.

The old message comes to us: "If thou altogether holdest thy peace at

this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise from

another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed; and

who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as

this?"

In the northern ocean we see icebergs moving slowly southward. They are

not driven by the winds which to-day are blowing against their broad

fronts. The most conspicuous feature of our field of vision is the white

foam capping the waves. To-morrow it will be blown away, evaporate, and

disappear in the shifting winds which have tossed it into view. The berg

is carried by the great polar current, silent, inconspicuous,

irresistible, unchanging in its course, guided by still deeper and more

ancient and permanent cosmic forces.

We know something about oceanic currents. Of the current of the

evolution of life we know almost nothing; but hope that our theories are

no more inadequate than the feelings of our Neolithic ancestors.

Certainly the current has not yet been charted. We catch glimpses of the

direction of its sweep. Over what stormy and dangerous seas and to what

undiscovered island or continent it is carrying us we do not know. It

seems to set toward fairer climes beyond our vision. We set sail

millions of years ago; we shall not arrive to-morrow.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A FEW SUGGESTIONS

The first series of books referred to in the following lists (A-O) are

general, and every one covers a large field. The works of Déchelette and

Hoernes (A and B) contain a very rich bibliography down to 1907 or 1908.

They should be carefully studied first of all; afterward the remainder

of the list. I have omitted from the following list many excellent

articles to which they refer. This list will satisfy the needs of the

ordinary reader.

The second list (1-378) contains references to articles or books on

special subjects which I have been obliged to treat very briefly in this

small book. These will introduce the reader to other writers on the same

subject. He is urged to make his own bibliography, and will find that he

has started on an endless chain of most fascinating research, for which

I hope he may form an insatiable appetite.

The following list of abbreviations and corresponding complete titles

may save the reader some inconvenience. In this connection he may well

consult the Introduction to Déchelette's _Manuel_ (A) I, pp. xv-xix.

_Amer. Nat._ _American Naturalist._

_Amer. Anth._ _American Anthropologist._

_Sci. Mo._ _Science Monthly._ (Continuation of

_Popular Science Monthly_.)

_A. f. A. (Arch. f. Anth.)_ _Archiv für Anthropologie._

_Zts. f. Eth._ _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie._

_L'Anth._ _L'Anthropologie._

_R. E. A._ _Revue d'école d'Anthropologie_, Paris.

_Rev. Arch._ _Revue Archéologique._

_Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._ _Korrespondenz-blatt der deutschen_

_Gesellschaft für Anthropologie._

_Cong. Int._ _Congrès international d'Anthropologie_

_et d'Archéologie._

GENERAL

A. Déchelette, J. _Manuel d'Archéologie Préhistorique._ Paris,

1908. 3 vols. Vol. I. _Archéologie Préhistorique._

B. Hoernes, M. _Natur-und Urgeschichte des Menschen._ Vienna,

1909. 2 vols.

C. ---- _Urgeschichte des Menschen_, Vienna, 1892.

D. Obermaier, H. _Der Mensch aller Zeiten._ Berlin, 1911-12.

Vol. I. _Der Mensch der Vorzeit._

E. Forrer, R. _Urgeschichte des Europäers._ Stuttgart, 1908.

F. ---- _Reallexikon der prähistorischen, klassichen und

frühchristlichen Alterthümer._ Stuttgart, 1907-08.

G. Müller, S. _Nordische Älterthumskunde_ (trans. Jiriczek).

Strassburg, 1897. Vol. I. Steinzeit-Bronzezeit.

H. ---- _Urgeschichte Europas_ (trans. Jiriczek). Strassburg,

1905.

I. ---- _L'Europe préhistorique_ (trans. Philipot). Paris, 1907.

J. Montelius, O. _Kulturgeschichte Schwedens._ Leipsic, 1906.

K. ---- _Les Temps préhistoriques en Suède_ (trans. Reinach).

Paris, 1895.

L. Avebury, Lord (Sir John Lubbock). _Prehistoric Times._ New

York, 1913.

M. Elliot, G. F. S. _Prehistoric Man and His Story._ London,

1915.

N. Schwantes, G. _Aus Deutschland's Urzeit._ Leipsic, 1913.

O. Wundt, W. _Elements of Folk Psychology_ (trans. Schaub,

E. L.). London, 1915.

CHAPTER I--THE COMING OF MAN

1. Lull, R. S. _Organic Evolution._ New York, 1917.

2. Wilder, H. H. _History of the Human Body._ New York, 1909.

3. Cope, E. D. _Primary Factors of Evolution._ Chicago, 1895,

p. 150.

5. Osborn, H. F. _Age of Mammals._ New York, 1910.

6. Loomis, F. B. "Adaptation of Primates," _Amer. Nat._, XLV,

1911, 479.

7. Gregory, W. K. "Studies in the Evolution of Primates,"

_Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist._, XXV, 1916, Art. XIX, 239.

8. Barrell, J. "Probable Relations of Climatic Changes to

Origin of Tertiary Ape-Man," _Sci. Mo._, N. S., IV, 1917, 16.

9. Matthew, W. D. "Climate and Evolution," _Ann. N. Y. Acad.

Sci._, XXIV, 1915, 170.

10. Pilgrim, G. E. "New Siwalik Primates," _Records of Geol.

Survey of India_, XLIII, 1913, Part IV, 264.

11. Chamberlain, T. C., and Salisbury, R. D. _Geology._ New

York, 1904, Vol. III, 534.

12. Lydekker, L. K. _Geographical History of Mammals._

Cambridge, 1896, 201, 265, 288, 334.

13. Pirsson, L. V., and Schuchert, C. _Text-Book of Geology._

New York, 1915, Part II, 925, 948, 964, 976.

14. Smith, G. E. _Presidential Address_, Brit. Assoc. Adv.

Sci. Dundee, 1912, 575.

15. Heinemann, T. W. _Physical Basis of Civilization._

Chicago, 1908.

16. Fiske, J. _Destiny of Man._ Boston, 1884.

17. Drummond, H. _Ascent of Man._ New York, 1894.

18. Kropotkin, P. A. _Mutual Aid a Factor in Evolution._ New

York, 1903.

19. Jones, F. W. _Arboreal Man._ New York and London, 1916.

PITHECANTHROPUS

See A, I, 273; B, I, 181; D, I, 370; 40, 73.

24. Du Bois, E. _Smithson. Report_, 1897-98, 445.

25. Berry, E. W. "Environment of Ape-Man," _Sci. Mo._, N. S.,

III, 1906, 161.

26. Keith, A. _Ancient Types of Man._ New York, 1911.

PRIMITIVE HUMAN MIGRATIONS

30. Keane, A. H. _Ethnology._ Cambridge, 1901.

31. Deniker, J. _Races of Man._ London, 1900.

32. Haddon, A. C. _The Wanderings of Peoples._ Cambridge,

1911.

33. ---- _Races of Man and Their Distribution._ New York, 1910.

MAN'S ARRIVAL IN EUROPE

40. Osborn, H. F. _Men of the Old Stone Age._ New York, 1915.

41. Ranke, J. _Der Mensch._ Leipsic, 1900.

42. Geikie, J. _Antiquity of Man in Europe._ Edinburgh, 1914.

43. ---- _The Great Ice Age._ 3d ed. London, 1894.

44. Reinhardt, L. _Der Mensch zur Eiszeit in Europa._ Munich,

1906.

45. Geikie, J. "Tundras and Steppes of Prehistoric Europe,"

_Smithson. Report_, 1897-98, 321.

46. Nehring, A. _Tundren u. Steppen der Jetzt-und Vor-zeit._

Berlin, 1890.

47. Schöetensack, O. _Der Unterkiefer des "Homo

Heidelbergensis."_ Leipsic, 1908.

48. MacCurdy, G. G. "The Eolith Problem," _Amer. Anth._, N.

S., VII, 1905, 425.

49. Sollas, W. J. _Ancient Hunters._ 2d ed. London, 1915.

60. Hoops, J. _Waldbäume und Kulturpflanzen, im german.

Alterthum._ Strassburg, 1905.

Danish Shell-heaps. See D, 465-476; G, I, 4; L, 226.

61. Steenstrup, J. _Arch. f. Anth._, XIX, 1891, 361.

62. Sarauw, F. C. "Maglemose," _Prähist. Zeits._, III, 1911,

52; VI, 1914, 1.

63. Virchow, R. "Rinnekalns," _Korresp.-blatt. der deutschen

Ges. f. Anthrop._, XXVIII, 1897, 147.

64. Ebert, M. "Die baltischen Provinzen," _Prähist. Zeits._,

V, 1913, 498; Mugem, C, 232.

65. Cartailhac, E. _Ages préhistoriques de l'Espagne et du

Portugal_, p. 48.

66. Munro, R. _Palæolithic Man and Terramara Settlements in

Europe._ New York, 1912.

67. Morlot, A. _Société Vandoise des Sci. Nat._, VI, No. 46.

"Etudes géologico-archéologiques." (Shell-heaps and

Lake-dwellings.) Lausanne, 1860.

CHAPTER III--LAND HABITATIONS

CAVE-DWELLINGS

B, 31; C, 258; E, 120, 139.

75. Dawkins, W. B. _Cave Hunting._ London, 1874.

76. Fraipont, J. _Les Cavernes et leurs Habitants._ Paris,

1896.

HUTS AND VILLAGES

B, 51, 65, 84.

80. Montelius, O. "Zur ältesten Geschichte des Wohnhauses in

Europa," _Arch. f. Anth._, XXIII, 1895, 451. Cf. H, 25, 68; J,

15.

81. Schliz, A. "Der Bau vorgeschichtlicher Wohnanlagen,"

_Mitt. d. Anth. Ges. Wien_, 1903, 301.

82. Castelfranco, P. "Les Fonds des Cabanes," _Rev. d'Anth._,

XVI, 1887, 182. Cf. A, 347, 350; E, 139.

83. Schliz, A. _Das steinzeitliche Dorf Grosgartach._

Stuttgart, 1901. Rev. Virchow, R., _Arch. f. Anth._, XXVII,

1892, 435. Rev. Reinach, S., _L'Anth._, XII, 1901, 704.

84. Possler, W. "Die Abarten des Altsächsischen Bauernhauses,"

_Arch. f. Anth._, XXXVI, 1909, 157.

85. Mielke, R. "Entwickelungsgeschichte der sächsischen

Hausform," _Zts. f. Eth._, XXXV, 1903, 509.

CHAPTER IV--LAKE-DWELLINGS

90. Munro, R. _Lake Dwellings of Europe._ London, 1890. Full

Bibliography until 1890. See also L, 180; A, 363; E, 158; B,

98; C, 234; D, 515.

91. Keller, F. _Lake Dwellings of Switzerland._ 2d ed. London,

1878.

92. Troyon, F. _Habitations lacustres du Lac de Neuchâtel._

Paris, 1865.

93. Gross, V. _Les Protohelvéites._ Paris, 1883.

94. Schuhmacher. _Arch. f. Anth._, N. F., VII, 1903, 254.

95. Heierlei, J. _Urgeschichte der Schweiz._ Zurich, 1901.

96. Schenk, A. _La Suisse Préhistorique._ Lausanne, 1912.

97. Bölsche, W. _Mensch der Pfahlbauzeit._ 8th ed. Stuttgart,

1911.

98. Heer, O. _Die Pflanzen der Pfahlbauten_, 1886. See 91, I,

518. Cf. 60.

CHAPTER V--A GLANCE EASTWARD

110. Pumpelly, R. _Explorations in Turkestan_, Carnegie Inst.

Pub., Washington, No. 73, 1904, 2 vols., vol. I, p. 50, chaps.

I, III, V.

111. Rev. by Schmidt, H. _Prähist. Zeits._, I, 1909-10, 413.

112. Capitan, L. "L'Histoire d'Élam," _Rev. d'éc. d'Anth._,

XII, 1902, 187.

113. Düssaud, R. "Anciennes Civilisations orientales," _Rev.

d'éc. d'Anth._, XVII, 1907, 97.

114. Schrader, Fr. "Questions d'Orient," _Rev. d'éc. d'Anth._,

XVIII, 1908, 267; XX, 1910, 73.

115. Delitzsch, F. _Rep. Smithson. Inst._, 1900, 535.

116. Morgan, J. de. _Premières Civilisations._ Paris, 1909.

117. _Mémoires de la Delegation en Perse, I_, 1900, 181-190

(Susa).

118. _Mémoires de la Delegation en Perse I_ (Tepeh Moussian),

VIII, 1906. Cf. B, II, 168.

119. Morgan, J. de. "Les Ages de la Pierre dans l'Asie

mineure," _Bull. Soc. d'Anth._ Paris, Ser. V, III, 1902, 708.

121. King, L. W. _History of Babylonia and Assyria_, Part I.

New York, 1910.

122. Sayce, A. H. _Archæology of Cuneiform Inscriptions._

London, 1907, 67-100.

123. Hall, H. R. "Discoveries in Crete, and Their Relations to

Palestine and Egypt," _Proc. Soc. Bib. Arch._, XXXI, 1909,

311.

124. Myres, J. L. _Dawn of History._ New York, 1911, 121, 202.

125. Breasted, J. H. _Ancient Times._ New York, 1914, 100.

ORIGIN OF AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE-RAISING

See B, I, 535-591; M, chaps. XII, XIII.

135. Reinhardt, L. _Die Erde und die Kultur._ Munich, 1912(?).

a. Vol. I, _Die Erde und ihr Wirthschaftsleben._

b. Vol. II, _Kulturgeschichte des Menschen._

c. Vol. III, _Kulturgeschichte der Nutzthiere._

d. Vol. IV, _Kulturgeschichte der Pflanzen._

136. _La Grande Encycl._, Art. "Agriculture."

137. Hehn, V. _Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere._ Berlin, 1911.

138. Mason, O. T. _Woman's Share in Primitive Culture._ New

York, 1907, 146, chap. II.

139. Buschan, G. "Heimat und Alter der europäischen

Kulturpflanzen," _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._, XVIII, 1889, 128.

140. Roth. "Origin of Agriculture," _Journ. Anth. Inst._, XVI,

102.

141. Zaborowski, M. S. "Le Blé en Asie et en Europe," _Rev.

d'éc. d'Anth._, XVI, 1906, 359.

142. Much, M. "Vorgeschichtliche Nähr-und Nutz-Pflanzen in

Europa," _Mitt. Anth. Ges. Wien_, XXXVIII, 1908, 195 ff.

Favors European origins.

CHAPTER VI--MEGALITHS

See A, I, chap. III; B, II, 440; D, 500; G, chap. V; J, 43; L,

chap. V.

150. Peet, T. E. _Rude Stone Monuments and Their Builders._

New York, 1912.

151. Windle, B. C. A. _Remains of Prehistoric Age in England._

London, 1904.

152. Krause, E., und Schötensack, O. "Die megalithischen

Gräber Deutschlands," _Zts. f. Eth._, XXV, 1893, 105.

153. Lienau, M. M. "Megalithgräber u. sonstige Grabformen der

Lüneburger Gegend," _Mannusbib._, XIII, 1914.

154. Montelius, O. _Orient und Europa._ Stockholm, 1899.

155. Wilke, G. "Sudwesteurop. Megalithkultur," _Mannusbib._

VII.

156. Hermet (Abbé), "Statues-Menhirs," _L'Anth._, XII, 1901,

595.

157. Cartailhac, E. _La France Préhistorique._ Paris, 1889.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD

164. Helm, K. _Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte_.

Heidelberg, 1913, 132, Bib.

165. Schliz, A. "Steinzeitliche Bestattungsformen in

Südwestdeutschland," _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._, XXXII, 1901, 60.

166. Andrée, R. "Hockerbestattung und Ethnologie," _A. f. A._,

XXXIV, 1907, 282, 303.

167. Schötensack, O. "Bedeutung der Hockerbestattung," _Zts.

f. Eth._, XXXII, 1901, 522.

168. Götze, A. "Ueber Hockergräber," _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._,

1899, 321.

169. Olshausen, O. "Leichenverbrennung," _Zts. f. Eth._, 1892,

129.

170. Seger, H. "Entstehung der Leichenverbrennung," _Korr.-bl.

d. d. Ges._, XLI, 1910, 115.

CHAPTER VII--NEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES

179. Veblen, T. _The Instinct of Workmanship._ New York, 1914.

Clothing. G, I, 268; J, 19; 90, F.

Ornaments. B, II, 328; A, II, 570.

Implements. A, 513; B, II, 168; D, 472, 478; E, 178; F, Art.

"Axt"; G, 22; 46, 133; J, 24.

Salt. B, II, 23, 89; F, Art. "Salz"; N, 114.

Gold. A, 627; B, II, 207; C, 320.

Copper. A, II; B, II, 546; D, 494, 499, 545; E, 278.

180. Much, _M. Die Kupferzeit in Europa._ 2 Auf. Jena, 1893.

181. Hampel, J. "Neue Studien über die Kupferzeit," _Zts. f.

Eth._, XXVIII, 1896, 57.

182. Montelius, O. "Die Chronologie der ältesten Bronzezeit,"

_Arch. f. Anth._, XXV, 443; XXVI.

Ships, rock-carvings of. J, 126; C, 389; G, 466; E, 347.

Nephrite and Jadeite. A, I, 519, 573; B, II, 504; D, 510; 95,

116; 96, Index.

185. Mehlis, C. "Exotische Steinbeile der neol. Zeit," _Arch.

f. Anth._, XXVII, 1902, 519.

186. Peet, T. E. _Stone and Bronze Ages of Italy._ Oxford,

1909.

Amber. A, 623; B, I, 513; II, 345, 353; D, 556; G, I, 52.

Trade. B, II, 466-529; A, I, 619; 228; 154.

Pottery. A, 547; D, 481; 116, 195-207; F, Art. "Gefässe," 95,

184.

190. Hoernes, M. "Die neol. Keramik in Oestreich," _Zts. f.

Eth._, 1903, 438.

191. Smith, R. A. "Development of Neolithic Pottery,"

_Archæologia_, LXII, 340.

192. Meyer, E. _Geschichte des Alterthums_, II, 824. 2d ed.

Stuttgart, 1909.

193. Schuchhardt, C. "Das technische Element in den Anfängen

der Kunst," _Prähist. Zeits._, I, 37.

194. Verworn, M. _Kulturkreis der Bandkeramik._ II, 145.

195. Reche, O. "Zur Anthropologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in

Böhmen," _Arch. f. Anth._, XXXV, 1908, 220.

196. Seger, H. "Steinzeit in Schlesien," _Arch. f. Anth._, N.

F. V., 1906.

197. Götze, A. "Neolithische Kugelamphoren," _Zts. f. Eth._,

XXXII, 154, 1900.

198. ---- "Eintheilung der neol. Periode in Mitteleuropa,"

_Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._, XXXI, 1900, 133.

199. Schuchhardt, C. "Neol. Häuser bei Lissdorf," _Zts. f.

Eth._, XLIII, 1911, 998.

200. Wosinsky, M. _Die inkrustierte Keramik._ Berlin, 1904.

201. Closmadeuc, G. de. "La Céramique dans les Dolmens de

Morbihan," _Rev. Arch._, I, 257.

202. Schmidt, H. "Vorgeschichte Spaniens," _Zts. f. Eth._,

XLV, 238, 1913.

203. Volkow, Th. "L'Industrie prémycénienne des Stations

néolithiques de l'Ukraine," _L'Anth._, XIII, 1902, 57.

204. Zaborowski, M. S. "Industrie Égéenne sur le Dnieper et le

Dniester," _Bull. Soc. Anth._, Paris, 1900, 481.

CHAPTER VIII--NEOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY

214. Menzel, H. "Geologische Entwickelungsgeschichte der

älteren Postglacialzeit," _Zts. f. Eth._, XLVI, 1914, 206-240.

215. Montelius, O. "Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in

Skandinavien," _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._, XXII, 1891, 99-105.

216. ---- "Chronologie der ältesten Bronzezeit," _Arch. f. Anth._,

XXVI, 1899, 905.

217. ---- "Preclassical Chronology of Greece and Italy," _Journ.

Anth. Inst._, 1897.

218. ---- "Chronologie préhistorique," _Cong. Int. d'Anth. et

d'Arch._, XII, 339. Cf. Müller, S. Ibid., X. Paris, 228.

219. Scheitelig, H. "Vorgeschichte Norwegens," _Mannus._, III,

1911, 29.

220. Kossina, G. "Urfinnen und Urgermanen," _Mannus._, I, 17.

221. Worsaae, J. J. A. "Arctic Cultures," _Cong. Int. d'Anth.

et d'Arch._ Stockholm, VII, 1874, 208. Also, J, 63; M, 317 and

_Bib._, 323.

222. Types of Axe, G, I, 48; B, II, 184; A, I, 334; F, Art

"Aexte." Cf. also "Zeitalter."

223. Montelius, O. "Les differents Types des Haches," _Cong.

Int. d'Anth. et d'Arch._ Stockholm, VII, I, 238.

226. Schmidt, R. R. "Die Grundlagen für die Diluviale

Chronologie u. Paläethnologie Westeuropas," _Zts. f. Eth._,

XLIII, 1911, 945. Cf. _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._, XLI, 1910.

227. Holst. "Commencement et Fin de la Période Glacieuse,"

_L'Anth._, XXIV, 1913, 353.

228. Wilke, G. "Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Indien, Orient und

Europa," _Mannusbibliothek_, X, 1913.

229. Schmidt, H. "Troja, Mykene, Ungarn," _Zts. f. Eth._,

XXXVI, 1904, 608, 645.

230. Anthes, E. "Alte und neue steinzeitliche Funde aus

Hessen," _Prähist. Zeits._, II, 1910, 60.

CHAPTER IX--NEOLITHIC PEOPLES AND THEIR MIGRATIONS

ATLASES

240. Bartholemew, J. G. _Advanced Atlas of Physical and

Political Geography._ London, 1917.

241. ---- _International Student's Atlas_. London,----?

242. See 40, 489; 457 and 278, 261, 300, 500; B, I, 241,

268-360; _Bib._ E, 256; J, 57; M, chaps. X-XIV, 211; _Bib._

49, 435.

243. Breuil, L'Abbé, H. "Les Subdivisions du Paléolithique

supérieur et leur Signification," _Cong. Int. d'Anth. et

d'Arch_. Session XIV, Genève, 1912, 165.

244. Sergi, G. _The Mediterranean Race_, London, 1901, chaps.

II, X, 40.

245. Myres, J. L. Essay II, 51-54, in Marvin, F. S. _The Unity

of Western Civilization._

246. Ripley, W. L. _The Races of Europe._ New York, 1899.

247. Deniker, J. "Les Races Européennes," _Journ. Anth.

Inst._, XXIV.

248. ---- "Les six Races composant la Population de l'Europe,"

_ibid._

250. Schliz, A. "Vorgeschichtliche Schädeltypen deutschen

Länder," _Arch. f. Anth._, XXXVI (N. F. IX), 1910, 239. Cf. B,

II, 101.

251. ---- "Beiträge zur prähistorischen Ethnologie," _Prähist.

Zeits._, IV, 1912, 36.

252. ---- "Bedeutung der somatischen Anthropologie," _Korr.-bl. d.

d. Ges._, XL, 1909, 66.

253. ---- "Vorstufen der Nordisch-europäischen Schädelbildung,"

_Arch. f. Anth._, XLI, 1914, 169.

254. ---- "Der schnurkeramische Kulturkreis," _Zts. f. Eth._,

XXXVIII, 1906, 312.

260. Reche, O. "Zur Anthropologie der jüngeren Steinzeit in

Schlesien und Böhmen," _Arch. f. Anth._, 1908.

261. See 351.

262. Klassen, K. _Die Völker, Europas zur jüngeren Steinzeit._

Stuttgart, 1912, Bib.

263. Fleure, H. J. _Human Geography in Western Europe._

London, 1918.

264. Montelius, O. "Die Einwanderung unserer Vorfahrer im

Norden," _Arch. f. Anth._, XVII, 151.

265. ---- "Sur les Tombeaux et la Topographie de la Suède pendant

l'âge de pierre," _Cong. Int. d'Anth. et d'Arch._, Session

VII, Stockholm, I, 74.

266. Virchow, R. "Altnordische Schädel zu Kopenhagen," _Arch.

f. Anth._, 1870.

---- "Die ältesten Einwohner von Nordeuropa," _Arch. f. Anth._,

XXV, 1898, 88.

267. Arbo, C. O. E. "Anthropo-ethnologie des

Südwestnorwegens," _Arch. f. Anth._, XXXI, 1905, 313.

268. Hervé, G. "L'Ethnographie des populations françaises,"

_R. E. A._, VI, 1896, 97.

269. ---- "Les brachycephales néolithiques," _Rev. Ec. An._, IV,

1894, 393; V, 1895, 18.

270. Hamy, E. T. "L'Anthropologie de Nord-France," _L'Anth._,

XIX, 1908, 46.

271. Bloch, A. "Origines des brachycephales en France,"

_L'Anth._, XII, 1901, 541.

272. Luschan, F. von. "Beziehung zwischen der Alpinen

Bevölkerung und den Vorderasiaten," _Korr.-bl. d. d. Ges._,

XLIV, 1915, 118.

272a. A, 482; B, 298-303; 246.

273. Studer, T. H., und Bannwarth, E. _Crania Helvetica

antiqua._ Leipsic, 1894. Reviewed R. E. A., IV, 1894, 410.

274. Hervé, G. "Les populations lacustres," _R. E. A._, V,

1895, 137.

FOR EFFECTS OF GEOGRAPHIC ENVIRONMENT

275. Ratzel. _Anthropogeographie._ 3te Auf. Stuttgart, 1909.

276. Semple, E. _Influences of Geographical Environment._ New

York.

277. Demolins, E. _Les Français d'Aujourd'hui._ Paris, 1898.

278. ---- _Les grandes Routes des Peuples._ Paris, 1901.

CHAPTER X--NEOLITHIC RELIGION

290. Huxley, T. H. _Science and Education_, Essays. New York,

1897, p. 85.

291. ---- _Method and Results_, Essays. New York, 1901. Essay I,

p. 18.

292. Goethe, J. W. _Gedichte, Das Göttliche._

293. Harrison, J. E. _Ancient Art and Ritual._ New York, 1913.

294. Smith, W. R. _Religion of the Semites._ Edinburgh, 1889.

Origin of Religion. See O, 75.

295. Durkeim, E. _Elementary Forms of the Religious Life_.

Trans. J. W. Swain, London, Bib.

296. Tylor, E. B. _Primitive Culture._ 4th ed. New York, 1903.

297. ---- _Anthropology._ New York, 1916.

298. Frazer, J. G. _The Golden Bough._ 3d ed. London, 1914,

Bib.

299. Müller, F. M. _Origin and Growth of Religion._ New York,

1879.

300. Bagehot, W. _Physics and Politics._ New York and London.

301. Montgomery, J. E. (Editor). _Religions of the Past and

Present._ Philadelphia, 1918. Bib.

302. Lang, A. Myth, _Ritual and Religion._ London, 1901.

307. Murray, G. _Four Stages of Greek Religion._ New York,

1912.

308. Harrison, J. E. _Themis._ Cambridge, 1912.

309. ---- _Prolegomena to Greek Religion. Cambridge, 1903._

CULT OF GODDESS AND MOTHER-RIGHT

O, Index "Maternal descent"; B, II, 584.

315. Farnell, L. R. _Greece and Babylon._ Edinburgh, 1911,

chap. V.

316. Dietrich, R. _Muttererde._ Berlin, 1905.

317. Frazer, J. G. _Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Studies in History

of Oriental Religion._ London, 1906. See Index,

"Mother-right."

318. Hartley, C. G. (Mrs. W. M. Gallichan). _The Position of

Woman in Primitive Society._ London, 1914.

319. Bennett, F. M. "Religious Cults Associated with Amazons,"

_Col. Univ. Press._ New York, 1912.

320. Reinach, S. "La Station néolithique," _Le Jablanica

l'Anth._, 1901, 333.

321. Smith, W. R. _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia._

Cambridge, 1885.

322. Mannhard, W. _Wald-und Feld-kulte._ 2d ed. Berlin, 1905.

323. Helms, K. _Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte._

Heidelberg, 1913, I. Cf. 179, 93.

325. Ellis, H. _Man and Woman_. London, 1894. Cf. 4th ed.,

1917.

CHAPTER XI--PROGRESS

335. Marvin, F. S., Editor. _Unity of Western Civilization._

London, 1915.

336. ---- _Progress and History._ London, 1916.

337. ---- _The Living Past._ 2d ed. Oxford, 1915.

338. Murray, G. _Religio Grammatici._ Boston, 1918.

CHAPTER XII--THE COMING OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS

340. Müller, F. Max. _Biographies of Words and Home of

Aryans._ London, 1888.

341. Meillet, A. _Les Langues dans l'Europe nouvelle._ Paris,

1918.

342. ---- _Les Dialectes Indo-européens._ Paris, 1908.

343. ---- _Introduction à l'Étude comparative des Langues

Indo-européennes._ 4th ed. Paris, 1915.

346. Meyer, E. _Geschichte des Alterthums._ 2d ed. Stuttgart,

1909. Vol. I, Pt. 2, p. 722.

347. Schrader, O. _Reallexikon der indogermanischen

Alter-thumskunde._ Strassburg, 1902.

348. ---- _Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte._ 3d ed. Jena,

1906.

349. ---- _Die Indogermanen._ Leipsic, 1911, 165 pp.

---- (Trans. Jevons, F. B.) _Prehistoric Antiquities of the

Aryan Peoples._ London, 1890.

350. Feist, S. Kultur. _Ausbreitung und Herkunft der

Indogermanen._ Berlin, 1913.

351. ---- _Europa im Lichte der Vorgeschichte._ Berlin, 1910.

352. Hirt, H. _Die Indogermanen_. 2 vols. Strassburg, 1905-07.

353. Kossina, G. "Die indogermanische Frage archäologisch

beantwortet," _Zts. f. Eth._, XXXIV (1902), 161, N. B. Cf.

220.

354. Much, M. _Heimat der Indogermanen._ 2d ed. Berlin, 1904.

355. Reinach, S. _Origine des Aryens._ Paris, 1892.

356. Wilser, L. _Die Germanen_. Leipsic, 1903.

357. ---- _Herkunft und Urgeschichte der Arier._ Heidelberg, 1899.

358. Zaborowski, Moindron S. "La Patrie originaire des Aryens,"

_R. E. A._ Paris, XIII (1903), 253.

359. ---- _Les Peuples aryens d'Asie et d'Europe._ Paris, 1908.

360. Brunnhofer, G. H. _Arische Urzeit._ Bern, 1909.

361. Laponge, G. V. de. _L'Aryen, Son Rôle social._ Paris, 1899.

362. Hehn, V. _Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere._ 5th ed. Berlin, 1887.

363. Holmes, T. R. _Ancient Britain._ Oxford, 1907. Chap. III and

pp. 424-455.

364. Veblen, T. _Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution._

New York, 1915.

365. Huntington, E. _The Pulse of Asia._ Boston, 1911.

366. ---- _Palestine and Its Transformations_. Boston, 1907.

367. ---- _World Power and Evolution._ New Haven, 1919.

375. Murray, G. _Euripides and His Age._ New York, 1913.

376. Chesterton, G. K. _Charles Dickens._ London, 1917.

377. Lang, A. _Custom and Myth._ New York, 1885.

378. Gummere, F. B. _The Beginnings of Poetry_. New York, 1901.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] 16, 17.

[2] 1: 477; 671, chap. XXIX.

[3] 18.

[4] 19.

[5] 5.

[6] 6.

[7] 8: 20

[8] 5: 58-60

[9] M: chap. V.

[10] 1: 671.

[11] 5: 321, 327, 275.

[12] 7, 10.

[13] 24-26.

[14] 5: 373.

[15] 40: 35.

[16] 30: 228.

[17] 40: chap, II. D: I, 17-110.

[18] For maps showing extent of ice at different glacial epochs, see 41:

vol. II, p. 419. 42: end of volume.

[19] See Charts, 40: 41-48. 5. Also 40: 45, 46; 412-427; 386.

[20] 40: 95. 47.

[21] D: I, 380-412. 48.

[22] 40: 130, 244.

[23] D: I, 113.

[24] 40: 290, 316.

[25] E: 110-117.

[26] 40: 475-500.

[27] D: 466, 476; 40: 281.

[28] D: 466, 476; 40: 281.

[29] C:225; 60.

[30] 42: 270.

[31] L: 235.

[32] A: 329.

[33] 63.

[34] 40: 459; A: I, 314; D: 213.

[35] 40: 465.

[36] A: I, 326.

[37] C: 258.

[38] 76.

[39] 40: 283.

[40] B: 53.

[41] E: 139.

[42] G: 198; J: 15.

[43] 83.

[44] B. See Bibliography.

[45] I: 368.

[46] H: 68.

[47] A: I, 351.

[48] 42: 122; 60; 110: I, 6-13.

[49] 97: 11, 19.

[50] 95: 102.

[51] 91: 475.

[52] L: 190.

[53] B: 251.

[54] 91: 8.

[55] 96: 366.

[56] L: 199; 96: 265; D: 452; 97: 45-60.

[57] 97: 47; 96: 289.

[58] 135; C: 65 and 116.

[59] 97.

[60] Quoted in 135: chap. III, 116.

[61] 91: 519; 141.

[62] 91: 521.

[63] 96: 295.

[64] 95: 175.

[65] L: 222; 91: 175-178, 338.

[66] 91: 47.

[67] 95: 135; 96: 189, 219, 191.

[68] For a study of examples grouped according to epoch, see 96: p.

220-264.

[69] 91: II, 432.

[70] D: 527, 549.

[71] 115: 535.

[72] 110.

[73] 110: Plate 5, opposite pp. 50, 67.

[74] 111. Cf. 110: I, 48.

[75] D: I, 545.

[76] B: II, 242; D: 527.

[77] 116-120.

[78] B: II, 168.

[79] 124: 121; 123; D: 526.

[80] 116: 195 _ff._, 197 _Bib._

[81] 40: 281.

[82] 139: chap. II, 146.

[83] M: 217.

[84] 125: 100, map.

[85] O: 291.

[86] L: chap. V.

[87] A: I, 386.

[88] G: cf. J: 43.

[89] A: 421.

[90] D: 503.

[91] 110: I, 40.

[92] B: II, 102.

[93] A: I, 423.

[94] B: 310.

[95] G: I, 268; J: 90.

[96] B: I, 398.

[97] H: 20.

[98] F: Article "Axt."

[99] G: 30; E: 129.

[100] E: Plate 60; A: 506; 96: 330.

[101] B: 177.

[102] Figs. 107a, 108.

[103] A: 355, 629.

[104] M: 347.

[105] A: 627; B: 207.

[106] 110: 50 (chart).

[107] 124: 105.

[108] B: II, 468; D: 511.

[109] G: 60.

[110] G: 16, 24.

[111] B: II, 483.

[112] G: 127.

[113] H: 27.

[114] 186: 168.

[115] B: I, 513.

[116] H: 49.

[117] A: 547; D: 482.

[118] 40: 279.

[119] 40: 281.

[120] D: 465; 49: 540.

[121] 60.

[122] 215-218.

[123] B: II, 242.

[124] E: 563.

[125] D: I, 335.

[126] 40: 281.

[127] 49: 565.

[128] 214.

[129] C: 225.

[130] 219-221.

[131] 222, 223.

[132] J: 65.

[133] See D: 545.

[134] 40: 281, 333, 361; D: 476, 41.

[135] 40: 350, 361.

[136] 110: I, 50.

[137] 40: 281, 449.

[138] See 214. Chart 219., cf. 210.

[139] 240, 241.

[140] 242.

[141] 243.

[142] 244: 39-43.

[143] 245.

[144] 40: 465.

[145] 268-272 _a._

[146] 272.

[147] B: I, 302.

[148] 220.

[149] 220.

[150] 220.

[151] B: I, 334-337, 307.

[152] 246.

[153] 250: 202, 206.

[154] 250: 205.

[155] 290: 85.

[156] 292.

[157] 293.

[158] 294.

[159] 309.

[160] 307.

[161] 315-319.

[162] A: 594-603, 362.

[163] B: II, 563.

[164] 320.

[165] 316.

[166] 322.

[167] 318, 321.

[168] B: II, 585.

[169] O: 173.

[170] 308: 36.

[171] 330.

[172] H: 20.

[173] 179: 122 _n._

[174] 260.

[175] O: 111, 33.

[176] A: 368.

[177] 308.

[178] I have selected for examination Professor Kossina's article, and

that not his latest, because it seems to furnish the strongest and

clearest brief statement of the theory of the Germanic origin of the

Indo-Europeans. Hirt's work and his references should also be consulted.

It is to be regretted that the judgment and work of some of the North

German prehistorians on this question are tinged by national prejudice.

We must make allowance for their omissions and remember that we have our

own pet prejudices.

The dogma of the superiority of the dolichocephalic blond has been made

a cult by Mr. J. H. Chamberlin and other far less brilliant writers. It

has received little support in Scandinavia. The works of this school

should not be taken too seriously.

[179] 375: 14.

[180] O.

[181] 293.

[182] 376: 67; 377: 177; cf. 378.

INDEX

Achæans, 253, 281.

Adaptation, extreme, 228.

Agriculture, origin of, 101, 108;

and religion, 218.

Amber, 148.

Anau, 93, 100, 125.

Ancylus Epoch, 37, 164, 169.

Apes, 4, 12.

Arboreal life, 7, 13.

Aryans, 246.

Asia, 10, 91.

Axe, 43, 136, 173.

Azilian-Tardenoisian, 39, 48, 193.

Babylonia, 92.

Balder, myth of, 222.

Balkans, 61, 100, 267.

Baltic culture, 131, 144, 203, 232, 271.

Baltic Sea, changes of, 36, 41, 161.

Barley, 80, 94.

Boats, 145.

Brachycephals, 44, 51, 181, 195, 262;

in lake-dwellings, 87.

Bread, 82.

Bronze, 141;

age of, 166.

Burial of dead, 31, 123.

Campigny, 50.

Cattle, domestic, 76, 91, 110.

Cave frescoes, 31;

remains, 53.

Celts, 128, 263.

Chronology, 37, 94, 101, 160, 166, 192, 253.

Climatic changes, 4, 26, 32, 102.

Copper, 140; age of, 166.

Crescents of clay, 84.

Crete, 144, 186.

Cro-Magnon race, 29, 181, 231.

Dæmons, 213, 276.

Danube, 200.

Dead, disposal of, 31, 123, 127.

Dog, 42, 75.

Dolichocephals, 44, 87, 198.

Dolmens, 114.

Domestic animals, 91, 110, 112.

Dormant periods and nations, 243.

Dress, 132.

Education, Neolithic 237, 275.

Family, Aryan, 251.

Flax, 83.

Flint, 86, 134, 138.

Folk-lore and fairy-tales, 277.

Forests, 32, 64;

succession of, in Denmark, 38.

Fortifications, 62, 236, 263.

Glacial period, 24.

Goddess, cult of, 220.

Gold, 139.

Greek mysteries, 212.

Grosgartach, 59, 157, 234.

Hamites, 19, 22, 182.

Heidelberg man, 28.

Hoe-culture, 104.

Horse, 74.

Houses and huts, 55, 72.

Incineration, 127.

Indo-Europeans, 247;

homeland, 259;

language, 246;

religion, 251, 268.

Industries, 131.

Iranian plateau, 12.

Lake-dwellings, 69, 202.

Littorina Epoch, 37, 165.

Loess, 27, 65.

Magelmose, 45, 172.

Mattock, 137.

Mediterranean race, 182, 187, 194; culture, 231.

Megaliths, 114.

Menhirs, 122.

Microliths, 49.

Migrations, Indo-European, 253; routes, 18, 20, 52, 183.

Millet, 80.

Mother-right, 223.

Mugem, 44.

Neanderthal race, 29.

Neolithic culture, persistence of, 272, 280.

Nephrite and Jadeite, 146.

Oaks in Denmark, 37, 171.

Oats, 81.

Paleolithic Age, Lower, 29; Upper, 32.

Peace, 85, 235.

Pelasgi, 257.

Piedmont zones, 105.

Pig, 77.

Piltdown skull, 29.

Pines in Denmark, 37, 171.

Pioneer life, 191, 204, 237.

Pithecanthropus, 15.

Plough, 108.

Pottery, 43, 88, 100, 153, 201.

Primates, 6, 20.

Progress, 228.

Races, human, 19; Paleolithic 180; Neolithic 193.

Religion, Paleolithic, 208; Neolithic, 206, 276; of

lake-dwellings, 84; of Indo-Europeans, 268, 276.

Rinnekalns, 47.

Ritual, 210.

River-valleys as trade-routes, 143, 190.

Roman law, 258.

Sahara, once well-watered, 22.

Salt, 139.

"_Schuhleistenbeil_" (mattock), 137.

Semites, 19, 22, 106.

Sheep, 78, 91.

Shell-heaps, 40, 172, 197.

Siwalik strata, 14.

Social development, 85.

Steppe, 27, 32, 65, 189.

Stutzheim, 57, 59.

Susa, 99.

Taboo, 211.

Tertiary period, 9.

Trade, 144; routes, 152.

Tribal education, 275.

Tridachna shells in Europe, 147.

Tumuli, 116.

Tundra, 26, 36.

Weaving, 83.

Wheat, 80, 94.

Women, position in Neolithic time, 224, 249.

Yoldia Epoch, 37, 162.

* * * * *

Transcriber's Note:

In the Bibliography, p. 294, under "CHAPTER I", there was no number 4

in the original.