^ 1 -^ r SANIA BAkBAR<. « THE Ur4IV£RSITV o O V < y C 5 X ^UJ.4:^ 1? < 2 g < QJ li O MtSII3AiNn 3HI \ AiisaaAiNn aMt «, o THE UNIVERSITY o O >-l !, H o THE UNIVERSITY o vtm- ^ X -^ :1! / -^1 ^ I ^ r O SANTA BAHBARA O » iO AOVaail 3Hl o e THE UNIVERSITY o o THE UBRARr Of o u r ^ d L R o V»V9m ViNVS o / 19^ o UlSilMINn 3H1 « O VDVWIV YjNVS o « AiiSil9 ',W l< O THe UNIVERSITY o 6 < \ o THE UNIVERSITY o s >- 5 < y c; o THE IIB \ o THE UNIVERSITY o < _l4l / SI \ O THE UNIVERSITY o O iSr M A N PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, Ex Ldbris C. K. OGDEN MAN PAST, PRESENT AND EUTURE. A POPULAR ACCOUNT RESULTS OF RECEIPT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AS REGARDS THE ORIGIN, POSITION AND PROSPECTS OF THE HUMAN RACE. FROM THE GERMAN OF D-. L. BUCHNER, AUTHOR OF "FORCE AND MATTER", "PHYSIOLOGICAL PICTURES", 'SIX LECTURES ON DARWIN", "ESSAYS ON NATURE AND SCIENCE", ETC. W. S. DALLAS, F.L.S. LONDON: ASHER & CO., 13, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN. 1872. nix TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. In offering to ii British Pul^lic thi.s translation of Dr. Biichnor's book on the "Position of Man in Nature", I must beg to inform my readers that I am by no means incHned to ticcept all the results iit which Dr. Biichner has arrived. Thus I do not at all go with him in the extreme materi^distic views which he holds with regard to the nature of life, and there are many of his opinions, especially upon moral and social questions, from which I thoroughly dissent. My object in preparing this transhition was simply to give English Readers an opportunity of learning the direc- tion which thought is taking" in a consideriible section of the reading public in Germany. Among the popular scientific writers of that country Dr. Biichner decidedly stands in the first rank, and his opinions iire therefore well worthy of consideration. In the present work his exposition of matters connected with the position of man in Nature will be found both interesting and instructive, even to those who are opposed to him in princii^le, — nay perhaps especially to them, as showing- to what results the principles maintained by the school of thinkers to which Dr. Biichner belongs, necessarily lead. W. S. Dallas. AUTHOR'S PREFACE. The following book has resulted from a series of public discourses upon the great scientific discoveries of recent times witPi regard to the Antiquity and Origin of the Humaii race and the Position of Man in Nature, delivered by the author during the last four or five years in various places. The great and almost unexampled interest of the subject and its importance in the develop- ment and further evolution of our general conception of the Universe and of life from the point of view of philoso- phical realism (an importance which is still far from being sufficiently acknowledg'ed), will justify the author in abstaining- from any prefatory explaniition of his mo- tives in deciding to communicate in the present compila- tion the essential parts of these discourses to a more distant or larger public, in a form suited for general comprehension. In order to avoid alarming, tiring^ or confusing the majority of readers by the particularly copious iibundance of materials, the author has regarded as desirable to adopt a method which is often employed, and to ])lace the actual material or more exact proof of what is stated in the 'J^ext in the shape of quotations, scientific details and further particulars or remarks, in a separate ^Ippendix brought into connexion with the Text by continuous numbers. The author hopes that this method will augment the scientific value of the book without PREFACE. VII injuring its readability by the general public, to whose wants he has paid particular attention in the text itself. The extraordinary favour which the public has hitherto manifested towards all the literary productions of the author without exception, and which has been his principal incitement to proceed in the same course, will, he hopes, not be wanting to this new book, the principal tendency of which is towards culture and intel- lectual progress. The author believes that he is the more justified in this expectation, since the book con- tains in its second section a popular exposition of one of the most prominent questions of the day — a question which, in the last few years, has excited the minds of men in a most remarkable manner. This question, which has been so often misunderstood and answered in the most various senses, relates to the ^ipc-gcuealogy of man as it has been called. If the author should succeed by means of credible and scientific evidence in diflfusing- correct views, free from prejudice and ignorance and resting- upon the truths of nature, upon this new doctrine which has called forth so much opposition, this result alone will appear to him of sufficient importance to compen- sate for the trouble which he has bestowed upon the book. No doubt in this, as in former cases, there will be no lack of those opponents and calumniators who seek to displace light by darkness, truth by falsehood, and facts by phrases. The author, who has neither time, leisure nor inclination for futile polemics, thinks that h(^ cannot meet such opponents better than by closing his preface with the following passages from ixn English writer, who has so brilliantly and resolutely defended the author's standpoint against his own assailants tmd cen- surers that it is unnecessary to add a single word to' what he has said. "There is nothing more frequent", says David Page (Man &c., Edinburgh 1867), "than denunciations from the viir PREFACE. pulpit and platform against the tendencies of modern science, by men who are not only ignorant of the rudi- ments of science, but who have bound themselves by creeds and formulas before their minds were matured enough, or their knowledge sufficient, to discriminate be- tween the essentials and non-essentials of these restric- tions. And here it may be remarked, once for all, that no man who has subscribed to creeds and formulas, whether in theology or philosophy, can be an unbiassed investigator of the truth or an unprejudiced judge of the opinions of others. His sworn preconceptions warp his discernment; adherence to his sect or party engenders intolerance to the honest convictions of other inquirers. Beliefs we may and must have, but a belief to be chan- ged with new and advancing knowledge impedes no progress, while a creed subscribed to as ultimate truth and sworn to be defended, not only puts a bar to further research, but as a consequence throws the odium of dis- trust on all that may seem to oppose it. Even when such odium cannot deter, it annoys and irritates; hence the frec[uent unwillingness of men of science to come prominently forward with the avowal of their beliefs. It is time this delicacy were thrown aside and such theo- logians plainly told that the scepticism and infidelity —if scepticism and infidelity there be — lies all on their own side. There is no scepticism so offensive ^ls that which doubts the fticts of honest and careful observation; no infidelity so gross as that which disbelieves the deduc- tions of comi^etent and unbiassed judgments." These g"olden words deserve to be engraved on brass and hung U[) in all Churches, Lecture-halls and Editor's rooms. THE AUTHOR'S POSTSCRIPT TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. On the appearance of this English edition of his book on the Position of Man in Nature, the author thinks it necessary to express to his English Public his regret, that he was unable in the preparation of its second section to make use of the admirable arguments upon this subject, which have recently been published in England by the distinguished naturalist Darwin in his book upon the "Descent of IMan". This was impossible, as the printing of the greater part of the translation was al- ready completed when the work just mentioned made its appea- rance. The author's regret at this circumstance was however abundantly compensated by the satisfaction which he could not hut feel when, on reading Darwin's work, he remarked the great and remarkable agreement between his views and those of the celebrated English naturalist, although he had been unable to arrive at any definite opinion upon the subject in question from Darwin's previous writings. Quite independently of any personal feeling this circumstance may serve as a proof how completely a correct interpretation of facts, and consistent and unprejudiced thought in scientific matters, but especially in Natural History, must lead to the same clear and simple results, no matter in what brain the necessary process of thought is carried on, or whether it is in England or in Germany, or in any other part of the civilized world. Darmstadt, February 1872. Dr. L. Biichner. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. Process of human intellectual development p. i. The question of the position of man in nature, the question of questions for mankind p. 3. Origin and genealogy of the human race p. 4. Comparison with the discovery of Copernicus p. 5. Hackel's geocentric and antliropo- centric errors p. 5. Unfounded dread of the new discoveries p. 6. Causes of former errors with regard to the position of man in nature p. 7. Anti(|uity of the human race p. 9. Creation of man 6000 years ago p. 9. §. I. OUR ORIGIN. Cave of Aurignac p. 10. J. Carver on the funeral ceremonies of a North American Indian tribe p. 14. Antediluvian, Alluvium and Dilu- vium, Note 2. Cave-discoveries p. 16. Old opinion as to the early state of man p. 18. Fossil bones of animals regarded as those of man, Note 3. Cuvicr on antediluvian man. Note 4. Fossils, Note $. Boucher de Perthes and the discovery of flint axes in the Somme Valley p. 19. Working in flint p. 22, and Note 6. Flint implements the lirst human manufacture p. 23. Flint axes beyond the Somme Valley p. 24. J. Frere p. 25. Lower jaw of Moulin-Quignon p. 26, and Note 8. Other fossil remains of man p. 27, and Notes 9 — 11, Traces of human action on bones of extinct animals p. 28. Pictures of extinct animals p. 29, and Notes 14—15. Similar discoveries in the Tertiaries p. 31. Human re- mains in Alluvium p. 33, and Note 16. Pile buildings, Note 17. Danish Peat-mosses, Note 18. Mound of the Ohio, Note 19. Kitchen-middens or shell-mounds p. 35, and Note 20. Giant's graves and dolmens p. 37, and Note 21. Antiquity of man on the earth p. 38. Formation of the surface of the earth in the diluvial period p. 40. Glacial period and XII CONTENTS. antiquity of the Scmme Valley deposits, Note 22. Opinions on Tertiary man p. 42. Antiquity of history, Traditions p. 43. Eyypt p. 44, and Note 23. Ancient battles with animals p. 46. Condition of existing savages p. 47, and Note 24. Prima-val man p. 47. Physical condition of primaeval man p. 50. Inlluence of civilization, Note 25. Intellectual condition of primaeval man and the most ancient human skull p. 51. Discoveries of Schmerling and Spring in the Belgian caves, Note 26. Borreby Skull, Note 27. Skull from Caithness, Note 28. Cheltenham skull. Note 29. Neanderthal skull, p. 53, and Note 30. Human skulls like the Neanderthal skull p. 54, and Note 31. Skull from Algodon Bay p. 55, and Note 32. Progress of primxval man in the manufacture of stone-implements p. 56, and Note 33. Stone ages p. 56, and Note 37. Bronze and iron ages p. 57. Copper age p. 58, and Note 35. Use of stone weapons in historical times p. 58, and Note 35. Earliest Stone- age p. 59. Middle Stone age and Reindeer period p. 61. Caves and troglodytes and cannibalism in South Africa, Note 38. Human bones and skulls of the Reindeer period p. 62. Reindeer stations in Belgium and Wiirttemberg', Note 39. Latest stone or neolithic age p. 62. Celts p. 63, and Note 40. Pottery p. 63, and Note 41. Slow progress of primaeval man p. 64. Stability the fundamental character of the savage state ]). 64. External and internal impulses to progress p. 65. Immigra- tion of foreign races, p. 66, and Note 42. Traditions on the rude primi- tive state of man p. 66, Ideas of Classical Antiquity on this subject p. 67. Later or Christian notion of an original state of perfection p. 68. Sir John Lubbock and J. P. Lesley on theology and science. Note 43. All civilization due to gradual development p. 71. §. 2. WHAT ARE WE? Zoological position of man p. 75, and Note 44. Order of Primates p. 77, and Note 45. Its divisions according to Huxley p. 77. Its divi- sion and genealogical connexion according to Hiickel p. 79. Animal genealogical tree of man according to Hiickel, Note 46. Anthropoid Apes p. 80. Resemblances to man in the lower Apes p. 81. Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Orang-Utan and Gibbon p. 82, and Notes 47, 48. G. Pouchet on the zoological position of man p. 84. The foot as a prehensile organ, Note 49. Anatomical agreement of man and animals p. 85. Relative differences in the structure of man and animals, Note 50. Their physio- logical agreement p. 89, and Note 51. The brain in man and animals p. 90, and Notes 52, 53. Developmental history p. 92. Modes of repro- duction p. 94, and Note 54. The ovum p. 94, and Note 55. Evolution and Epigenesis, Note 56. Similarity of the embryos of all animals p. 96. The ovum in man p. 98. I'rimitive groove and dorsal chord p. loi. Resemblance of the human embryo to those of animals p. 102. CONTENTS. XIII Tail of man, tailed men j). 104. Human branchial arches, rudimen- tary or aborted organs p. 105. The human intermaxillary bone p. 105, and Note 57. Rudimentary organs as supports of the monistic conception of the universe ]>. 105. Triple developmental series p. 106. Connexion of developmental history with the question of the origin of man p. 106. Imi)ortance of this question j). 108. Priority of the hypothesis of the animal origin of man p. ifit). Huxley, Hiickel, Schaaffhausen and Vogt p. 109. Vogt on microcepliali p. no, and Note 58. Schaaffhausen on the animal origin of man and the theory of evolution p. in, and Note 59. Priority of Dr. Reichenbach of Altona p. 112, and Note 60. Lamarck, Oken and Darwin p. 112. The animal origin of man a ne- cessary consequence of every theory of descendence p. 113. Claim to priority on the part of the author p. 114. Huxley's three Essays p. n4. Refutation of Huxley's attack upon materialism, Note 61. Huxley on some fossil remains of man p. 115. Further discoveries of this kind, jaw of La Naulette p. 116, and Note 62. Jaws of Moulin- Quignon, Hyeres , Arcis-sur-Aube, Grevenbriick &c. p. nS. Rarity ot human remains from primaeval times p. 119, and their general resem- blance to animals p. 120. Existence of former intermediate forms be- tween man and animals p. 120. Fossil remains of Apes p. 121. Pre- historic Ape-men p. 121. Extinction of the Anthropoid Apes and the lowest human races p. 122. The When? where? and how? of the first production of man p. 123. Unity or multiplicity of mankind p. 123. Application of the former idea of species to man ji. 124. Races of man and the idea of races, Note 63. Diversity of languages p. 124. Schleicher t)n primseval languages , Note 64. Agreement of the Asiatic and African Anthropoid Apes with the primitive races of man in those regions p. 125. Scliaaflhausen on the unity or multiplicity of the genealogy of man J). 126. Vogt a defender of polygeny p. 126. Hiickel on the origin of man and his unity or multiplicity p 127. Hackel's primitive man or Ape-man p. 128. Production of the true or speaking man from the speechless primitive man p. 129. Division of the primitive man into several species p. 129. Woolly and smooth-haired branches p. 130. Further divisions of these branches p. 130. The Caucasian race the fu- ture rulers of the whole world p. 131. G. Pouchet on the primitive form and on the development of the races of man p. 131. Solution of the dispute p. 132. Adam and Eve, Note 65. Rolle on the conversion of the animal into man p. 133. Gradual or sudden development of human qualities in individual anthropoids p. 133. Relation of man to his animal cousins p 134. Intelligence of the great Apes p. 135. Wal- lace on a young Orang, ji. 135, and Note 66. Intelligence of the Orang, Chimpanzee &c.. Note 66. Intellectual life of animals in general p. 136. The distinctions between man and animal disappear on close considera- tion p. 136. Savage men and tribes p. 138, and Note 67. Marriage and y^lV CONTENTS. faniilylife , Note 68. Social organization, Note 69. Sense of Shame, Note 70. Belief in God, Note 71. Art of numeration. Note 72. Em- ployment of tools, Note 73. Use of Fire, Note 74. Wearing Clothes, Note 75. Suicide, Note 76. Agriculture, Note 77. Language the most striking characteristic of man p. 138. Imperfection of the language of savages, Note 78. Origin of language p. 139. Schleicher, Grimm and J. P. Lesley on the origin of language. Note 79. First commencement of language according to C. Royer, Note 80. Development of language from emotional and imitative sounds p, 140. Bleek on the early deve- lopment of speech p. 141. G. Jiiger on the language of man and ani- mals p. 142. Origin of writing according to L. D'Assier p. 143. Con- clusion p. 144. §. 3. WHERE ARE WE GOING? The mystery of human existence is solved p. 146. The questions of the how? and why? of existence p. 147. Process of development p. 147. Solution of the enigma of the universe, Note 81. I'he distinc- tion of the appearance from the thing itself and the limitation of our sensuous perception, Note 82. Increasing scientific knowledge constantly binds us more closely to earthly life p. 149. Man as the final product of terrestrial development p. 149. The world first made known to itself in man p. 150. The struggle for existence p. 151. Destiny of man. Note 83. Inheritance of intellectual qualities p. 152. Influence of advancing culture upon the struggle for existence in man p. 153. Pacific railway, Note 84. Question of the development of higher races in the future p. 155, and Note 85. Improbability of this supposition p. 156. Advan- cing development of the brain p. 157, and Note 86. Violence of the struggle for existence on the moral and social domain p. 158, and Note 87. Its conquest 1 y the endeavour after social elevation and common happiness p. ]6o. Replacement of the struggle for the means of existence by that for existence p. 162. The government and politics of the future p. 163. Republicanism, federalism and ccntralisni p. 165. Division of labour p. 166, and Note 88. Nationalities p. TOO. Principle of nationality p. 167. Former national hatred p. 168. .Society and its infinite inequa- lity )i. 168. Political liberation must be completed by social liberation p. 169. Difference between the natural and social struggle for existence J). 16'). Liberty and equality in the political and social sense p. 170. Equal riglit nf all men to the material and intellectual pro]ieity of man- kind \). 170. Immense contiasls in the present state of society ]). 17 1. Want ni pliysical and inlellectual nourishment p. 172. Unequal pa) iiunt of work, Note 89. The unbridled struggle for existence the cause of social misery p. 172. Egotism the mainspring of social movement p. 173, and Note ')(>. The improveiiionl of tliis comlitioii p. 174. Communism CONTENTS. XV p. 174, and Notes 91, 92. Proposition of an equalization of the means for the struggle for existence and replacement of the power of nature by the power of reason p. 176. The social revolution and the Bourgeoisie, Note 93. The soil a common possession p. 178, and Note 94. Limita- tion of the right of bequest p. 178, and Note 95. Care of the state for those who are incapable of earning p. 179, and Note 96. Feudal go- vernment and popular government p. 179. Disadvantages of great pri- vate fortunes and advantages of an enrichment of the commonwealth p, 180. Capital and its nature p. 183. Folly of the cry against capital as such. p. 183. Its unjust distribution p. 184. Periodical restoration of capital to the community p. 184. Advantages of such an arrangement p. 185. Labour and Labourers p. 186. Folly of establishing a special labour- question Y>. 186. "Work-takers and work-givers and the capitalistic mode of production p. 187, and Notes 97, 98. Lassalle's productive associations and their deficiencies p. 188. Probable formation of a so-called fifth estate p. 189. State-aid and self-aid p. 190, and Notes 99, 100. Means of salvation p. 191. Judgment upon the Lassallean agitation among the workmen p. 191. The family p. 192, Ideal and real families p. 193. Mi- serable state of family life in the lower strata of society p. 194. Defec- tive education of children and fertility of proletaires p. 195. Advan- tages of social education over domestic p. 195. Good and bad families p. 196. Fducation p. 197. A good popular education the dut\' of the state p. 197. Importance of schools for the people p. 197. Crime and criminals p, 198. Higher and lower educational institutes p. 198. Tlie Universities and their reform, Note loi. Establishment of a legal work- ing day p. 199, and Note 102. Woman and her emancipation p. 200. The female brain p. 205. The political equalization of women p. 207. War-service of women, Ncite 103. Marriage p. 208. Importance of sexual selection p. 2(K). Alisurd fear of over-]iopulation ]). 210. Morals and the only right princijde of morality p. 211. No innate conscience or law of moralilv ji. 212. Fgolism the mainspring of all human deal- ings p. 215, and Note 104. The moral principle of the future p. 2 1 6. Religion and its sources p. 127. Replacement of faith by knowledge; morals and religion have originally nothing in common p. 217. Religion rather inimical than favourable to civilization p. 2 1 8. Morality independent of the belief in God p. 2I'). Kmancipation of the State and of the school from ecclesiastical influence p. 220 (Christianity or Paulinism p. 220 and Note 105.. Christianity as a world-religion, Note 106. Rome and Christianity, Note 107. Philosophy p. 221. Death as the cause of all jiliilosophy p. 225. Imperishableness of our nature p. 225. Materialism and idealism are not opposites p. 227. Confusion of theoretical and juactical materialism p. 229. Progressive tendency and programme of materialism p. 230. INTRODUCTION. "The great business of life — even that which hes most immediately before us — will be more fully understood and more rationally performed, the better man knows the place he holds and the relations he bears to the plan of Creation." D. PAGE. "When we glance over the results of modern research now flowing in from all sides and consider them in their significance for the knowledge of man, it can no longer be a matter of doubt, that we have come to the end of established notions, and that we are approaching a different conception of nature." SCHAAFFHAUSEN. "Natural history in the present day gives us a higher conception of the Universe, than that entertained by the ancients; it no longer regards the material world as the plaything of mere caprice, or history as an unequal contest between God an INIan; it embraces the past, the present and the future as a magnificent unity, outside of which nothing can exist." A. LAUGEL. In his admirable Essay on Man's place in nature, the celebrated anatomist and philosopher Professor Hux- ley compares the process of development, by which the human intellect is constantly advancing towards truth, with the periodical moul tings of a "feeding and growing grub." From time to time, he says, the old integument becomes too straitened for the growing animal, it is there- fore burst asunder and replaced by a new and larger one. Precisely the same thing occurs in the history of the intellectual development of man. "The human mind, fed by constant accessions of knowledge, periodically grows too large for its theoretical coverings and bursts them asunder to appear in new habiliments." 2 MAN IN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. wSince the revival of learning' in the 15*'' century there has been an abundance of strong food for the human in- tellect, the education of which was indeed commenced by the Greek philosophers, but then suffered the interruption of a long- intellectual stagnation or sleep of fourteen cen- turies. I will not stop to enquire, by what influence this stagnation was broug^ht about, althoug^h this is clear enough to the eyes of those, who are acquainted with fnic history and not merely with that substitute for it, which has been concocted by theologians and philosophers for their own purposes. But this revival of science being- once set on foot, it was inevitable, that a more frequent bursting of the old integuments would take place, this process of intellec- tual moulting must be frequently repeated. And so it was in the 16*'^ century by the overthrow of the old astro- nomical system and the influence of the Reformation! and at the end of the 18'*^ century by the period of intellectual englightement and the influence of the great French Re- volution ! And now once more the human intellect has received such a quantity of strong- and stimulatirig nourishment by the extraordinary progress of the natural sciences, du- ring- the last 50 years, that a new and great change and a repeated bursting- of the old integuments appears to be inevitable. Nevertheless, as Huxley remarks in carrying still fur- ther his admirable simile, just as these periodical moul- tings are not eftected without superinducing various disea- sed conditions, disturbances and general debility in the animal undergoing change, — so also in the intellec- tuiil world these mietamorphoses are likewise attended with perils and discomforts of all kinds. Therefore it is the duty of every good citizen and patriot to aid with all the strength and means at his command (however small they may be) towards the speedy and satisfactory completion of this process or necessary crisis, or at any IXTRODUCTION. 3 rate to do what he can to assist in bursting' and stripping off the old integuments and thus give room and liberty to the growing- body. This masterly comparison, by which at the outset of his Essay Professor Huxley seeks to show, that it was his riglit or better still his duty to take part in the public discussion of the greatest scientific question of his age, may also serve to excuse or justify the author of the pre- sent book for having undertaken to treat in a familiar style a question so important and difficult as the position of man in nature, and to present to the general public an exposition of the results attained by modern science for its elucidation and for the refutation of old world errors and prejudices. Professor Huxley is undoubtedly in the right in descri- bing- this question of Man's place in nature and his relations to the universe as the question of questions for man- kind, — as a problem which lies at the root of all others and interests us more profoundly than any other. "Whence our race has come"; he says, "what are the limits of our power over nature, and of nature's power over us; to what goal we are tending; are the problems which present themselves anew" and with undiminished in- terest to every man born into the world." — More simply expressed these are the old questions which have in all times occupied the human mind and which run as follows: Whence do we come? What are we? and whither are we going? — Problems which formerly seemed to be veiled in the deepest obscurity of impenetrable secrecy and which first received some elucidation or illumination from the science of our own day. In former times, of course, the answer to such questions as these could but accommodate itself to the general philo- sophical and theological ideas of the age, and that mystery especially, with which we are now chietly occupied, lay until quite recently buried under such a load of ignorance and prejudice that, from a scientific standpoint, it could 4 :\rAN IN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE only be reg'arded as insoluble and incapable of any scien- tific treatment. Hence it came about, that the funda- mental problem of all, that, namely, of the origin and pro- duction or genealogy of the human race, was almost un- animously declared, not merely by the philosophers of former days, but also, in unison with them, by general opinion, to be transcendental, that is to say beyond the reach of human powers of conception and comprehen- sion (at all events so far as these rested upon observation and experience). Who could have suspected, even a few years ago, that within so short a period the progress of knowledge and of scientific induction would throw a light so clear and certain upon this mystery of mysteries, upon the earliest past history and the first commencement of our race upon the earth? We may say without exaggeration, that tliis step stands in the first line of all the advances made by the human mind; that the discovery of the natural origin of man and the demonstration of his true position in the universe deserves to be ranged side by side with the great- est scientific discoveries of all times , if, indeed, it should not be raised above them. Those men of science of our day, who have applied their minds most thoroughly to this subject, have found themselves constrained to express themselves in the same or a similar manner. Thus Professor Schaaffhausen says: "To have ascertained the real origin of man is a discovery so fertile in its consequences for all human conceptions, that futurity will perhaps regard this result of investi- gation as the greatest of which the attainment was allotted to the human mind." And from the opinion expressed by Professor E. Hackel in his '■Natiirliche Sclwpfungs- gcsclnchte' (Berlin, i860, p. 487) the recognition of the na- tural (and especially the animal) origin of man must sooner or later bring about a complete revolution in our entires conception of th(> relations of mankind and the world. INTRODUCTION. 5 There is perhaps only a single scientific discovery, which in point of importance and far-reaching conse- quences is to be placed on the same level with this, and that is the discovery, that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary, or the establishment of the so called Co- pernican system of the universe (i). Of all those 'burstings forth' or 'moultings' of the human mind already spoken of and of which we may count so many of g-reater or less importance in the history of the development of human civilisation, this great astronomical discovery is undoub- tedly one of the most important and conspicuous. Nowa- days we can hardly form a notion of the immense in- fluence, which the great discovery of Nicholas Copernicus about the middle of the i6'^ century, after the long- in- tellectual lethargy of the middle ages, exerted upon the men of that and the following centur}^; in this respect, and as enlarging the intellectual horizon of the men of that time, there is nothing to compare with it, except perhaps, the discovery of America. Starting from this idea, Professor Hackel, in nn ad- mirable lecture on the origin and genealogy of the human race (Berlin 1868), indicates iwo errors as the greatest and most serious in their consequences, which still, as formerly, stand in opposition to the development of the human in- tellect; these he very appropriately calls th.e geoceniric and the anfhropocenfric errors. The geocentric error consisted in regarding the earth as the central point and chief object in the whole universe, the other parts of which were con- sidered only to serve the purposes of this central point and its inhabitants; the anthropocentric error, which even still governs the great majority of mankind, regards man as the centre and sole object of the whole organic creation, as the image of God or the ruler and centre of the ter- restrial world, the whole mechanism of which has been or- ganised and exists solely for his use and with reference to his special needs. ' The former of these errors, as is well known, was 6 MAN IN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. overturned and swept avay by Copernidus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton; the second by Lamarck, Goethe, Lyell, Dar- win iind their adherents and followers. It is of this second error and its removal or rather of what is to be put in its place, that the present book will particularly treat. But before entering into details upon the subject, the author will venture to refer to a phenom- enon, which, as history teaches us, has always repeated itself with every new and great discovery and of course is not wanting in the present case. This is the entirely unfounded fear, which takes possession of the minds of men with regard to the supposed terrible consequences of such discoveries — or of the promulgation of a new scien- tific or philosophical conception of the universe. When the Copernican system began to prevail, not only religion but the whole moral order of the world was supposed to be fearfully shaken and imperilled, and people thought, that with the change in opinion as to the relative positions of the heavenly bodies taith and civilization, religion and morality, government and society must at once go to the wall or at least undergo the most serious injuries. In reality, however, as is well known, not one of all these dreaded consequences and terrible prophecies was realized, but on the contrary mankind has since progressed in the most remarkable manner not merely intellectually but also in morality and civilisation, and actually by the aid and in fact by the influence of this very enlargement of knowledge. As it was then, so it will be now; all the in- numerable declamations and tirades of the votaries of darkness and victims of fear in opposition to the recent step in advance will not only have no effect against the truth, but the apprehensions raised by them will in no way be fulfilled. In the eyes of the author and probably of every thinking man, every intellectual advance of man- kind, every great approximation to the truth is at the same time an advance both materially and inorally\ INTRODUCTION. With regard to the socalled an thropr acentric error, against which the recent discovery of the true position of man in nature must be regarded as especially directed, it is, in itself, equally intelligible and excusable. For without the knowledge of the numerous facts, which the indefatigable spirit of research has now placed at our command, man appears, at the first superficial glance, to be so thoroughly and fundamentally different from sur- rounding nature, that we can scarcely blame our ancestors for not having known or even suspected the intimate and insoluble connexion, that exists between all the phenomena of nature and life, not excepting those presented by man himself. "In the past", as Prof. Perty well says in his '■An- fliropologisclie Vorfrage' Leipzig, 1863) "man appeared to be a creature foreign to the earth and placed upon it as a transitory inhabitant by some incomprehensible power. The more perfect insight of the present day sees man as a being, whose development has taken place in accordance with the same laws that have governed the development of the earth and its entire organisation — a being not put upon the earth accidentally, by an arbitrary act, but pro- duced in harmony with the earth's nature and belonging to it, as do the flov/ers and the fruits to the tree which bears them." These ideas are expressed in still stronger terms by an English writer, as follows: — "In the opinions of former philosophers man was an exceptional instance in the grand scheme of creation; he formed an isolated phenomenon in the great plan of nature, to make free with whom, after the ordinary fashion of inductive inquiry, was little other than an act of open and scandalous impiety." (Anthropol. Review, 1865, Nr, g). The state of things here pictured has now indeed been changed. For as soon as we investigate the position of man from the standpoint of modern science and the great discoveries of recent days , setting aside all o Id pre- 8 MAN IN THE PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE. judices, we come at once to results which are completely opposed to former views. We find, that man is most intima- tely united with surroundinq- nature, not only in his bodily but also in his iiitcUcctual qualities, and that his elevated position is due only to the hig-her and more varied develop- ment of his powers and faculties. Formerly, with a strange and wilful blindness. Nature, from w^hose bosom man has sprung, was regarded, not as his friend and re- lative, but, on the contrary, as the greatest obstacle in his course of life and especially in the way to the evolution of his highest intellectual powers. I could cite innumer- able passages from our most celebrated philosophers, in which these notions are expressed in the clearest manner. Nay, they sometimes even went so far as to declare posi- tively, that nature was merely a revolt of the mind against itself, and therefore loaded matter, which forms the foun- dation of all nature, with the coarsest invectives. Truly such conduct as this was as irrational as that of a child, who raises its hand against its parents. We know only too well, how far this contempt for nature in contradistinction to the world of the spirit was carried by those, whose conceptions of the universe were drawn from re- ligious and especially from Christian sources. This senseless fanaticism of rag^e against our own flesh must soon come to an end in the presence of the great discoveries now under discussion. For what we have now especially to seek in the interest of the individual man and of the human race, is not a contempt and rejection of nature, but the most intimate acquaintance with it, in order that, by this know- ledge, we may understand it, honour it — and conquer it. To the gradual diffusion of this knowledge are due the great influence and authority, which the natural sciences have acquired in the last fifty years, and this will become more and more striking as time goes on. It is true indeed {and in the interest of historical ac- curacy this must not be forgotten), the real position of man in nature was partially understood or recognised by INDRODUCTTON. Q a few remarkable thinkers at a very early period, long before the promulgation of the observations which we have now at our command. But theirs were isolated guesses, resting upon an intellectual intuition, destitute of the necessary basis of empirical proof, and therefore could never arrive at general acceptance. The science of our days could alone furnish them with the necessary foun- dation. As regards this science itself, we must place in the first rank the recent and interesting investigation into the antiquity of the hitiiinii race upon the earth; an anti- quity, which seems to us primaeval and leaves far behind it all historical tradition. Of this socalled prehistoric existence of man no one formerly had the least knowledge or suspicion, and this circumstance alone must have almost completely barred the way to a right recognition of the position of man in Nature. For if we imagine man, in accordance with the uni- versally prevailing opinion of former times, created and placed upon the earth by an Almighty sovereign or crea- tive power about 5000 or 6000 years ago, — if we suppose that he was then in all essential points the same thing or creature that we now behold him, or even perhaps still more perfect, — as a matter of course every thread which could bind him, in accordance with regular laws, with the rest of the universe, is entirely wanting, and there is no room for any other opinion than the old one which we have indicated. But the late discoveries and investigations as to the primceval existence of man upon the earth have proved, that man, although the highest and perhaps the youngest member of the organic creation, has already lived upon the earth during a period, in comparison with which the few thousands of years covered by human hist- ory and tradition shrink almost to a single moment. The facts proving this assertion will form the subject of the following section, the first of the three great divi- sions of our book. OUR ORIGIN. THE ANTIQUITY AND ORIGINAL STATE OF THE HUMAN RACE, AND ITS DEVELOPMENT FROINI A BARBAROUS BEGINNING. "Natural history has traced back the history of Man to a period which lies far beyond all historical tradition. It has put back the antiquity of our race into that far past time, when the European man fought with the cave animals of the diluvium and not only ate the flesh of the Mammoth and Rhinoceros and the marrow of their bones , but even laid cannibal hands on the flesh of his own kind, — into a time when in our regions man fed his herds of Reindeer amongst the glaciers or lived in the pile-dwel- lings of our lakes or heaped up on the northern coasts great mounds of shells, the relics of his meals." pj^Op.^ SCHAAFFHAUSEN. {Yortrag iiber die anthropologischen Fragen der Gegenwart). "Modern science is not contented with breaking down the foundations of classical chronologies, which indeed were already in a very dilapidated state , and throwing back the origin of man to a period so distant, that in comparison with it our written his- tory appears like a passing moment in a series of centuries which the mind is unable to grasp, it goes still further etc." A. LAUGEL. In the year 1852, or some seventeen years ago, an an- cient cavern was accidentally discovered in France on the southern slope of the Pyrenees, and close to the little town of Aurignac, in the Department of the Haute Garonne, — this has since become celebrated under the name of the 'Cavern of Aurignac'. It was closed by a heavy slab of sandstone, and in it were found the skeletons or bones of at least seventeen human beings, men, women and children, which had been deposited here. At first, unfortunately, a very imperfect examination of the cave was made, and the bones were again deposited in some other place. OUR ORIGIN. II It was only after an interval of eig-ht years (or in the year i860), that a careful and scientific examination anddescription of the place was made by the famous French palaeontologist, M. E. Lartet, who had long been familiarly acquainted with the numerous bone caves of the south of France and with their contents. By this examination it was established beyond the reach of doubt, that the cave of Aurignacwas a primteval sepulchre of the stone age, —of a period, when a great number of what are commonly called ajifcdiluviati animals, of species long since extinct, were still living in our part of the world. When the rubbish which covered the slope was cleared away, it appeared that the floor of the cave had in former times been continued forward, so as to form a spacious open place or terrace in front of it. This terrace had evidently served the important pur- pose of furnishing the scene of the funeral ceremonies. Upon it a layer of ashes and fragments of wood charcoal, six inches thick, was found, and beneath this a sort of rough hearth, composed of several flat pieces of sandstone red- dened by the action of fire and resting immediately upon the underlying limestone. But the most remarkable thing- was, that among the ashes and in the soil, which covered them, a great quantity of the bones of animals and many articles of human handiwork were found. Of the latter at least a hundred were discovered ; they were all made of stone and chiefly of flint. Among them were knives, arrow- heads, sling -stones, flint -flakes and other objects, besides one of those flint nodules, which occur so abundantly in the chalk hills of France, and from which the flint imple- ments were manufactured ; this also had its surfaces chipped. With these was found a sort of hammer, consisting of rounded stone with a hollow place on each side; this was made of a kind of rock not found in the district. It was probably held by placing the thumb and forefinger in the two opposite cavities and may have been employed in the manufacture of the flint implements. Besides these stone implements others were found, made from the bones and 12 OUR ORIGIX. horns of the Roe and Reindeer, such as needles, arrow- heads, awls, scraping knives etc. and also the canine tooth of a young Cave Bear, bored lengthwise and worked in a peculiar manner, apparently to represent the head of a bird. This probably was suspended from the neck as an amulet or ornament. The bones of animtils were very numerous and for the most part belonged to species which lived in that Quater- nary or Diluvial period of geological history which imme- diately preceded our own epoch. No fewer than nineteen species were counted, and among these were the very ani- mals which are most characteristic of the Diluvial period, such as the Cave Bear, the Cave Hyaena, the Mammoth or primaeval Elephant, the Woolly Rhinoceros, the Gi- gantic Irish Deer, Horse, Reindeer and Aurochs. Bones of herbivorous animals were by far the most numerous; those of the Carnivora and also those of the Mammoth and Rhinoceros occurred but rarely. Hence we may conclude, that the last named animals were too formidable or too powerful to be hunted and killed by these early men. All the marrow-bones, without exception, were broken and split up to enable these primitive people to get at the mar- row, which was one of their great dainties. Most of the bones were also scratched or furrowed lengthwise, as if they had been scraped with some roug-h instrument, such as a flint knife, to detach the last morsels of flesh adhering to them. Many of the bones also showed marks of the teeth of predaceous animals, and the spongy portions of them were gnawed off. This must have been done by the Hyaenas, of which the petrified faeces (coprolites) were found lying about in abundance. Many bones showed evident traces of the action of fire, and these were of such a kind as to prove, that the bones were in a fresh state when exposed to it. Of Jiurnan bones not one was fonnd outside the cave. Within it, however, many were found, chiefly those of the hands and feet, which had been left behind in the OUR ORIGIN. 13 first clearing- out. Their general condition was precisely the same as that of the bones of the extinct animals, the Cave Bear, Mammoth etc., and their chemical examination showed them to contain exactly the same quantity of or- ganic matter. All the bones whether of men or animals presented the signs of high antiquity; they were friable and porous, and adhered to the tongue. Besides the human bones the interior of the cave con- tained a number of bones belonging to the same species of animals that were found outside it, but these presented one very remarkable difference, — no traces of any violence, of gnawing, breaking or the action of fire could be detected upon them. Amongst others all the bones of the leg of a Cave Bear were found lying together in their natural position, from which we may justly conclude, that this limb was put into the cave in an uninjured state and whilst still covered with flesh. There were also eighteen small, flat plates of a pearly substance, evidently derived from a cockle-shell (Cardiniii). These were all perforated in the middle and were probably strung upon a cord for the purpose of being used as a necklace. Lastly the cave contained a great number of well preserved flint- knives, which apparently had never been used, a few instruments made of horn, and other objects of the same kind. There were however in the interior of the cave no traces of the charcoal and ashes which were so plentiful on the outside of it. On his third visit to the cave M. Lartet examined the rubbish, which had been heaped up near it when it was first cleared out. In this he found many specimens of worked flint-stones and teeth of men and animals, together with a great number of fragments pottery roughly made by hand and dried in the sun or half burnt, and various ornaments made of hard bone. There is little difficulty in seeing what is the significance of this remarkable dis- covery. The cave of Aurignac was evidently a primaeval 14 OUR ORIGIN. sepulchre of the so called Stone-age, in which the remains of seventeen human beings had been successively deposited. These people were of small statute. More than this, unfor- tunately, we cannot say, as the skeletons could not be found in the place of their second interment. The objects found in the interior of the grotto seem to indicate, that in accordance with the custom still prevailing among barba- rous people food, implements, weapons and even ornaments were placed in the grave with the dead. The heavy sandstone slab before the entrance to the cave evidently served to close it temporarily and to protect it from the visits of wild animals. The flat place or terrace in front of the cave is even more interesting^ than the cave itself. Upon this, evidently, the relations and other mourners of the deceased held the funeral feasts. This is clearly proved by the hearth, the fragments of charcoal, the bones, with traces of the action of fire and of violence upon them, and the instruments with which the flesh was cut and scraped from the bones. After each interment, when the place was left by its human visitors and the cave itself was closed with the sandstone slab, the Hysenas came at night to regale upon the relics of the feast, as is proved by the niarks of gnawing upon the bones and the coprolites scattered about. Thus this discovery gives us a pretty distinct picture of the life and doings of the primitive European man, at a period when history did not exist, and when Europe was still inhabited by those large and powerful quadrupeds, which have hitherto been reg'arded as characteristic of a geological period antecedent to our own, and which have since given place to a very different set of animal inhabi- tants. The antique picture thus unrolled before us agrees in its details most remarkably with that, which we obtain from the accounts of travellers of the customs of savag-e nations in distant parts of the earth. Thus amongst others, we have the journal of an English traveller, John Carver, who journicd through North-America in the years 1766 — 68 OUR ORIGIN. 15 and witnessed the funeral ceremonies of an Indian tribe in what is now the state of Jowa, at the junction of the Missis- sippi with St. Peter's River. He describes these cere- monies perfectly in accordance with the data furnished by the discovery at Aurig'nac, and, as Sir Charles Lyell states (Antiquity of Man), his account served our great poet Schiller as the model of his well-known 'Nadozvessische Todtc)iklagc\ in which the rites observed at the funeral of an Indian chief are described in precisely the same manner. The actual antiquity of the cave of Aurignac has been estimated at 50—10,000 years. Whether or not this esti- mate is correct, this remarkable discovery certainly justi- fies us in coming to the following" conclusions: 1. That long" before the existence of any history or even of any tradition a savage tribe of men must have lived in Europe in a barbarous condition or displaying such rudiments of civilization, as we now find among existing savages ; 2. That this tribe of men must have lived contempora- neously with the Mammoth, the extinct Rhinoceros, the Cave Bear etc., that is to say with animals which have long since become extinct and which, as has already been stated, are generally regarded as characteristic of a prehuman geological period (2). These conclusions, which carry back the presence of man upon the earth to an unsuspected distance in the past, would be perfectly justified, even if we had no other evidence to stand upon than that furnished by thecaveof Aurignac. But the fact of the very ancient existence of man, of his contemporaneity with certain extinct animals (a pro- position long disputed with the greatest violence but now perfectly demonstrated) does not rest only on the discovery at Aurignac, which is cited here merely as a simple example; but similar discoveries in proof of it have been made in nearly every part of the world — in England, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Belgium, nay even in America, l6 OUR ORIGIN. Asia, Australia etc. Everywhere the same or very similar conditions have been found to prevail, — everywhere ca- verns have occurred, in which remains of Man or indubitable evidences of human handiwork are found associated with the remains of supposed prehuman animals, and in many instances under circumstances which, when carefully ex- amined, leave no doubt, that the men and animals must have been contemporaries. From a comparatively early date the discoveries of Schmerling and Spring in the numerous Belgian caves have been particularly celebrated; as early as 1833 — 34 Schmerling, with perfect justice, deduced from them the contemporaneity of man with the animals of the Diluvial period. '■') But in opposition to the general prejudices his testimony was wasted like that of one preaching in the desert. The same fate had previously befallen the French naturalists Journal andChristol, who, as early as 1828—29, had made similar discoveries and drawn similar conclusions from them, in the equally numerous caves of the South of France (suchasBize nearNarbonne, GondresnearNimesetc.);andthe assertions of the English Geologist Buckland in his 'Reliquiae Diluvianae' (1822) and of the German palaeontologist Baron von Schlotheim had met with no better reception. The last named naturalist had made some discoveries in the years 1820 — 1824 in the gypsum quarries nearGera in Thuringia, which led him also to infer the contemporaneity of man with the Diluvial animals. The Danish naturalist Lund was so much under the influence of this prejudice, that not *) He book inwliich Schmerling gave his important observations to the world is entitled: Recherches sur les ossements fossiles decouverts dans Ics cavenies de la province de Liege ('1833J. "It is impossible", says Professor Fuhlrott, "to read his report without sympathy; we feel with him the diflicully of the task of establishing an o]nnion which offends against the lirmly rooled jirejiidices of the day. And in fact neither by the solidity of his argnincnts, nor by the warmth of conviction, with which he sujjports them, could he at that time gain any adliercnts to his opinions." — OUR ORIGIN. 17 even his interesting discoveries in the numerous bone-caves of Brazil, could thoroughly convince him of its falsehood. But since this period numerous and careful investigations of other bone-caves have been made, especially in Eng- land, France and Belgium, partly at the expense of the respective governments of these countries, and all have led to the same results. Among the Belgian caves the so- called TroiL de Fro)ifal, situated in the valley of the Lesse, is particularly worthy of mention, because, when it was discovered, it presented so precisely the same cha- racter as the cave of Aurignac , that the two caverns might almost be described in the same Avords. Here again the mouth of the cave was closed by a slab of sandstone; within it the remains of fourteen human beings of small stature were deposited ; whilst in front of it there was an esplanade for the funeral feasts, with its hearth and traces of fire and with many flint-knives, bones of animals, shells etc. But all these early discoveries were incapable of overthrowing a scientific prejudice which had for so long a period enjoyed an unrestricted dominion over the learned world and indeed, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, still maintains itself in great force in some scientific and in very many non-scientific circles. This prejudice consists in the assumption, that man cannot have had a more ancient existence upon the earth than the latest of known geological periods, namely that of the socalled Alluvium, which is a deposit produced by the action of our existing rivers upon their banks and at their mouths. The formation of this deposit necessarily presupposes that, \\hen it took place, the surface of the earth was of the same form as at the present day; the equilibrium be- tween land and water must likewise have been the same, and the same fauna and flora must have been in existence as at present. 2 l8 OUR ORIGIN. The existence of man upon the earth was therefore believed not to date more than a few thousand years before the Christian era. This prejudice , sanctified by ag^e and, as it was supposed, supported by great scientific authority, had indeed been nourished and strengthened by many circumstances, among which a principal part must be ascribed to the numerous disappointments, which had been experienced with regard to discoveries of supposed fossil human bones, which afterwards turned out to be those of animals (3), and to the asserted opposition of the great anatomist and naturalist Cuvier (4). But another circumstance may have contributed even more than these to the misapprehension of the truth, and this was that the prejudice in question agreed remarkably with a widely diffused philosophical opinion, which had by degrees be- come the darling of the general public. According to this opinion, man, as the final flower or crown of creation, its corner-stone as it were, could not have appeared upon this theatre of his being until the last and most recent geological period (the Alluvium), and thus he forms not only the highest fulfilment, but also the final conclusion of all organic creative activity. Of course this comfor- table opinion was in danger of being greatly diminished in value or perhaps even altogether upset by the inves- tigations to which we have referred, and as the majority of men, in their fondness for intellectual repose and com- fort, dread nothing more than the shaking of old established articles of faith , they prepared to fight against the new ideas to the very last drop of their blood. It must be confessed, that there was one circumstance much in favour of the opponents of the new doctrine in their struggle against the fossil man (5) and the evidence derived from the cave - discoveries. So long as we had only these cave-discoveries to appeal to it was said: Granting the truth of all these discoveries and their results, how is it, that we find no human remains and no traces of human action in the regular strata of the period before the allu- OUR ORIGIN. IQ vium, in deposits open to the light of day? Why do we always meet with them only in these dark caves and grottos, where there is always a possibility, that the re- mains of man and animals may have been swept together by great floods of water, and where at any rate the pe- culiarity of the conditions, under which these remains are discovered, leaves so much enveloped in obscurity and mystery ? But even to these grave questions the indefatigable spirit of investigation has found an answer. And here we might narrate the touching history of a man who, for twenty long years, in spite of misapprehension and scorn, con- tended in vain against the great prejudice in favour of the late appearance of the human race upon the earth , until finally he was rewarded by victory and general appre- ciation. We refer to the celebrated French antiquary and discoverer of antediluvian flint axes , Boucher de Perthes, of Abbeville on the Somme. The Somme , as is w^ell known , is a river of the North of France (in Picardy) and falls into the English Channel. In the greater part of its course it runs through a district of white chalk, partly covered with Tertiary depo- sits. Above these Tertiary strata there are great beds of rolled pebbles, sand, gravel and loam, belonging to the Diluvial period which we have already so frequently men- tioned. In the vicinity of the towns of Amiens and Abbeville these beds were laid bare to a considerable ex- tent, partly by the formation of great gravel pits and fortifications, and partly, in more recent times (1830 — 1840) by the construction of a canal and railway. Years ago the bones of diluvial and extinct animals (such as Ele- phants, Rhinoceroses, Bears, Hyaenas, Deer etc.) had been found in these diluvial deposits at a depth of 20 — 30 feet and close to the underlying chalk; these were sent to Cuvier in Paris, who determined and described them. And it was here and in precisely the same places that Boucher de Perthes found those famous flint axes of the rudest 2* 20 OUR ORIGIN. form, which have given a totally different aspect to the whole question of the antiquity of the human race upon the earth. Boucher de Perthes had seen (probably in 1805 and 1810) certain worked flints in Italian caves and was led to ascribe to them a high antiquity on account of their peculiar coloration. His archaeological knowledge enabled him to distinguish these flint axes from the so called celts, the polished stone weapons of a much later date , which have been found in a great many places and may be seen in abundance in every collection of antiquities. In the year 1838, Boucher de Perthes first exhibited the flint axes found by him to the scientific So- ciety of Amiens , but without any result. With equal want of success he took them to Paris in 1839. In 1841 he began to form his collection, which has since become so celebrated. In 1847 he published his 'Antiquites antedilu- viennes', but even this work attracted no attention, until, in 1854, a French savant named Rigollot, who had long been a determined opponent of Boucher de Perthes' views, became convinced of the correctness of his statements by personal examination and then made a successful search for these flint implements in the neighbourhood of Amiens. He Vv^as soon followed by others, especially Englishmen, among whom were the celebrated geologist. Sir Charles Lyell, (in whose presence during two visits to the locality no fewer than 70 flint hatchets were turned out), Mr. Prestwich, M. A. Gaudry and others. Scientific men soon assembled in the valley of the Somme from all quarters, and all those who came and ex- amined for themselves went away converted to the new opinions. Of course , as might be expected , objections of all kinds were raised. Some declared, that the hatchets had been thrown out of a volcano; others that they were natural products of the action of water or frost. Others again, without venturing to deny their artificial origin, maintained that they had reached the depth, at which they lay, either by a gradual sinking caused by their own weight OUR ORIGIN. 21 or by falling into fissures of the soil. However, all these objections were soon shown to be untenable. Commis- sions of scientific men, including the most celebrated names of England and France among their members, assembled repeatedly to investigate the matter, and the general result of their examinations was expressed in the following im- portant statements: 1. The flint hatchets are undoubtedly the work of hu- man hands; 2. They lie in virgin or undisturbed deposits of the Diluvial age, which have not undergone any alteration or reconstruction by natural phenomena since their original deposition , and therefore in deposits the formation of which presupposes a structure of the surface of the earth essentially different from that which now exists; 3. They occur associated with remains of fossil animals now entirely extinct; and \k\ey prove that the aiitiqnity of man -upon the cartli readies far beyond all historic times and indeed far beyond all tradition. *) These flint axes have been found in such abundance in the Valley of the Somme, that their number, several years ago, must have been some thousands, not to mention the innumerable chips, flakes and imperfect specimens that have been met with. Manufactured from the flint -nodules so abundant in the white chalk of France, these implements represent the *) Carl Vogt expresses himself in the same way in his ' Vorlesioigeii iihcr den J\fe>ischen' — At p. 52 of his first volume he says: "It is now incontestably proved, that these flint weapons could only have been fabricated by man, that they owe their existence to no other natural cause, that they lie in great quantities in beds which have never been disturbed or moved since their first deposition, and that they undoubtedly belong to the same period as all the extinct animals that I have already men- tioned." — And A. Laugel in his ^Lhomme antcdiliivien says: "The greatest sceptics now admit, that the stones found in such considerable numbers by Boucher de Perthes are indebted to the hand of man for their peculiar form and their sharp edges." — 22 OUR ORIGIN. first and lowest stage of human industry. They were produced merely by knocking together the flint -nodules, which, when thus treated, split up with a sharp, conchoidal (or shell-like) fracture. Flint, hard as it is, is in fact very easy to split, especially when it is operated on in a fresh state with its pit-moisture still in it, or when it has been soaked for a good while in water. When the nodules had been split up roughly, the fragments were worked at with little taps until they attained a useful form, and then the instrument was complete (6), That this was the process really adopted, and that it effects the desired purpose, has been proved by experiment. In these rudest forms of flint implements we find no trace of any finishing process; they are neither polished, ground, nor ornamented, in the manner usual with stone weapons of a later date. Nor do we find in them a hole for the handle or an external excavation or contracted part for reception in a haft embracing the stone on the outside. These flint axes were either held in the hand itself or merely stuck into a piece of wood, as is done to the present day by many savage people, who usually wedge their stone weapons into the cleft branches of trees and endeavour to fix them firmly by tight binding above and below the stone. At the places, where these flint axes were found in the valley of the Somme, no other traces of human handiwork were met with, not one of those articles made of horn, bone, shell etc., which have been so frequently found in deposits of later date and in the numerous ossiferous caves especially have scarcely ever been missed. From this we may conclude, that the objects found in the Valley of the Somme are certainly more ancient than the cave of Aurignac, which has already been described and in which there was a great collection of iirticles made of bone and horn together with flint knives which also indicate a later stage of civilization. OUR ORIGIN. 23 We may therefore regard the flint axes of the valley of the Somme, commonly known to archaeologists, from the special localities where they are found, as stone im- plements of the Ainiens- or of the Abbeville -type, as the earliest known trace of human industry or as indicating the first and rudest beginning of the arts of civilization. As representing such a commencement as this these objects, notwithstanding their simplicity and roughness, possess the highest significance and must excite our deepest interest. For they show us with what rude and primi- tive steps man must have commenced his long and weary march towards civilization , how poor and insignificant were the first beginnings of a culture, which has since yielded such grand and noble results. They furnish us with the best guide to the recognition of the great funda- mental law of nature and of man, according to which every thing great and admirable, that man or the universe can yield or possess, is not a gratuitous gift from above, but only attained by slow and laborious development from simple and rude beginnings, by gradual evolution of the powers and faculties slumbring in nature and in man. ^'■Ev oh I Hon is henceforward the spell by means of which we may solve all the mysteries surrounding us or at least put ourselves in the way of solving them." fHdckel, Natilr- liche Schopfungsgeschichtc, Berlin, 1868.) To use the words of the celebrated discoverer of the flint axes, Boucher de Perthes, in his excellent memoir De r Homme a?itcdiluvien (Paris, i860): "Let us not then disdain these first essays of our forefathers ; if they had not m.ade them, if they had not persevered in their efforts, we should have neither our towns nor our palaces, nor any of those masterpieces which we admire in them. The first man who struck one pebble against another to give it a more regular form , gave the first blow of the chisel which produced the Minerva and all the marbles of the Parthenon." We must not, however, omit remarking, that the 24 OUR ORIGIX. valley of the Somme is no longer the only place where rude flint implements of the character just described have been found. Since these axes and their appearance have become so well known and general attention has been called to them, they have been found in many other parts of France and especially in the Valley of the Seine, where their occurrence in the lowest Diluvial deposits, associated with the bones of Diluvial animals, was very accurately ascertained by Gosse. And they have been discovered not only in France, but in many other parts of Europe, Asia, America etc., and in all cases in the same Quaternary or Diluvial deposits, in company with bones of the same extinct animals to which reference has already so fre- quently been made, and, singularly enough, with the same absence of all products of a more advanced state of civili- zation. It must not be supposed however, that we merely find single bones of the animals mixed with the products of human industry, but sometimes the bones of entire limbs or other parts of the body are met wnth in their normal position in the gravel-beds which contain the axes (Baillon), so that the idea of subsequent inter- mixture or sweeping together by water is at once excluded. A very convincing discovery of this kind was made on the banks of the Manzanares near Madrid by Casiano de Prado. In 1845 — 1850 large portions of skeletons of a Rhino- ceros were found in the diluvial sand occurring there and soon afterwards a nearly perfect skeleton of an Elephant. In a bed of rolled pebbles lying bencatli this ossiferous Diluvial sand several flint axes of human workmcinship were discovered. According to Carl Vogt (Arcliiv fiir Anthropologic, 1866, Part I.) this discovery removes all doubt. The flint axes have hitherto been found most abund- antly in old river-valleys in England and France, and, in England, also on some parts of the coast. Their number, which was at first small, has gradually become so con- siderable , that Sir John Lubbock estimates at more OUR ORIGIN. than 3000 the flint implements of the earhest stone age or the palaeolithic period, as he calls it, which have been exhumed in the north of France and south of England alone. None of these utensils are ground or polished, and they are nowhere associated with worked metals or pottery or with objects made of bone, horn etc. From an historical point of view it is certainly worthy of notice, that, as soon as the discoveries in the valley of the Somme were made known, people remembered, in England, that as long ago as the year 1797, these same flint axes had been dug out in great numbers from a brickfield near Hoxne in the county of Suffolk, where they occurred at a depth of 12 feet in company with the bones of extinct animals. As no one knew what to make of them they were thrown by baskets-full upon the neighbouring road. The Eng- lish Antiquary, John Frere, had noticed them, however, and in the year 1801 he read a paper upon them at a Meeting of the Society of Antiquari s , but the matter was not regarded as of any importance. Nevertheless Frere even then remarked quite justly, that the discovery pointed to a very remote and indeed to an antediluvian period. Short as his communication is, it contains the essence of all sub- sequent discoveries and speculations as to the antiquity of the human race. Even before this time, in the year 1715, one of these flint instruments of the most ancient kind had been ex- humed, in company with Elephants' bones, from the gravel of London; but people were then in a less favourable po- sition than at the later period to draw definite conclusions from this circumstance (7). The great resemblance, that prevails throughout all these axes found in England and France, is very remarkable and is so great that the workmen in the gravel-pits where they occur have given them the general name of 'cafs tongues'. This circumstance may be partly explained, if we consider that at the time of the deposition of the dilu- vium England and France were not yet separated by the 26 ' OUR ORIGIN. Channel; they were then directly united by land, so that reciprocal communication between the inhabitants of the two countries was very easy. Lastly, in connexion with this, it must be borne in mind, that the cave-discoveries have also furnished an abundant supply of rude stone-implements, although these are in part of a diiferent character and generally belong to a rather later date. So much for the flint axes of the Diluvial period, of which such numerous and remarkable specimens are now to be seen in the great Museums of London, Paris and else- where. An attempt has been made to weaken the force of their evidence as to the high antiquity of the human race by raising the following question: Why do we not find associated with these axes other human remains, especially human bones, seeing that plenty of bones of animals are to be found with them? This point was seized upon with avidity by the numerous opponents of the new doctrine and has, in fact, given rise to much doubt. The explanation of this obscure matter given by Lyell in his work upon the Antiquity of man is exceedingly ingenious and, as it appears to us, perfectly satisfactory. But this explanation has become unnecessary, since Boucher de Perthes, the original discoverer of the flint axes, succeeded in satisfying even this requirement. On the 28"' March 1813, Boucher de Perthes took with his own hands from a gravel pit at Abbeville, in which the axes had been found, and from a great depth in it and close to the sub- jacent chalk, a human lower jaw, the same which has since become so celebrated as the jaw of Moulin Quignon. This is now in the Anthropological Museum at Paris. It is of a very dark, blue-black colour, and in its conforma- tion shows some tendency towards an animal character. Some objections to the genuineness of the jaw were made, especially by the English savants, who were perhaps a little jealous of the French discoveries, and these led to long discussions in the scientific world. But on the OUR ORIGIN. 27 13'^'^ May 1863, an international scientific commission decided that the jaw was genuine , that it had not only lain where it was discovered, but that it was actually contem- poraneous with the diluvial flint axes (8). Until the 16**' July i86g, this interesting discovery re- mained an isolated fact. But on that day Boucher de Perthes found a number of human bones presenting the same character as the jaw, and amongst these was a skull of a very low type. These were found not far from the locality of the first discovery, under the same circumstances and at a depth in the ground of three metres (about 10 feet). These, however, are not the only fossil human bones which have been found out of caves. In his celebrated book on theAntiquityof Man, Sir Charles Lyell enumerates several cases, some of them of comparatively early date, such as the fossil Man of Dentse, discovered by Dr. Aymard in 1844, whose remains were found enclosed in the old volcanic tuff of a long extinct volcano of Central France (Auvergne). The man to whom these remains belonged must have lived when the volcanoes were still in activity; and that this activity pertains to a long-past geological period, is proved by the circumstance that the remains of the Cave Hyaena and Hippopotamus have been vaet with in similar blocks of tuff in the same region. Sir Charles also notices the human fossil of Natchez on the Mississippi, which was found in the socalled Mammoth fissure associated with bones of Mastodon and Megalonyx (animals long since extinct and belonging to a past geological period). Further a human skeleton found in 1823 by Ami Boue (g) near Lahr in Baden (opposite Strasbourg) in the socalled Loess of the Rhine valley (a product of the glacial period), and the human jaw from 'Ocvq Loess near Maestricht (in Hollerd) which was found during the construction of a canal (1815 — 1823) together with the bones of extinct animals and is now pre- served in the IMuseum at Leyden. All these bones were discovered under such circumstances and in such a con- dition that, if they had only been the bones of animals, no 28 OUR ORIGIN. one would have thought of doubting their being fossils. But as they were human bones , doubt seemed to be perfectly legitimate so long as the old general prejudice still existed. Now, however, Sir Charles Lyell, who has seen and examined them all, declares them to be decidedly fossils, that is to say belonging to a different geological period from that in which we live. Sir Charles comes to the same conclusion with regard to the skeleton of the celebrated Neanderthal man, found in 1856 in a limestone cavern in the valley of the Neander near Diisseldorf (10). To this we shall have to refer in more detail hereafter, on account of the peculiar interest which it possesses in connexion with the primitive history of man. Since Sir Charles wrote, a whole series of discoveries of human bones, in caves and elsewhere, have been made. In their texture and mode of deposition all these remains possess more or less of the same significance as those already referred to and have a similar claim to be regarded as fossil, but their enumer- ation here would detain us too long (11). Many of them, however, will be mentioned more particularly in connexion with other matters. But even now we have by no means exhausted the proofs of the high antiquity of the human race upon the earth. There is still a third series of proofs (which, however, must be passed over here in a very rapid sketch), and for these we are almost exclusively indebted to the celebrated and indefatigable French palaeontologist, E. Lartet. Although the geologist, who pays attention only to the position of the strata andthepossibility of their having undergone disturbances after their original depo- sition, may still perhaps entertain some doubt upon the subject (12), this evidence can leave no doubt on the mind of the zoologist and palaeontologist as to the contemporaneity of man and the Diluvial animals. The pi'oofs 771 qiicsHori co77sist 771 flic 1 7' aces of tlic actio7i of i7ia7i 7ipon the bo7ies of extinct a7ii77ials. Even before Lartet such things were known. Thus in Sweden and Iceland signs of OUR ORIGIN. 29 wounds made by the hand of man during- the life of the animals had been found upon the osseous remains of an Aurochs (Bosprisciis) and of an Irish-Deer, and the same fact is said to have been observed in America upon injured bones of the Mastodon. But our first accurate and certain know- ledge upon this point was furnished by Lartet, who has made the subject his special study. He indicates, in France, uiiie characteristic Diluvial animals, namely the Cave Bear, the Cave Lion, the Cave Hyaena, the Mammoth, the Rhinoceros with a bony septum to the nostrils (R. tichorhinus) , the great Irish-Deer, the Reindeer, the Aurochs and the Urus. By the occurrence of these species he distinguishes four successive periods, of which that of the Cave Bear is the most ancient, that of the Mammoth and Rhinoceros the second, and that of the Urus the most recent. Now Lartet has ascertained that bones of nearly all these animals show^ unmistakable signs of the operations of man, either during the life of the animals or while the bones were still in a fresh state, the bones being sometimes injured by wounds, sometimes worked upon and sometimes broken or split. The last form of human interference is that most fre- quently met with, and its object was evidently to enable the marrow to be taken out of the bones, this having been apparently as great a dainty with our earliest ancestors as it still is among both savage and civilised people (13). Many bones also exhibit a peculiar striation, as if the flesh had been scraped from them with knives or flint flakes. But besides all this, there are numerous indications of somewhat artistic work , such as drawings , rough sculptures and the like. These are rude figures or out- lines, generally representing animals then living, engraved by means of fragments of flint upon the bones and horns of the great Irish Deer, the Reindeer etc. With some of these were found fragments or plates of schist with en- graved outlines of animals, especially of the Elk and Rein- deer, but some also of much more ancient species, such as the Mammoth or long-haired Elephant etc. Even the 30 OUR ORIGIN. rude and imperfect outline of the figure of a man has been discovered, engraved upon a fragment of Reindeer horn, between two very characteristic horse's heads. These drawing-s, which are of course very rough and often very grotesque, display to us the very infancy of art; nevertheless from the unanimous testimony of those who have seen them, they are so characteristic that we may recognize at the first glance the animals or objects which they were intended to represent. The figures of the Reindeer and the Mammoth {14) are particularly distinct. Thus M. de Lastic found in the cave of Bruniquel on the banks of the Arveyron a bone adorned with carvings, on which were engraved a perfectly recognizable horse's head and the head of a Reindeer, the latter easily identified by the form of its antlers. The handles of daggers made of ivory or bone have also been found, on which the above- mentioned animals were represented at full length. Rein- deer horn is the substance most frequently engraved upon or worked and adapted to all sorts of purposes. In all, Lartet has discovered and enumerated seventeen localities, where these objects have been found and where, according to him, man undoubtedly lived contemporan- eously with the animals just referred to. In the year 1864 he and Christy first exhibited to the French Academy a number of such specimens from the numerous bone-caves of the Dordogne; the inspection of these carried conviction to the most incredulous. (15) But a few years later the quantity of these remarkable objects had become so great, that in the Paris Exhibition of the year 1867 whole glass cases were filled with these and the other material proofs of the prehistoric existence of man. Gabriel de Mor- tillet, the celebrated French archa^ogeologist, concluded a report upon this portion of the Exhibition in these memorable words: "The contemporaneity of man with those species of animals which last became extinct, his contemporaneity with the Reindeer as an indigenous ani- mal in France is amply, positively and irrevocably proved OUR ORIGIN. 31 by the discovery of the products of human industry abun- dantly mixed with the remains of these animals, which have now become extinct or have emigrated, in undisturbed quaternary beds and in the midst of cave deposits which have never been disturbed. Upon this point the glass- cases, which occupy the left hand side of the first gallery of the history of French industry, can leave no doubt. They are quite sufficient to convince any one, however incredulous or obstinate. "The glass-case showing the state of art in the Rein- deer period furnishes a still more decisive demonstration. The hand of man has perfectly represented not only the Reindeer, an animal which has now emigrated, but also the great Cave-Bear, the Cave-Tiger and the Mammoth, all extinct animals, and this has been done upon the spoils of the Reindeer and the Mammoth themselves. Man was therefore incontestably contemporaneous with the animals of which he employed various parts and which he figured so accurately. It is impossible to have a more convincing demonstration." — (Revue des cours scicntifiqnes, 1867 p. 703.;. The discoveries ofLartet and his followers relate only to the bones of so called Diluvial animals. But within the last few years, further discoveries in the same direction have been made known by a French naturalist, M. Des- noyers , and if these prove to be correct, they Avill carry back the antiquity of the human race upon the earth to a period of which no one hitherto ventured even to dream, except perhaps upon purely hypothetical grounds. These consist of the traces of human action on the bones of animals belonging to the Tertiary period, found in the gravel-beds of St. Prest near Chartres in France. They are said to be perfectly analogous to the traces of human action observed on bones from the Diluvial period. The Tertiary period forms, as is well-known, the last of the three great sections (the Primary , Secondary and Tertiary periods), under which it is usual to arrange the 32 OUR ORIGIN. fossiliferous strata of the earth and consequently its geo- logical history. The Tertiary immediately preceded the Diluvial period. Sir Charles Lyell has personally examined the specimens referred to and regards the conclusions which have been drawn from them as certainly very probable, although, on the whole, in his 'Antiquity of Man' he ex- presses himself rather doubtfully about the matter. On the other hand Carl Vogt (in his Vorlcsungen uber den Aleusclicu and in the Arcliiv fiir ^hitliropologie) declares, that the discovery is a genuine one and open to no doubt. He also maintains that the formation, in which these bones were found, is decidedly Tertiary and therefore geologically older than the French Diluvial formations. According to him it is characterised by the presence of the Southern Elephant (Elcplias mcrcdionalis) and be- longs to an epoch which undoubtedly preceded the gla- cial period and the age of the Cave Bear, the Mammoth and the Tichorhine Rhinoceros. The French naturalist Quatrefages also takes the side of Desnoyers and declares that his investigations bear the impress of the most severe and careful study. Desnoyers testimony is the more valuable as , up to the year 1845 , he was one of the most decided opponents of the notion of the existence of fossil man. Its value is still further increased by a communi- cation made by Abbe Bourgeois to the International Con- gress of prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology held at Paris in the year 1867. — In the very same Tertiary strata of St. Prest, in which Desnoyers found worked bones, M. Bourgeois discovered implements of stone. He after- wards stated that he had also found numerous worked flints in strata likewise of Tertiary age in the commune of Thenay near Pontlevoy, and from this and som.e other discoveries he concluded that the existenceof man reached a very high antiquity, extending even into the Tertiary pe- riod. He added that Abbe Delaunay had found nearPouanc^ (^Maine et Foire) fossil bones of a 1 lalillirn'inii (a horbi- OUR ORIGIN. 33 vorous cetacean of the Miocene or IMiddle Tertiar}^ period), Avith evident signs of having been operated upon with cutting instruments. Lastly M. A. Issel communicated to the same congress a notice of several human bones which, as he stated, he had found in beds of Pliocene age (i. e. belonging to the last section of the Tertiary period), in the neighbourhood of the town of Savona iiiLiguria, and which presented all the physical tokens of very hig'h antiquity. (See the Cuniptc rendu, dit Congrcs iiitcrnafional d' Antliropologie ct d'Archeologie prchistoriqiLC. Paris 1868). As a matter of course we can only hope that these remarkable discoveries will be confirmed in course of time and after they have been submitted to a careful critical examination. But , if they prove to be well founded, they are doubtless strongly in favour of the conjectures of those naturalists who, upon theoretical grounds alone, have held that the earliest appearance of man upon the earth must be referred back at all events to the last and perhaps even to the middle or the earliest section of the great Tertiary period. In this summary the evidences in favour of the great antiquity of the existence of man are exhausted, at all events in their principal outlines. But we could not mention in it those evidences which, leaving geological times out of consideration altogether, are derived from the present epoch, from the period of the earth's formation which is now passing. And yet the alluviuvi or so- called lecent formations furnish evidence of a very high antiquity of the human race upon the earth — ■ an anti- quity indeed which leaves far behind it not only the truly historical periods, but even the times of Biblical tradition. For wdiilst the latter can only be calculated backwards to 5—7000 years at the utmost, the duration of the allu- vial period according to the calculations of Geologists was at least a hundred thousand years and perhaps still more, 3 34 OUR ORIGIN. SO that this alone gives a very wide range in time for the socalled prehistoric existence of man. Moreover, the evidence derived from this source has one great advantage over the earher proofs ; it does not rest upon argument, but, at least in part, upon direct calculation and observation. The discoveries made in the alluvial deposits are now, as might be expected, very numerous and varied; only a few of the best known will be cited here as examples. In the years 1851 — 54 experimental borings were made in the Delta of the Nile in Lower-Egypt, and objects of human handiwork or fragments of pottery were found at depths of 60 — 70 feet. Reckoning the thickness of the alluvial deposits in the Delta of the Nile at 5 inches in a century, we obtain for these relics of human activity an antiquity of 14,400 — 17,300 years. But if we follow M. Rosiere in estima- ting the rate of deposition at only 2 72 inches in a century, we obtain for a fragment of red brick found by Linant Bey at a depth of 72 feet an antiquity of 30,000 years. Burmeister who "assumes that the addition to the thickness ofthesoilin Lower Egypt is 372 inches in the century, and that since the appearance of man in that region 200 feet have been deposited, extends his calculation of the antiquity of man to no less than 72,000 years. (See his Gcologische Brief e). In Sweden a fisherman's hut was excavated, the age of which is to be reckoned at 10,000 years or even more. Another similar discovery was made in the same country, during the digging of a canal between Stockholm and Gothenburg, when a hearth built of stones, with fragments of wood charcoal, was found beneath an accumulation of 'Osars' or erratic blocks in the deepest layer of the sub- soil, proving that man must have dwelt on that spot during and even before the so called glacial period. In Florida (North America) portions of human skele- tons were found in a bank composed of coral-rock, the age of which is calculated by Agassiz to be at least 10,000 years. On the same continent, in the Mississippi delta, OUR ORIGIN. 35 during- the excavation of the gas works at New-Orleans, human bones, including a skull which exhibited all the characters of the aboriginal South American race, were found at a depth of i6 feet, beneath six different alluvial beds. The antiquity of these remains is estimated by Dr. Dowler at from 50 — 60,000 years. This estimate has been repeatedly attacked with a view to invalidate it, but Carl Vogt, who reproduces the whole calculation in his 'Lectures on Man', says it is impreg'nable. According to Broca all the endeavours that have been made to di- minish the antiquity assigned to this celebrated discovery, have been incapable of reducing it below 15,000 years. Sir Charles Lyell (in his 'Antiquity of Man") cites an old sea- bottom with fragments of ancient pottery near Cagliari (Sar- dinia), which must have an antiquity of at least 17,000 years. A few years ago, in making a railway near Villeneuve on the Lake of Geneva, the section of a conical hill of alluvium was exposed, and from the contents of this Dr. Morlot inferred an antiquity of from 7 — 10,000 years for the existence of Man at that spot (16). Here, also, we must refer to the celebrated Pilc-buil- dijigs or Lake dwellings of Switzerland, Italy etc., which have attracted so much attention of late years. These prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence of a primaeval, prehistoric, semiaquatic population in Europe, of whose existence history gives us no hint whatever (17). To the same category belong the vast, primaeval turf-moors of Denmark and Iceland, which conceal in their bosoms innumerable proofs of the very high antiquity of man in these regions (18); the ancient Mounds or Earth- works in the valleys of the Mississippi and Ohio in North America, which also incontestably prove the existence of a very ancient population already considerably advanced in civilization, which possessed and cultivated the land long before its occupation by the red Indian hunters (19); and lastly the wonderful Danish shell-heaps or kifclioi- iniddciis (Kjokkenmodclings), consisting of enormous heaps 3* 36 OUR ORIGIN. of the shells of marine animals, especially Oysters, which have served for the nourishment of primaeval men, by whom their shells have thus been accumulated. These heaps, which are placed upon the sea shore, are often as much as 1000 feet in length, by 100 — 200 feet in breadth, and 5 — 10 feet in height. They occur on the coasts of Zealand and Jutland and of the islands of Fiinen, Moen, Samsoe etc., and also on some parts of the Swedish and Genoese coasts, always along the creeks and bays, where the force of the waves is great, and generally at the very edge of the water, except in those places where alluvial deposits or elevations of the land have subsequently removed them to a greater distance. In these shell-heaps direct traces of the existence of man are always found, especially weapons and other instruments of stone, horn and bone, fragments of clumsy pottery, stone-wedges, stone-knives etc. in great abundance, accomipanied by fragments of charcoal and ashes, but no traces of corn, bronze or iron, or of orchard fruits or domestic animals, with the sole exception of the Dog. The numerous bones of animals, which have been found, belong chiefly to the Urus, the Aurochs, the Stag, the Roe-deer, the Wild Boar, the Fox, Wolf, Beaver, Otter etc., and all the bones containing- marrow have been split up for the purpose of extracting from them that favourite article of food. Human bones never occur in the kitchen- middens, probably because the people who formed them were accustomed to bury their dead. * That these shell-mounds or offal-heaps must be of great antiquity, reaching indeed into a period geologically * By the exertions of the Danish archaeologist Worsaae the IMiiseiim of Northern antiquities and the Geological Museum of the University of Copenhagen contain an extraordinary abundance of objects from the kitchen- middens brought there and cxhiliitcd in their natural state. These shell- heaps have long been known, bul tliey were regarded as natural deposits until, in the year 1847, three distinguished Danish sa7'n>//s, Steenstrup, Forchhammer and Worsaae, investigated them thoroughly and ascertained their artificial origin. OUR ORIGIN. 37 separate from ours, is proved by the circumstance that the shells of marine IMollusca contained in them, (such as the Oyster, Ostrea edzilts, the Cockle, Cardium cdicle, the Mussel, Mytiliis edulis etc.) are still of a size which is never attained by representatives of the same species now living in the Baltic. Living specimens are not more than one half or even one third of the size of those in the shell- mounds. The cause of the diminution of size is as follows : The Baltic, being no longer freely in communication with the Ocean and receiving the waters of numerous rivers, does not retain the character of a true sea, but is merely brackish, whilst these IMolluscs require to live in the salt- water of the open sea in order that they may attain their full size. This is the case in a particularly remarkable degree with the common Oyster, which, as has been stated, is very abundant in the shell-mounds; this mollusc does not now occur in the Baltic except just at its entrance, where it communicates with the open Ocean. From this we must conclude that, at the time when these heaps were formed, the Baltic had quite a different form from that which it now possesses, and especially that its communica- tion with the Atlantic ocean was much more free and open. Nevertheless, the kitchen-middens notwithstanding their high antiquity belong only to the recent or alluvial period, as they contain only the bones of animals still living.; The sole exception to this statement is the Wild Bull or Urus (Bos primigenius or UrtisJ, which, however, was seen by Caesar. Quite recently similar shell-mounds have been discovered upon a great extent of the coasts of both North and South America. (20) To the pile-dwellings, kitchen-middens and the like we must add as the last and latest term in the series of traces of his existence left by prehistoric man in the alluvial soils the tumuli or 'giant's graves', as they are sometimes called, which were formerly supposed to contain the bones of a race of giants who lived before man, and also the remar- kable objects known as Dolmens or 'stone tables'. But 38 OUR ORIGIN. although the grave -moundis and .stone- monument;? them- selves are gigantic, the men who built them were nothing of the kind, but rather of smaller stature than the men of the present day (21). They were probably supplanted by the taller, more powerful and more civilized race of the Celts, with whose appearance on the scene the first dawn of history in central Europe commences. With these, therefore, we have arrived at the close of that series of facts fitted to throw some light upon the prehistoric existence and high antiquity of man upon the earth, and consequently at the end of our description of the whole matter before us. This subject can only be sketched here in its most general outlines and so as to show its most prominent points, just as an alpine tra- veller standing in the centre of a mountain -panorama is usually told the names only of the most prominent and striking of the infinite chain of peaks and mountains sur- rounding him, whilst the hundreds of smaller peaks, though in their own way perhaps equally remarkable, are passed over in silence. Certainly the questions which naturally arise from the consideration of these facts as to the anti- quity and origin of our race, or the consequences which we are justified in deducing from them, are of more im- portance and significance than the facts themselves. Thus, what is truly the antiquity of the human race upon the earth reckoned in years? What is the relation of this antiquity to the antiquity of the earth itself? And what is its relation to the periods of history and popular tradition? How is it that we have no historical traditions of this earliest period? And what is the relation between the primitive time and the primitive condition of our race in prehistoric periods? Are we to suppose that man has gra- dually struggled from a low and rude state into civiliza- tion? or that he fell from a primitive state of high cultiva- tion, only to work his way again to the same condition at a later period? and if the former be the case, liow has OUR ORIGIN. 39 his gradual advance to his present state of civilization been effected? All these questions, which are almost immediately connected with the highest interests of humanity, we shall now endeavour to answer to the best of our power and so far as the present state of knowledge will permit. But before doing so we may remark that these questions and conclusions do not merely occupy our intelligence, but must also appeal to our emotions, when we consider the immense series of races which have disappeared before our time, and the immeasurable grandeur of that Creation in the midst of which we live. As regards the first question, or that of the determi- nation by years of the antiquity of the human race, any such calculation is excessively difficult except in the case of the alluvial deposits. With respect to these we know pretty nearly the depth of deposit produced in a certain time, and then according to the depth at which human re- mains or objects of human workmanship have been found, we may calculate the time which must have elapsed since those objects were deposited there. But as soon as we pass from the Recent period to the so called geological periods, we no longer possess any such standard of mea- surement and have to depend solely upon approximate data. Hence this question has been answered in the most different ways. In Geology we know no absolute numbers, but only such as are relative or proportional. We do not even know exactly the total length of the Alluvial period, which separates us from antediluvian times, but have to depend upon calculations which are different in different places and which indeed indicate an actual difference in the length of this period at different parts of the earth's sur- face. And as no definite line of demarcation exists be- tween the Alluvium and Diluvium of the older geologists, and as the two pass gradually one into the other, we do not even know, how long the existence of the ante- diluvian animals, upon which, however, the whole question turns, may have extended into the alluvial period at par- 40 OUR ORIGIN. ticular places; and we know nothing certain as to the time either of their first appearance or of their extinction. Nevertheless this much is certain, that since the time when those deposits in which we find the remains of man and of Diluvial animals intermixed were produced, considerable geological changes must have taken place in the surface of the earth. * Thus, to cite only a few of these changes as examples of the rest, nearly all the European rivers had at that time, at least in part, a different and more elevated course; England and France were not yet separated by the Channel, but formed a single, continuous mass of land, so that the men of that period might have gone on foot from London to Paris, if those cities had then been in existence; and the proud Thames, upon whose bosom nowadays the ships of all nations rest, still formed only a humble affluent of the German Rhine. The beautiful Switzerland, so favoured by all tourists and lovers of Nature, was then inaccessible to human foot ; — from the summit of the Alps to beyond the Jura, down to Geneva and even to far distant Soleure, it was buried beneath the chilling pressure of an enormous mass of ice, which bore upon its mighty back gigantic fragments of rock and rolled them along to places where they now look as if they had been transported by the hands of giants. The great desert of the Sahara was still over- flowed by the waves of the sea; its desert and burning sands were not yet exposed so as to produce that glowing wind, which, nowadays, after traversing the Mediterranean, melts away the winter-snows on the summits of the Alps as if by magic and converts the plain of Switzerland, for- merly buried under everlasting ice, into a blooming country covered with towns and villages. Lastly the animals and plants then living were essentially different, in ac- * This is a point which has been demonstrated by Lyell in his 'Anti- quity of Alan' from a geological point of view, in great detail and witli great scientific knowledge. OUR ORIGIN. 41 cordance with this different state of things, from those of the present day. Such important changes as these, in the structure of the earth's surface, in chmate, in the distribution of land and water and in the organic world, necessarily imply the lapse of a very long period of time, that is to say long in comparison to the standards, which the shortness of our own lives has led us to accept as our rules; for in the history and development of the earth a thousand years count as little more than a moment in our own existence. The traces of the Diluvial period itself, the duration and extent of which of course are of the highest im- portance in this question, are not, as was formerly supposed , the results of one or several sudden catastrophes, but of a very gradual course of development and of multifarious and distinct natural processes. For their production they would certainly have required far more time than the for- mation of the Alluvium. We possess sufficient evidence that man must have lived {22} even during and before the glacial epoch , a subdivision of the quaternary or Diluvial period, probably extending very far back in it. From this it follows, that his existence did not merely coincide with the conclusion of the period of the Diluvium, but that it extended far into that period, perhaps even to its commencement, a fact which is further proved by the deposition of the diluvial flint axes in the very lowest bed of the Diluvium , quite close to the underlying chalk. But if the discoveries of MM. Desnoyers, Bourgeois etc. above referred to prove to be correct, the existence of man extends far beyond even the Diluvial period and far into the great Tertiary epoch, and in this case his presence on the earth can only be calculated by hundreds of thousands of years! You are doubtless startled, honoured reader, by the magnitude of this number; and yet in comparison with the enormous periods of time, which the earth has seen pass away during its gradual development and formation, it is 42 OUR ORIGIN. a mere nothing". In the attempt to calculate the time required for the building up only of the stratified portion of the earth's crust geologists have reached a period of from 6 — 700 millions of years! Other g'eologists make a rather smaller calculation, but in this case a hundred million years more or less is of little consequence. Thus we see that, great as may be the antiquity of man in comparison with the periods of history or tradition, he is nevertheless very young upon the earth itself and under any circumstances is one of its last and most recent productions. For even supposing that man was in existence as early as the close or even the middle of the Tertiary period, he still reaches but a little way up in the great scale of the history of the earth. This scale, so far as it relates to the fossiliferous strata, has been divided by Lyell into 36 members, but this number now appears to be too small, as still older strata have recently been found to contain organic remains. In this scale then, the man of the Tertiary period would extend to No. 3 or No. 4, or at the outside to No. 5 or No. 6 ! Innumerable races of plants and animals preceded him in series long drawn out and during almost infinite periods of time, and man himself plays, as it were, only in the last act of a colossal Drama, the first scenes of which are concealed from us by impenetrable darkness. Upon theoretical grounds Sir Charles Lyell regards it as very probable, that man lived as long ago as the Plio- cene or last subdivision of the Tertiary period ; but he con- siders it improbable, that the existence of the human race dates back to the Miocene or middle division of the same period. This latter opinion he founds upon the fact that about this time the general character of the organised world (animals and plants) was still too different from that of the living forms. On the other hand Sir John Lubbock asserts, that in his earliest beginnings man must have lived in the Miocene period, but that we can hope to meet with his bones or other remains from that epoch only in the tropical regions which have as yet been so imperfectly OUR ORIGIXc 4:5 explored ! Wallace even thinks that we must refer the fir-st appearance of man upon the earth still farther back, to the Eocene or first subdivison of the great Tertiary period. From this we may see, that philosophers are still much divided in opinion to the real antiquity of our race upon the earth, and that it is still quite impossible to estimate it definitely in years. All that we can regard as perfectly certain is, that the known historical period is a mere notliing in point of time when compared with the periods during which our race has actually inhabited the earth, or as Lyell significantly expresses it, this historical period is compara- tively only a creation of yesterday. In this opinion all students of the subject now agree, even those who were formerly the most obstinate of its opponents. In point of fact true history, that is such history as we may consider authentic, from its being transmitted to us by credible written or traditional evidence, by no means attains so high an antiquity as is commonly believed. It only commences with the institution of the Greek Olym- piads or with the year 776 B. C. The famous Trojan war is certainly a good deal older and carries us back to 11 00 or 1200 years B. C; but the account of it is well known to be only a mixture of fiction and truth. That the Greeks themselves did not venture to date their history very far back, appears from the circumstance, that Hecatseus of Miletus, who lived 500 years B. C, expresses the opinion, that for some 900 years the Gods had no longer taken women for their wives. This, therefore, would indicate a date of 1400 years before our era. Beyond this earliest dawn of history we have nothing but myths and traditions, oral communications transmitted from generation to generation or isolated data derived from old documents; or a history has been artificially com- piled from monuments, buildings, old inscriptions etc. Thus the traditions of the Aryan race of mankind reach to two thousand years B. C. The Semitic writings place the birth of Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews, at about 2000 44 OVK ORIGIN, years B. C. * and throw back the Deluge into the fortieth century before our era. From the creation to the Deluge, the Bible reckons from i — 2000 years and from this we g"et a totiil of from 5 — 6000 years before Christ. The very ancient historyof the Chinese contains two iso- lated dates as the oldest. According to their writings the De- luge admitted by them took place in the time of the emperor Yao, or in the year 2357 B. C, and the art of writing was invented by Huangti as early as the year 2698 B. C. About this time, and whilst the Jews still led a nomadic life under the patriarchs, the Chinese must have already attained a very high degree of civilization. The mythical or legendary history of that people indeed reaches the enormous anti- quity of 129,600 years, a lapse of time which according to their traditions was composed of twelve great divisions (each of 10,800 years) and embraced three great periods, namely: the reign of darkness, the reign of the earth, and the reign of iiian. Professor Spiegel gives a somewhat similar account of the Babylonians, who ascribed to their ten most ancient patriarches lives amounting altogether to 432,000 years. According to Alex, von Humboldt, Strabo says of the aborigines of Spain (the Turduli and Turdetani), "they make use of the art of writing and have books con- taining memorials of ancient times and also poems and precepts in verse, for which they claim an antiquity of 6000 years." As regards the derivation of history from Monuments and Inscriptions, the first place is due to the most anciently civilized land in the world, Egypt. We all know what grand and interesting results the observations and excavations of the learned, aided by the deciphering of the hierogly- phical writings, have brought to light in that primitive land of marvels, the source of all the arts and sciences; * According to calculations made upon the authority of the inscrip- tions upon some Assyrian tablets now in the British Museum, the time of Abraham would fall about the year 2290 B. C. OUR ORIGIN. 45 and I will therefore only mention that all these results have been thrown into the shade by the recent discoveries of M. Mariette, who has found sculptures, inscriptions and statues dating back to no less than from 4000 — 4500 years B. C. He also discovered pictures and inscriptions upon the walls of the tombs of that time, which leave no doubt, that even at that far distant period a comparatively high state of civilization must have existed in Egypt. We may judge of the high idea the Greeks must have had of the civilization and power of Egypt, when we find Homer (800 B. C.) in the Iliad speaking with great admira- tion of the Egyptian Thebes with its hundred gates, from each of which two hundred chariots went forth to battle (and Memphis was much more ancient); and Achilles cries: "Not if you offered me the wealth of the Egyptian Thebes with its hundred doors, would I stir from this place!" Con- sider also the pyramids of Egypt, forty and more in number, which could only be the result of the industry of a thousand years and must be regarded as the monuments of a long line of royal races, which have sunk one by one into the tomb. And this agrees perfectly with the mythical history of the Egyptians, which commences many thousands of years before their historical era, the latter beginning only with Menes, the first historical king of Egypt, 5000 years B. C. {2^). These traditions of the most ancient civilized peoples, reaching as they do so far back in time, consequently agree perfectly with the teachings of modern science and show that some recollection, however obscure, of a far distant past must have been retained in the memory of these peoples. Thus even if all the geological and palaeontolo- gical evidence which has been brought forward to prove the high antiquity of the human race should be denied credence, this circumstance alone, in conjunction with the perfectly demonstrated high degree of civilization of the ancient Egyptians, at least six thousand years ago, must convince us, that the opinion hitherto prevalent and founded upon biblical authority, namely that the human race is not 46 OUR ORIGIN. more than 6000 years old, cannot possibly be correct. The adoption of such an opinion can only be explained by the profound ignorance which formerly prevailed as to the prehistoric periods of the human race. These were envelop- ed in complete and impenetrable darkness, illuminated by no single ray of light; but nowadays this is all changed, and a new science, called archacogeology by Boucher de Perthes (a combination of geology and palaeontology with archaeology), has already thrown a satisfactory light upon those periods, and in course of time will illuminate them still more. Probably many of my readers will ask here: But how is it that there is no historical evidence of this long period which Ave call prchisforic? Why is this subject enveloped in an obscurity so complete that we have no direct information upon it? The answer to these questions is not difficult. It is evident that the state of prehistoric man was one of primitive and natural barbarism, in which he neither felt the necessity, nor possessed the means of handing down historical traditions. These means could only be furnished by the invention of the art of writing, which took place at a very late period and is in itself very com- plicated. Until then only oral tradition was known, and this indeed has existed from very ancient times. But even this could only prevail to a very limited extent, hampered as it would be by the deficiencies of an imperfectly developed language and by the want of materials worthy of trans- mission. The life of the primitive man was no doubt of the greatest simplicity and uniformity, and, according to our ideas, most wretchedly tedious. It was an uninterrupted and miserable strife with savage animals and with the innume- rable hardships of the external world! The combats of pri- maeval man with the large aniir.als of theDiluvial or theTer- tiary period may certainly have had in them much that was striking and worthy of being handed down to posterity, and we know, that in fact contests with animals play a very pro- minent part in th(i earliest legendary chronicles of all an- OUR ORIGIN. 47 ciently civilised peoples. It has therefore often been suppo- sed, and probably with justice, that these legends may not be wholly poetical and imaginative, but that they may be founded at all events partially in truth, and especially that the well-known terrible narrations of fearful battles with Dragons , monsters and wonderfully formed animals of enormous size may in part have originated in the fact, that man really saw and fought with the large and sometimes curiously constructed animals of the Diluvium or Tertiary period. Be this as it may, it is nevertheless certain that man in his rude, primitive and natural state was quite incapable of having a history, and that he must have struggled up to a certain and not very low degree of civilization, before he would experience the desire and obtain the means of com- municating his experiences to posterity in a durable form. That this is not a mere theory, but the actual fact, may be seen clearly from the condition of existing savages, w^ho have lived from time immemorial in nearly the same state, and at any rate without any real or written history. There can be no doubt that this condition of our existing- savages furnishes the best picture we can have of the primitive condition of man, and that there is an almost perfect ana- logy between the two conditions. All the narratives of travellers show that there is a wonderful resemblance in the weapons and other implements, the customs and the mode of life of the savage peoples visited by them to those of primaeval man, so far as we can make out the state of the latter from his scanty remains (24). This leads us quite naturally to the second and last part of this section, to those questions as to the primitive state and primitive times of the human race which follow immediately from our investigations into its antiquity. How was our oldest ancestor, the primitive man, constituted both physically and morally? what did he do? how did he live? wherewith did he clothe and feed himself? How did he make his gradual progress towards civilization? And what 48 OUR ORIGIN. can we deduce from these researches into the primitive existence of man, which upset everything previously re- garded as true and open to us a view into an immensely distant past hitherto completely enveloped in obscurity, — what can we deduce from these with regard to our proper subject, namely the position of man in nature and the im- portant question, Whence do we come? It is true that to enter upon this field is so far an uncer- tain and dangerous course, that with regard to most points we have to depend rather on assumptions, conclusions from analogy and the like, than on direct knowledge, and thus fancy must more or less lend its aid to reason, in testing and arranging the evidence. Nevertheless we possess a series of certain data, which may furnish us with a tolerably perfect notion of the condition of primitive man and of his excessively slow progress through the lapse of thousands of years to his gradual perfection and ennoblement. And this is especially the case when we call in to our assistance the numerous observations which have been made on existing savage tribes, in which, as already indicated, we have before us a very distinct and instructive prototype or representation for enabling us to judge of the condition of our most ancient human ancestors. In all probability, however, the general condition of primseval man was still lower and more imperfect than even that of our most bar- barous savages. From the earliest period of his existence known to us he has left behind him nothing in the shape of weapons or implements, except those rough stone wedges already described, which were produced by merely striking to gether nodules of flint in their fresh and readily cleavable state. At that early period he was unacquainted even with that first and most primitive of all arts, the art of making pottery, the indestructible remains of which are met with so abundantly at a somewhat later period; nor had he then any of those implements made of wood, horn and bone, which are also found in such plenty among the remains of a kiter dat(\ The difference between the man of the OUR ORIGIN. 49 Diluvial or Tertiary period and the civilised man of the present day, must therefore have been still greater than that between the Australian savage and the cultivated Euro- pean of our own time, — a difference so great that it is only with difficulty and inward reluctance that the uninstructed mind can resolve to admit a logical connexion between that period and the present, and takes refuge in the most improbable theories of the creation of man, rather than accept the truth which lies so evidently before it. For upon this point, at least, our observations leave no doubt whatever, man has not, as the old conception of the universe represents him, descended upon the earth from heaven as a child of paradise, a finished and to a certain extent perfect being, but, like all the rest of the organic world, he has gradually been developed in the course of many thousands of years and of innumerable generations, commencing his existence as a rude savage, scarcely above the grade of animality, and almost crushed by the forces of external nature. Naked, or poorl}^ clad in the skins of animals or the bark of trees, living singly, or in isolated families in forests, caverns and clefts of the rocks or on the banks of rivers, and armed o)ily zuifh /lis wrefcJicd stouc-7vedges, this savage or primi- tive man had to maintain an almost unceasing struggle with the overpowering forces of nature which surrounded him and with the powerful animals of the Diluvial or Tertiary period. Out of this contest he certainly would not have come as a conqueror (perhaps, indeed, he would never have begun it) if he had not been supported by his comparatively great intellectual power*. For, as regards * It has often been considered impossible or inconceivable that the most ancient men with their wretched weapons, could have held their ground before the gigantic animals of the past. But a glance at the still existing savages of America, Africa and Australia, who likewise venture, with their simple and imperfect weapons, to attack the most formidable animals, and even combat them victoriously, may teach us better. "Those must be blind", says J. P. Lesley "who cannot recognise the traces of 4 50 OUR ORIGIN. his bodily powers, these were scarcely greater and probably less than those of men of the present day. The widely spread belief in the former existence of a race of human giants is perfectly erroneous, and, as al- ready stated, depends solely upon the discovery of the bones of gigantic animals which were confounded with those of men. It is true that some very ancient human skeletons or parts of skeletons have been found, which must have belonged to comparatively large and very mus- cular men, such, for example, as the skeleton of the famous Neanderthal man, and the human bones recently found by M. Louis Lartet in one of the caverns of Perigord (Les Eyzies) and probably belonging to the period of the Mam- moth, which seem to indicate a rude, but strong and mui,- cular race of men, with an approximation in the structure of the bones to the type of the apes, and with prognathous jaws, but nevertheless with a comparatively good develop- ment of the brain. On the other hand most of the discoveries of the so called Quarternary period indicate a small race, with a narrow skull and prognathous jaws, and therefore of a type resembling that of the Negroes or Mongols. In the most ancient period of the Mammoth and Cave Bear, the men, according to Broca (Rapport de 1865 — 67), were not of large stature, had a narrow head with a retreating forehead, and oblique (prognathous) jaws, in fact a general conformation of the body such as is now approximately met with in the lowest races of Australia and New -Cale- donia. This is proved particularly by the ape-like human jaw from La Naulette which will be described hereafter. this long, hard, dcsjierate, bloody and diabolically cruel contest between the first men and all the adverse forces of the air and the earth, a contest in which all the advantages were on the side of Nature, and in which, nevertheless, man conquered, because the powers of mind and reason came to his assistance. When we consider what the weapons and implements of the primitive man were, our astonishment that civilization ever found a time and a starting puint must be increased." OUR ORIGIN. 51 and by the analogous hones found by theMarquis de Vibraye in the cave of Arcis-sur-Aube. But the existence of this rude and small type of man lasted until a much later period of prehistoric time, namely into the socalled Reifideer period, as is proved especially by the discoveries made in the numerous caves of the Belgian province of Namur, which were examined by a special scientific commission by the orders and at the expense of the Belgian government. The report of this commission, dated 26"" March 1865, states that besides great quantities of partially worked Reindeer horns and bones, flint instruments, black pottery, shell ornaments etc. etc., there were found a great number of human bones, all of which must have belonged to men of small stature, in this respect most closely agreeing with the existing Laplanders. The remains of 14 individuals found in the Trou de Frontal as already mentioned, like the human bones in the cave of Aurignac, indicate a smaller race than that now in existence. The report prepared by M. E. Dupont describes the Belgian cave-man as "petit, bien muscle, vif et maladif." That a similar small race must have continued to exist even during the Bronze-period, which followed the Stone- age, and in which man had already learnt the arts of alloy- ing and working in metals, is proved by the well-known small size of the handles of the bronze weapons. This fact had struck archaeologists generally, long before anything was known of Diluvial man. If the primitive man was thus so inferior even in cor- poreal attributes to the men of the present day (25), this was still more strikingly the case with regard to his in- tellectual capacities. Although his mental powers en- abled the primitive man, nothwithstanding his comparative bodily weakness, to come off victorious in his contests with animals which exceedeed him greatly in size and strength, these faculties can nevertheless only have been of the most imperfect and undeveloped kind when compared with the general intellectual culture of the existing generation. 4* 52 OUR ORIGIN. This indeed is demonstrated by numerous discoveries of ancient and primaeval human skulls in the most various parts of the world, as these, almost without exception, when they belong to a tolerably high antiquity, show a rude or undeveloped form, and, in accordance therewith, a comparatively small development of the brain. In some respects they remarkably approach the type of the lowest of existing races of men, that of the barbarous aborigines of Africa or Australia. Among such the following may be cited: The numerous negro-like skulls from the Belgian caves found by Spring and Schmerling (26); the socalled Borreby skull from Denmark (27); the skull which was discovered by Link among those collected by Schlotheim from the gypsum-caves near Kostritz, and which was remarkable for the singular flattening of its forehead ; the skulls of of similar form discovered by Lund in a Brazilian bone- cave mixed with the remains of extinct animals; that found by Castelnau under the same conditions in the rocky caverns of the Peruvian Andes, which had a similar form and was much elongated behind * ; the skull , already mentioned, resembling that of a Caffre in form and having a low, narrow, receding forehead and very prominent superciliary ridges, which was found in company with Mammoth bones near Canstatt in the year 1700 and is now preserved in the Museum of Stutt- gart. The very ancient skull found in the Isle of Port- land and presented a few years ago by J. W. Smart to *) A strongly receding forehead always indicates a small or low development of the brain, as is shown by the configuration of the skull among the lowest races of mankind. Frere, whose rich collection of skulls of all centuries of our era has been incorporated with the new Anthropological Museum at Paris, cites as the principal result of the comparison of such skulls, that the more ancient the type the more deve- loped is the skull in the occipital region and the flatter is the forehead, so that the transition of barbarous peoples towards civilization is revealed by the increasing elevation of the frontal region. OUR ORIGIN, 53 the Anthropological Society of London also belongs to this category ; it had its bones very thick, exhibited very pro- minent orbits and was altogether of so low a type that it resembled the very lowest of Negro skulls (see Anthrop. Review for October 1865). We may also mention the human skulls of very low type found in an old grave in Caithness, among which there was one which was declared by several scientific authorities to be the very worst-formed European skull that they had seen with the sole exception of that fromNeanderthal(28), — the skulls found on theCottes- wold hills and reported on by Dr. Bird (29) in the periodical above quoted (February 1865); the skull with a depressed forehead, a greatly developed occiput and Negro-like type described by Professor Cocchi from the valley of the Arno near Florence (see note 11) etc. etc. All these discoveries, together with a great many others which could not be particularised here, are, however, sur- passed in interest and importance by the celebrated Neanderthal skull which has already been referred to. This was found in 1856, associated with an undoubtedly fossil skeleton in a limestone cavern of the Neanderthal near Hochdal (between Diisseldorf and Elberfeld), and has been careful exam.ined and described by Drs. Fuhlrott and Schaaffhausen. It has a very narrow, flat and surprisingly depressed forehead, whilst the orbits and supraciliary ridges are deve- loped and prominent to a degree such as has never been observed in any other human skull. This peculiar con- formation must have given the face of the Neanderthal man a frightfully bestial and savage, or ape-like expression. The rest of the skeleton to Avhich the skull belonged also presented many resemblances in its structure to the osseous framework of the lower races of men. The ridges and crests especially which served as points of insertion for the muscles, are very strongly developed, so that we may conclude that their possessor was a very strong and mus- cular, if a very savage man. This remarkable discovery 54 OUR ORIGIN. naturally created much sensation in the learned ^^'orld beyond Germany, especially in England and France, where many plaster casts of the skull were distributed. In Eng- land the distinguished Professor Huxley after careful examination declared the Neanderthal skull to be the most bestial and ape-like in existence, corresponding most nearly with the skulls of the Australians. Professor Schaaffhausen expresses himself in the same fashion. In 1864 at the congress of Naturalists at Giessen he declared, in opposition to other interpretations, that the Neander- thal skull represented a race-type, and that the entire and undoubtedly fossil skeleton, which precluded the supposition of idiocy, exhibited a number of characters such as have been of late years observed in the skeletons of very low races of men. He maintained finally, that the skull and skeleton must undoubtedly have belonged to one of the Autochthones or primitive inhabitants of Europe living before the Indogermanic immigration (30). As a matter of course many objections were raised to this interpretation of the remains, on the part of those who had an interest in invalidating this important piece of evidence, but these produced no result. The chief ob- jection raised by those who were not accurately informed upon the subject, was founded on the supposition that the discovery in the Neanderthal was an isolated one, and that the peculiar and unexampled form of the skull was to be explained away as abnormal or exceptional. But in reality this is so far from being the case that Professor Huxley was quite justified in declaring that the Neanderthal skull is by no means so isolated as it might appear to be at the first glance, but that it truly forms only the extreme member of a scries leading by slow degrees to the highest and best developed forms of human skulls. The Borreby skulls belonging to the stone-age of Denmark especially are considered by Huxley to show a great resemblance to the Neanderthal skull, a resem- blance which is manifested in the depression of the era- OUR ORIGIN. 55 nium, the receding forehead, the contracted occiput and the prominent supracihary ridges. The same may be said, more or less, of the other remains of skulls men- tioned in our preceding enumeration, as well as of a great number of skulls and fragments of skulls found (with bones) chiefly in the north of Europe, which are cited in detail by Professor Schaaffhausen in his important memoir "Towards the knowledge of the skulls of the most ancient races." In all these similar characters were observable, although in a less degree. In nearly all these crania the strong projection of the supraciliary ridges and the low, flat, receding forehead are expressly noticed as characteristic peculiarities (31). But if we leave out of the account the last mentioned character of the prominent supraciliary ridges, we have in the Peruvian skull of one of the Titicaca race obtained by Baron von Bibra from an ancient tomb at Algodon Bay in Bolivia and brought by him to Europe, a form which, in its ex- cessively small size, the narrowness and lowness of its forehead, which indeed is almost entirely deficient, and its elongated occipital region, exceeds even the Neanderthal .skull in animality and inferiority of conformation. Bibra says that it has more analogy with the skull of a monkey than with that of a man, and the chemical examination that he made of its bones indicates that it is of a very high antiquity {^2). PVom all these facts, and from many other discoveries of human bones, including a great number of lower jaws of very bestial form, which wall be more particularly refer- red to hereafter, we may conclude with certainty, that our most ancient European ancestor, or the primitive man in all countries, must have been almost infinitely inferior to our existing race of men both corporeally and intellectually, in other words, he must have been an extremely barbarous and perhaps almost dumb savage, who worked his way up to a certain degree of civilization and made actual in- tellectual progress by extremely slow degrees and by 56 OUR ORIGIN. means of almost inconceivable efforts, impelled thereto either by his own faculties or by influences from without. Nay from the observations now before us it would almost seem, that for thousands of years scarcely any progress of this kind was made. At least according to the calculations of Lyell and others (see note 22), a very long period must have elapsed between the deposition of the upper and lower gravel beds containing flint axes in the valley of the Somme which are of considerable thickness. And yet no considerable, readily perceptible difference can be pointed out between the axes from the upper and lower beds, so that the in- dustrial condition of primitive man must have remained nearly unchanged during a very long period of time. There is indeed some difference between the axes, but it is so slight as to be recognisable, according to Lyell, only by the eye of the practised observer, whilst the uni- nitiated can see nothing of it. It has, however , been observed that the so called ozurl forms predominate over the elongated ones in the deeper beds. With more accurate knowledge and more abundant material we shall no doubt eventually succeed in obtaining" more delicate distinctions, and may thus arrive at a better notion of the gradual course of the development of civilization {^i^. At a somewhat later period the differences in the stone weapons become so considerable, and the gradual progress in industrial skill of the primitive peoples shows itself so distinctly, that in accordance therewith the so- called stone-age has been divided into three distinct, con- secutive periods or sections, characterised chiefly by the form and the greater or less perfection of the stone wea- pons and other instruments. These are the ancient, middle and recent stone -ages, and they certainly embrace an enor- mous lapse of time, as the ancient stone-age is undoubtedly intimately connected with the first appearance of man upon the earth, and the most recent age of stone was prolonged far into the historical period, and even continues to the present day among many savage tribes. OUR ORIGIN. 57 But in order that this expression „the stone-age" may be rightly understood, it must be borne in mind that of late the prehistoric periods of the human race and its development in civilization have been generally divided, after the example oi the'Northem savants, into the a^-es of stone, bronze and iron, and that this division although often attacked and doubted, has by degrees been fully establi- shed in archaeological science. It is true that the periods are united by the most gradual transitions from one to the other and that they frequently seem to invade one an- other's territories, but on the whole they indicate quite correctly the gradual progress of civilization, the true civilized periods commencing only with the introduction of iron *. Bronze, an alloy or mixture of copper and tin, was evidently a much less perfect material than iron, the use of which alone could have rendered possible that advance in civilization which has landed us at our present stage of development. Of course stone was the most imperfect material and its displacement by bronze or brass was a greater step in advance at the time when it occurred, than that sub- sequently caused by the introduction of iron. From this mode of division, which now serves us as a measure for determining the most ancient periods of the human race, we see at once that in reality the course of development of human society has been the very opposite of that imagined by the poets of classical antiquity and pictured by them in their writings. For while they represent a golden, a silver and an iron age following one another and accompanied by a constantly increasing de- terioration in the condition of human society, in reality the very reverse has taken place. "A life of perfect in- * According to M., Gabriel de Mortillet, a recognised authority, the tirst appearance of iron is completely prehistoric, and the three periods of Stone, Bronze and Iron have very gradually followed one another, at all events in Switzerland and Italy. 58 OUR ORIGIN. dolence and perpetual serenity was not the lot of thecjldest human inhabitants of our country, but a life full of severe and heavy labour, of great and ceaseless cares. And when at last, the bronze and after it the iron age came in, this last did not indicate a growing deterioration in the conditions of human existence, but the greatest iniprovement, and the most rapid progress that has been or could have been made towards the freedom of man" (Virchow). However, as we have already said, it must not be supposed that well-marked boundaries exist between these three periods; on the contrary gradual transitions are every- where perceptible. A transitional period of this kind must have occurred especially between the ages of Stone & Bronze. It is indicated by numerous tombs and other places in which implements made of stone and bronze are found togcflicr. Implements of pure copper are also found in this transition period, so that many people have been inclined to intercalate here a special coppcr-agc{^\). Objects of bronze and iron are also found together in many places; but whilst the bronze was speedily and completely super- seded by iron, the stone-weapons held their ground much longer, and their use extends, as has already been stated, far down into historic timics. Perhaps the last stone weap- ons may have been manufactured with iron instruments, and it is said that the English actually fought with stone implements against William the Conqueror (35). A circum- stance of great significance in the history of human deve- lopment, obser\ed In this transition from stone to bronze and from bronze to iron, is that the first hroiizc ivcapotis 7vcrr made exactly after the pattern of the old stone imple- ijieiits, and in the same way also the earliest implements of iron after the pattern of the bronze implements which preceded them, although without such models before them no one would have thoug-ht of bringing the malleable and ductile metal into the rough and inconvenient forms of the productions of the stone age. From this instance we see most distinctly that the human mind cannot produce OUR ORIGIN. 59 anything at once and directly from itself, but that it is everywhere confined strictly to the laws of its gradual, sensualistic development and to the nourishment furnished to it by impressions from without. Most certainly we have no right to compassionate the limited capacity of our oldest ancestor, who was incapable of his own powers to rise to the idea of a true metallic implement, and could only by degrees observe how the new material was ca- pable of taking improved forms, as we ourselves are every moment guilty of the same fault, but on a larger scale, and both in material and intellectual matters can break loose from the old and antiquated only with the greatest trouble. Take as an instance the defective construction of our rail- ways and railway-carriages, which are still made on the pattern of the old and inconvenient post-roads and stag'e- coaches, although with the materials now at our command, if only these models were thrown aside, the whole arrange- ment might be infinitely better adapted to its purposes and rendered less dangerous , more convenient and cheaper (36). After all these digressions we must return to our main subject, the stone-age, which in its three consecutive phases or divisions of the ancient, middle and recoil period is best of all fitted to furnish us with a picture of the gradually ascending course of civilization. The ancient stone-period is characterised by those stone axes of rude form on the pattern of those of Amiens, Abbeville, Hoxne etc., which are found chiefly in the gravelly or sandy deposits of former river beds, but som.etimes also in caves of the most ancient kind. They show no traces of fine work and were produced merely by blows or taps; they are not smoothed or polished and have no holes for the handle, no ornamentation, or anything of the kind. Associated with them we find no traces of metal, no pottery and no remains of domestic animals; on the other hand they are accompanied by numerous bones of extinct animals of the Diluvial period, such as the Cave Bear, the Mammoth, the 6o OUR ORIGIN. Woolly Rhinoceros etc. Sir John Lubbock (Prehistoric Times, London, 1865) calls this the Palaeolithic period, to distinguish it from the second or Neolithic period, and according to him, as already mentioned, about 3000 flint implements of this age have probably been found in the North of France and South of England. M. E. Lartet thinks that we should distinguish in the Palaeolithic age an ancient period of the Cave Bear and a more modern one of the Elephant and Rhinoceros, but this distinction has been regarded as superfluous by other writers, espe- cially by Carl Vogt (37). According to Carl Vogt {Archiv filr AiitJiropologie, i(S66, Part I) the man of this oldest stone age, who must be regarded, however, only as the descendant or successor of a still ol.der and more barbarous race belonging to the Tertiary period, was of large stature, powerful and Jong- headed (dolichocephalic) judging from the skulls of Engis and the Neanderthal. He paid honour to the dead, was acquainted with the use of fire, made hearths, split the hollow bones and skulls of animals in order to extract the marrow and brains from them, adorned himself with corals and the teeth of wild animals and clothed himself in skins or in the bark of trees softened by beating. He possessed rude axes and knives split off from blocks of stone and implements of bone adapted for various purposes. And judging from the great abundance of flint instruments found in the European caves he was spread over the whole of central Europe north of the Alps. This description does not exactly apply to the bar- barous primaeval man of the earliest diluvial times, and it would appear that the describer must have had in his mind at the same time a series of cave-discoveries belong- ing to a somewhat later date. Westropp who disting- uishes fozcr stages of civilization, names this earliest stage of humanity that of savagery and supposes it to be followed by the stages of hunters, herdsmen and agri- culturists. OUR ORIGIN, 6l The ancient stone age is immediately followed by the middle stone age, characterised by stone weapons and flint implements of finer workmanship and greater finish. We might also call it the period of flint knives, as these are found in enormous quantities, whilst the axes are far less numerous in proportion. But it is generally indi- cated as the Reindeer period, and the man then living as the Reindeer-ma7i, on account of the immense quantity of worked and chiselled bones and antlers of the Reindeer (or Stag) which we find in localities belonging to this time. This manufacture of the bones of IVIammals and fishes, shells etc. was carried on partly for purposes of domestic utility and partly for the production of ornamental objects. But the extremely imperfect civilization of the man of this period is shown by the circumstance that he still possessed no domestic animals, with the exception, perhaps of the dog, and that the remains of a very rude, blackish pottery are only found here and there. The bones of animals found belong partly to extinct forms and partly to species which are still in existance, but which, like the Reindeer, retreated to high northern latitudes before the period of history or tradition. The whole period of the Reindeer-man is completely pre-historic, as according to the unanimous opinion of naturalists the Reindeer emigrated from our regions in pre-historic times. To this period belong the greater part of the objects discovered in caves, especially in the numerous caves of the South of France and Belgium, which have furnished such abundant materials for the primaeval history of man. It would appear from this, that the Reindeer-man lived chiefly or almost exclusively in caverns, which, indeed, not only at that period, but long before and long after it, served mankind as places of residence or of refuge (38). The cave of Aurignac described at the beginning of this section, in which flint knives, ornaments, instruments of bone etc. were found, must be placed in this series. It is also characteristic of this period that in the localities be- 62 OUR ORIGIN. longing to it numerous remains of man himself have been found, whilst this has hitherto been the case to a very limited extent in localities of the earliest stone age. Accor- ding to Carl Vogt the skulls of this (second) period ex- hibit a flatness of the frontal region, with a considerable development of the occipital part and a rooflike form of the cranial arch (as in Australian skulls). With this struc- ture is usually combined strong prognathism or obliquity of the teeth, a short form of the head (brachycephalism) and a feeble structure of the body, so that the general picture of the man of the Reindeer time corresponds most closely with that of the existing Laplanders. The great ar- tistic sense which is displayed in the drawings and carv- ings of the Reindeer-man, as previously described, is very remarkable, and the progress towards civilization which was made by him in the finer finishing of his weap- pons and implements and by the invention of pottery was very considerable. As Vogt says, the Reindeer-man excelled particularly in the art of working in bone. He evidently lived only by the chase and by fishing and thus represented the second or hunter-stage of the four degrees of civilization established by Westropp. To the same stage this author also refers the kitchen-middens or heaps of culinary refuse, as we find in them only chipped stone implements, but none polished or smoothed by grinding. An exceedingly brilliant light has been thrown upon the Reindeer period and the Reindeer-man by the very careful investigation of the Belgian caves which has been made during the last few years, as also by the celebrated discovery at the source of the Schussen near Schussen- ried in Swabia (39). The middle stone-age is followed by the recent stone- age, or Lubbock's Neolithic period. It is characterised by the profuse occurrence of stone weapons and imple- ments of fine workmanship, and especially by the circum- stance that these implements are not, as previously, pre- OUR ORIGIN. 63 pared merely by chipping or tapping, but polished or smoothed by a process of grinding' and cutting; they are also engraved or furnished with scratched ornaments and provided with holes for the reception of the handle. These cut or polished stone im.plements have long been known, and all Museums swarm with them. On account of their generally chisel-like form they are commonly known as Celts (from the Latin ccltis a chisel). The celts are found most abundantly in the North, especially in Denmark (40). What especially distinguishes this third and most re- cent stone-age from its two predecessors, is the greater development attained in it by the art of pottery, which is of such great importance in the progress of civilization. Numerous remains of earthenware made by hand occur in the localities of this period (41). A no less important advance in civilization is indicated by the presence of the bones of tamed or domesticated animals and by the signs of the commencement of agri- cultural pursuits, including the keeping of cattle. The man of that time, whose intellectual and bodily nature was more and more approaching to the present condition may there- fore have been not merely a hunter, but also partly a herdsman and agriculturist. Subsequently also he under- stood the arts of spinning, of weaving coarse stuffs, and of building permanent huts and dwelling places. The traces of this age are spread over nearly the whole earth. In general all discoveries made in the socalled alluvial soil are referred to it, as also the turbaries and shell-heaps already described, the Swiss pile-buildings and the Irish lake-dwellings, the tumuli or grave- mounds, the Dolmens &c. The most ancient remains of the socalled Celtic age must also be referred to this period, which indeed, as already stated, sends its last offshoots far into the historical period. Scattered through the whole of Europe there is a great number of graves, the contents of which show them to belong to one of the two last mentioned periods of the 64 OUR ORIGIN. stone-agfe. By the increasing delicacy and perfection of the weapons and implements, as well as by their greater adaptation for the inost varied purposes both of peace and war, these graves display in a remarkable manner the gradual progress of the people of the stone age. But this progress must have required an enormous lapse of time, and the advance itself must have taken place slowly in proportion to the antiquity of the men and their poverty in the means of progress. How many thousands of years may have elapsed before the transition from the oldest to the n.iddle stone age could have taken place? before man succeeded in giving a rather more delicate or improved form to the rough flint hammers of the oldest period, or in adapting the material at his command to more multi- farious purposes? This remarkably slow progress cannot astonish us if we only bear in mind the picture of the condition of this period which has already been sketched, and consider on the one hand the enormous difficulties with which the primitive man had to contend, and on the other the absence of all impulse, whether from within or from without, to any such progress. For stabilily or ten- dency to invariability or immobility may be regarded as the fundamental character of the savage and primitive state of man, a character which of itself and without the accession of external impulses possesses essentially a ten- dency to almost infinite duration. This indeed may be observed in the case of existing savages, who remain almost stationary for thousands of years without making any essential progress. With regard to this Lyell says very appropriately: "The extent to which even a consi- derably advanced state of civilization may become fixed and stereotyped for ages, is the wonder of Europeans who travel in the East. One of my friends declared to me, that whenever the natives expressed to him a wish 'that he might live a thousand years', the idea struck him as by no means extravagant, seeing that, if he were doomed to sojourn for ever among them, he could only hope to OUR ORIGIN. 65 exchange in ten centuries as many ideas, and to witness as much progress, as he could do at home in half a century." As may easily be imagined it is precisely the first step in the path of civilization that must have been the most difficult and therefore the slowest. On the contrary, with every fresh advance, both the means and the desire to overcome the difficulties or obstacles in the way must have been increased. With regard to the external ob- stacles to progress no doubt the large and powerful ani- mals of the Diluvial period must have disappeared and the mighty geological catastrophes of that age must have run their course, before man could obtain sufficient space and opportunity for the development of his powers and the wider diffusion of his race upon the earth. And even after all this had taken place, impulses of some particular kind would be required, to rouse the primaeval savage from that sluggish, inactive and unintellectual state in which one generation after another had sunk into the grave like the beasts surrounding them, and to force upon him, as it were, the necessity of advancing in civili- zation. Among impulses of this kind I reckon prominent na- tural phenomena, geographical or climatic changes, the immigration or irruption of foreign races, wars, famines, expulsions from old dwelling places, migrations, the com- mencement of relations of traffic and commerce, the grad- ual improvement of language &c., and especially the rise of certain highly endowed individuals who possessed them- selves of a political or spiritual sovereignty. Without any such impulses it is possible that the sa- vage state in which our oldest ancestor lived, might have persisted to the present day. It is true that many people talk about the existence of an innate and necessary in- stinct of progress in human nature and believe that this instinct must always and necessarily produce its due effect. But in the presence of so many eloquent facts which 5 66 OUR ORIGIN. testify to the contrary, it will be difficult for any one with an unprejudiced judgment to believe in such a necessity. Thus not only are there people who have remained station- ary at the same degree of culture from the very dawn of history, but there are others, such as the Chinese, who have certainly attained a certain stage of progress, but have then remained without alteration, whilst we can only find one comparatively small group of nations which has hi- therto been constantly engaged in a course of progress and improvement. But even this progress in them has not always proceeded spontaneously from within, but the impulse towards it has come in historic times only from without. We also see those nations which were formerly the greatest and most powerful and endowed with the most advanced civilisation, such as the Egyptians, Assy- rians, Jews, Greeks, Romans &c., now in a state of almost complete decay, whilst their place in the scale of progress has been taken by quite different peoples in other lands. Thus it is quite conceivable that the European primitive man would perhaps never have emancipated himself from his state of rude servitude to nature, if impulses from without and especially the occasional immigration of foreign races of a higher degree of culture, had not been brought to bear upon him. Whether a complete displacement or destruction of the aborigines by the newcomers took place under these circumstances, or only a mixture and conse- quent ennoblement of the native race, is a question which can hardly be answered directly, but the second case is certainly by far the most probable (42). With this we may consider that we have touched upon all the essential points in our knowledge of primaeval man and his rude condition, scanty as this is at present. It is remarkable that a certain reminiscence of this early condition must have been preserved among the most an- cient men and in the earliest recollections of peoples, for among very many of the latter unmistakeable traditions of the first rude commencements of culture and civilization OUR ORIGIN. 67 are to be found. Thus, for example, the Chinese possess a complete picture of the progress of their civilization, which in its main features agrees perfectly with the results of our scientific investigation. This picture commences with the time when men lived naked upon the trees and were still unacquainted with the use of fire. Afterwards they clothed themselves with leaves and bark, later still with skins &c. &c. In the same way, according to Prof. Spiegel (Genesis U7id AvestaJ the most ancient traditions and legends of the Hebrews, Phoenicians, Hindoos, Baby- lonians &c. all point to a primitive savage state from which the human race rose to a higher condition only by the help of the Gods or of specially endowed men (the so-called patriarchs). According to the legends of the Babylonians their ten most ancient patriarchs lived altogether 432,000 years! The Iranian heroic legend endeavours to show a gradual development of the human race from a state of complete savagery to a regular state of social life, and this it does by the same steps of development that are accepted in the Semitic legends. Its first king, Gaiumard, taught men to clothe themselves in the skins of animals and to eat the fruits of trees, whilst an accidentally ignit- ed tree taught a subsequent king (Huscheng) the use of fire. In this a divine nature was immediately supposed to reside, and the worship of fire commenced. By the Phoenicians also the first use of fire and the discovery of the art of producing it by friction, are placed in the second generation of the human race. According to the Bundehesch, a very ancient Iranian document, the first men lived only on fruits and water. It was only at a later period that they made use of milk and flesh, ac- quired the knowledge of fire, clad themselves in the skins of animals, built themselves huts &c. &c. If we leave out of consideration the merely poetical ideas of the gold and silver ages, throughout the whole period of classical antiquity, no other notion than the above prevailed as to the primitive state of our race upon the 5* 68 OUR ORIGIN. earth and the slow and gradual course of its development. As a proof of this we may cite the celebrated passage in Horace (Satires, Book I. 3,99), which, moreover, seems to have been founded upon the well-known dissertation on the Epicurean philosophy of the history of Creation in the fifth book of the didactic poem of Lucretius Carus. "When animals", says Horace, "first crawled forth from the new formed earth, a stupid and filthy flock, they fought for acorns and places of refuge with their nails and fists, then with cudgels and finally with weapons which, guided by experience, they had made for themselves. Then they in- vented names for things and words to express their thoughts, after which they began to abstain from war, to fortify their towns, to establish laws &c." After the period of classical antiquity had passed away, and by means of influences of an unscientific kind which I will not characterise more particularly, a conception quite opposite to that just described Avas brought forth, and gradually arrived at almost universal acceptance. This is the notion that the primitive man was not a barbarous savage, but on the contrary a being as perfect as possible and endowed with the highest and best qualities, and that we ourselves are only the degenerate descendants of a better and more noble race, corrupted and ruined by sin and labour. A consequence of the adoption of this opinion is that even scientific men are fond of representing the existing savages as the degraded and degenerate posterity of miore highly endowed forefathers *. In this sense the Count de Salles says: "Man, created by God, passed from the hands of the Creator as a perfect work, complete in body and spirit. Whatever may be the actual degradation * In the case of many, or at all events of some savage tribes this view may undoubtedly be to a certain extent correct, but as a general rule it is certainly ijuile false. OUR ORIGIN. 69 of many men, civilization is their final goal, as it was their original state *. "It is difficult to conceive" says Quatrefages after citing this passage, "upon what facts this author relies." In point of fact, such an opinion as this having sprung solely from theoretical considerations can only appeal to theoretical grounds, whilst it is in the plainest contradiction to every known fact. If the men now living were really only the [degenerate and partially corrupted descendants of a former higher and better race, it would be difficult to understand how the human race could still exist, as it is a law generally recognised and proved by experience, that degenerate or degraded tribes and individuals are never of long duration, but that they gradually disappear. Lyell argues admirably ag'ainst this view in the follow- ing words: "But had the original stock of mankind been really endowed with such superior intellectual powers and with inspired knowledge, and possessed the same im- provable nature as their posterity, the point of advance- ment to which they would have reached ere this would have been immeasurably higher. We cannot ascertain at present the limits, whether of the beginning or the end, of the first stone period, when Man coexisted with the extinct Mammalia, but that it was of great duration we cannot doubt. During those ages there would have been time for progress of which we can scarcely form a con- ception, and very different would have been the character of the works of art which we should now be endeavouring- to interpret, ■ — those relics which we are now disinterring from the old gravel-pits of St. Acheul, or from the Liege caves. In them, or in the upraised bed of the Mediterranean, on the south coast of Sardinia, instead of the rudest pottery * The great poet Milton also was, as is well known, a supporter of this hypothesis of the perfection of the primitive man, and sings of Ad. 1 I as the most perfect of men and of Eve as the loveliest of women. yo OUR ORIGIN. or flint tools so irregular in form as to cause the unpracti- sed eye to doubt whether they afford unmistakable evidence of design, we should now be finding sculptured forms, surpassing in beauty the master-pieces of Phidias or Praxi- teles; lines of buried railways or electric telegraphs, from which the best engineers of our day might gain invaluable hints; astronomical instruments and microscopes of more advanced construction than any known in Europe, and other indications of perfection in the arts and sciences, such as the nineteenth century has not yet witnessed. Still farther would the triumph of inventive genius be found to have been carried, when the later deposits, now assigned to the ages of bronze and iron, were formed. Vainly should we be straining our imaginations to guess the possible uses and meaning of such relics — machines, perhaps, for navigating the air or exploring the depths of the ocean, or for calculating arithmetical problems, beyond the wants or even the conception of living mathematicians." Now we do not find in the depths of the earth such things as are here described by Lyell, but in all cases just the reverse, and we must therefore feel convinced that man did not, in accordance with this opinion which we find coming to the surface from time to time (4^). commence with g'reat things to end with small, but that beginning with small things he has ended with great, as indeed is the rule in almost all human affairs! Which of the opinions here described is not merely the most probable, but the most encouraging and satis- factory the author may confidently leave to the judgment of the reader. It is only by a complete misapprehension of the truth and of right sentiments that so many men can have been induced to reject the view here developed of the antiquity and origin of our race upon the earth as being repulsive and discouraging, and to imagine that if it be adopted the elevated sentiment of the dignity of human nature must be endangered. We do not know how to OUR ORIGIN. 71 combat this false pride which regards a lowly origin as something contemptible and degrading better than in the admirable words of Professor Huxley, who speaks as follows in his remarkable memoir on the Place of Man in Nature: "Thoughtful men, once escaped from the blinding influence of traditional prejudice, will find in the lowly stock whence man has sprung, the best evidence of the splendour of his capacities; and will discern in his long progress through the Past a reasonable ground of faith in his attainment of a nobler Future." In reality the humbler our origin, the more elevated is our present position in Nature! the smaller the com- mencement the greater is the termination! the harder the struggle, the more brilliant the victory! the more painful and tedious the course by which our civilization has been attained, the more valuable is this civilization itself, and the more powerful the endeavour not merely to retain it but to develop it still further! It is not humiliation and dis- couragement, but incitement to something still greater, that the thinking and right-feeling man must derive from the knowledge of the antiquity and primitive state of his race upon the earth! Probably everything that we possess in the way of culture, civilization, art, science, morality and progress , is nothing but the product of an infinitely slow and difficult development and self- education, starting from a rude and brutal state, advan- cing step by step, from knowledge to knowledge, and rendered possible by an enormous lapse of time in com- parison with which the duration of our own existence is like that of a flash of lightning. In the light of such knowledge as this our present state of culture must appear doubly important, precious and grand, as it is the final result of an immense elevation, the production of which has consumed and exhausted the powers of so many gener- ations of men. Those who laid the first foundations of this great edifice, could have had no suspicion of its future grandeur! 72 OUR ORIGIN. "Certainly", cried Professor Joly of Toulouse, equally poetically and truthfully, at the close of his lecture upon fossil man, endeavouring to bring clearly before his au- ditors the enormous progress made by science and the arts in the long lapse of ages, "certainly, the little flint hammers of the first inhabitants of Gaul cannot be com- pared with those heavy blocks of iron which are set in motion in our manufactories by the force of falling water or of steam. There is a wide interval between their frail skiffs, their canoes hollowed out by the axe and the action of fire, and our immense armour-plated ships of war. There is also a wide interval between the coarse stuffs manufac- tured at Wangen and Robenhausen, and those supple, delicate and splendid tissues which are produced by our Jacquard looms. The men of the ages of stone and bronze most certainly never suspected that one day the most ingeni- ous machines would take the place of handiwork, increasing the products a hundredfold and at the same time improving them. They could never have imagined that steam would transport our vessels in a few days from one hemisphere to another; that the golden Phoebus and the pale Phoebe would depict their own visages in the camera obscura; that the master of the thunder, the black-eyebrowed Ju- piter, as he was afterwards called, would be reduced in our days to play the part of a mere postman; or that man, armed with Volta's pile, would introduce a light more brilliant than that of the sun into places where the sun had never penetrated. Especially, we may say, they could never have suspected that their own existence would be contested and even denied by the savants of the Institute" (Revue des Cours Scientifiques, 2™'' Amice, No. i6J. In reality the subject of our book is anticipated by the preceding considerations and general details, as the view of the position of man in nature maintained in it is proved not merely by the results of archaeogeological studies or investigations upon the geological antiquity of man upon the earth and his primitive condition, but equally, OUR ORIGIN. 73 or perhaps even still more by the results of systematic zoology, comparative anatomy, physiology, ethnograghy, psychology and the allied sciences, but above all by the study of the developmental history of the organism of man and animals, which has become so important of late. These results, brought together from such numerous and diverse scientific sources, all agree in so unmistakable and surpris- ing a manner, and all point so completely in one direction, that I hope the careful reader will no longer have any doubt as to the true place of man in nature when he has reached the end of the following section, which will treat of the points relating to the second of the three great questions proposed by us, — the question: "What are we?" This section will also contain an exposition and discussion of the theories which have lately been proposed with regard to the infinitely important question of the origin and descent of the human race from the world of animals most nearly connected with it. {End of the first part.) WHAT ARE WE? (the present position of man in nature; his developmental history and production from the egg-cell. — origin and genealogy of the human race.) Mottos. "It is dangerous to let man perceive too distinctly how closely he approaches the animals, without at the same time showing him his greatness. — It is also dangerous to let him see his greatness too much, without at the same time indicating his lowli- ness. — Still more dangerous is it to leave him in ignorance upon both subjects. — On the contrary it is of the greatest adrantage to give him a clear notion of both." PASCAL "Like the Roman emperors, who, intoxicated by their power, at length regarded themselves as demigods, the ruler of our Planet believes that the brute animal sub- jected to his will has nothing in common with his own nature. The affinity of the ape disturbs and humbles him; it is not enough for him to be the king of animals, but he will also have it that an impassable gulf separates him from his subjects, and, turning his back upon the earth, he flies with his threatened majesty into the cloudy sphere of a special "Human kingdom." But anatomy, like those slaves who followed the con- queror's car crying out "Remember that thou art a Man!", disturbs him in his self- admiration and reminds him of that visible and tangible reality which unites him with the animal world." BROCA For it is indeed the true characteristic of science, that she casts her net in search of results on every side, seizes upon every perceptible property of things, and subjects it to the hardest tests, no matter what finally comes of it." JACOB GRIMM. In the first section of this book, after giving a general exposition of the position of Ynan in nature and showing the great importance of the investigations relating to it, we went into the details of the question, and by referring especially to the researches which have been made upon WHAT ARE WE. 75 the antiquity of the human race, and the rude, brutal state of our oldest ancestors, the so-called primaeval fuen, fur- nished evidence of the natural position of man and of his gradual and painful upward development to a more cul- tivated and truly human condition. But in this second section this earliest ancestor of ours will be traced in another direction; and in the first place the question will be discussed of the true position which our race occupies in the zoological system and with regard to the animal world which is so nearly related to it, but especially with regard to the highest representatives of the Quadrumana, and at the same time of the Vertebrate type in general, which come nearest to man in form and structure. And here again the known facts speak a language so clear and incapable of misinterpretation that, when once we are in possession of accurate information on the subject, we can only ask with no small astonishment how it was possible that this matter, at least in its main outlines, could ever have been misunderstood or erroneously conceived by men who could both see and think. For even at the first superficial glance it must be clear to every man who is moderately well educated, that, on all sides of his bodily structure, man is most intimately allied and bound to the organic world surrounding him, that he throughout obeys the same organic laws of form, structure, adaptation and reproduction, — and that he must therefore necessarily be arranged as an integral constituent of one zoological system. It was and is possible to overlook this simple and impor- tant truth only by reason of the immense influence of human subjectivity or self esteem, which regards it as de- grading that we should be placed on the same grade as the animals, or arranged with them in the same system. But as a matter of course, in scientific viatters, this sub- jectivity must be put in the background, and truth can only recognise a perfectly objective consideration, to a certain extent abandoning the personally human stand- 76 WHAT ARE WE. point, or indeed rising above it. This is well explained by Professor Huxley in the following manner. To see this rightly, he says, let us for a moment emancipate or disconnect our thinking selves from the mask of humanity; let us imagine ourselves scientific inhabitants of the planet Saturn and well acquainted with the animated creatures which inhabit the earth, their anatomical and zoological characters etc. Now suppose that some enterprising tra- veller, w^hom the difficulties of space and gravitation had not prevented from visiting other planets, had brought back with him from the earth, among other things, a spe= cimen of the genus Homo, preserved may be in a cask of rum, and that we have been called together to examine this specimen of a creature previously unknown to us, of a peculiar "erect, featherless biped", and determine scien- tifically its position in the system. What would be the result of such an investigation? All the Saturnian philo- sophers would agree without the least hesitation, that the new creature was to be arranged in the well known group or subkingdom Vertebrata, and among these was to be referred specially to the class Mamuinlia, as all the ana- tomical and zoological characters presented by it agree precisely with those of that group and class. If we were further to inquire in what particular subdivision or order of the Mammalia the creature in question was to be placed, there could be no more room to doubt that it could belong only to one of these orders, namely that of the Stmiac or Apes (using that word in the broadest sense). The structure of the bones, of the skull and of the brain, the formation of the hands and feet, the teeth, the muscles, the viscera etc. are all founded in the ape and in Man upon precisely the same principles, and Huxley, him- self an anatomist of great reputation, in his Memoir on the relations of primeeval man to the animals immediately below him, takes the trouble (which was hardly necessary for educated readers) of proving in detail and by the com- parison of every more important organ, that all the differences WHAT ARE WE. 77 of bodily structure that we can find between man and the most highly organised apes (/. c. the socalled mithropoid or man-like apes) are not so great in degree as the difi^e- rences between the higher and lower species or families of the Simiae. "Thus" says our author in summing up the results of his investigations, "whatever system of organs be studied, the comparison of their modifications in the ape series leads to one and the same result — that the structural differences which separate Man from the Gorilla and the Chimpanzee are not so great as those which separate the Gorilla from the lower apes." From all these considerations Huxley draws the important conclusion that, from a systematico- zoological point of view, we have not even the right to separate Man as a distinct order of Mammalia from the order of the Simiae, or as they have hitherto been erro- neously called, Quadrumana or fourhanded animals, and certainly not to sever him (as was formerly pretty generally done) entirely from the rest of the world and relegate him to a particular kingdom of nature, the socalled human kingdom, standing on the same footing as the animal and vegetable kingdoms. On the contrary, man, considered scientifically, can only be regarded as a distinct family of the highest order of Mammalia, an order which embraces in addition the true apes as well as the so-called Prosimiae {Lcmtirs etc.). Following the example of the celebrated lawgiver of systematic zoology, Linne, (44) we may most appropriately designate this order by the name of "Pri- mates", that is to say preeminent or noble forms*. This highest order of the Primates is divisible according to Huxley into seven families of nearly equal systematic value. The lowest grade is formed by the Galeopithecini * The usual mode of grouping of the animal world proceeding in order from below upwards, or from the individual to the more general embraces the following ideas: the species, \\\^ genus, the family, the order, the class, the group or subkingdom and the kingdo7n. 78 WHAT ARE WE. or flying Lemurs, — the highest by man or the family of the Anthropmi (45). Immediately below man come the great man-like apes and the monkeys of the Old world, and the monkeys of the New world, as the second and third families in descending order. First the true Apes and Monkeys of the Old world (Africa and Asia) forming the family of the Catarrhini or "narrow-nosed vSimiae"; after these the monkeys of the New world or America, called Platyrrhini or broad-nosed Simiae." — "Perhaps", says Huxley in concluding his remarkable exposition of this subject, "perhaps no order of Mammals presents us with so extraordinary a series of gradations as this — leading us insensibly from the crown and sum.mit of the animal creation down to creatures, from which there is but a step, as it seems, to the lowest, smallest, and least intelligent of the placental Mammalia*). It is as if nature herself had foreseen the arrogance of man, and with Roman severity had provided that his intellect, by its very triumphs , should call into prominence the slaves, admonishing the conqueror that he is but dust. — These are the chief facts, this is the immediate conclusion from them to which I adverted at the commencement of this Essay. — The facts I believe cannot be disputed; and if so, the conclusion appears to me to be inevitable." The grouping is arranged somewhat differently by Professor E. Hackel of Jena, who has lately written upon this subject in a very thoroughgoing manner**. He * Placental mammals are those whose young during the period of pregnancy are nourished by means of a placenta within the uterus itself. They form the highest grade of the Mammalia in opposition to marsupials or pouched Mammals, which carry their young in a pouch or bag of the abdomen and nourish them there by suckling, and probably originated from the latter in geological times (at the end of the Secondary or the commencement of the Tertiary epoch). •** Ucber die Entstehung und den Stammbaum des Menschenge- WHAT ARE WE. 79 separates Huxley's last three families, theProsimiae in the wider sense of the word, entirely from the order Primates, so that in this order there remain only man and the so- called true apes and monkeys of the old and new worlds. The Prosimiae or Lemures, on the other hand, are re- garded by Hackel, as the common trunk-group from which the other orders of the socalled Discoplacentalia, or Mam- malia with a disklike placenta '•■, have very probably been developed as four divergent branches, namely the Rodeiitia or gnawing mammals, the Insectivora, the Chiropiera or Bats, and the true Simiae (46). "Man however", according to Hackel "cannot be se- parated from the order of the Simiae or true apes, as he stands nearer in every respect to the higher apes than these to the lower true apes." He therefore forms with these animals the highest order of the Discoplacentalia under the common and long known nam.e of \\\q Primates, whilst the four other orders of this group of Mammals are formed by the Prosimiae, Rodentia, Insectivora and Chiroptera. Of the true apes the Catarrhini or narrow- nosed forms, the apes of the old world as they are called, approach nearest to man, as is shown by the formation of the nose, which is characterised by a narrow septum and by having the nostrils directed downwards, and also by the dentition, which is exactly the same as in man, the number of teeth being 2^2, whilst in the Platyrrhini or schlechts. — (On the origin and genealogy of the human race). — Two lectures. — Berlin 1868. *) The Discoplacentalia, or Mammalia with a disk-or cake- like placenta, form the highest grade of the placental Mammalia, the latter including besides these the lower developmental forms ol the Zono- placentalia, or Mammals with a zone-like placenta, and the Sparsiplncen- talia, or mammals with a placenta formed of scattered lobes or cotyledons. The Zonoplacentalia and Discoplacentalia are further united more closely to each other in as much as both possess a decidiia or deciduous membrane, which is deficient in the Sparsiplacentalia. 8o WHAT ARE~"WE. broad-nosed apes there are 36 teeth * ; even leaving out ofconsideration all other similarities or agreements in struc- ture. Only a low and small section of this order, the Marm.osets of America, differ rather widely from man in having the fingers and toes armed with claws, instead of nails, such as are possessed by man and the other apes. The Marmosets are placed by Huxley as the fourth of the seven families established by him in his highest order, and Hackel also leaves them in the order Primates, re- garding' them as a peculiarly developed lateral branch of the Platyrrhini. Among the Catarrhini themselves the Lipocerci or tail-less forms approach most nearly to man and are therefore called Anthropoid or man-like apes. Under any circumstances, according to Hackel, the anato- mical and structural differences between man and the man-like Catarrhini are less than those between the latter and the lowest repj esentatives of the Catarrhine group, such as the Baboon for example**. Of the Anthropoid apes there are now existing only four genera with about a dozen distinct species; these are the well known Gorilla, Chimpanzee, and Orang-Ou- tan and the Gibbons, the last also named long-armed apes. Each of these animals has certain peculiarities in which it approaches nearest to man; thus the Orang approaches nearer than all the rest by the structure of the brain and the number of its convolutious; the Chim- panzee by the structure of its skull and its dentition; the * The dentition, as is well known, furnishes a very characteristic indication of aft'inity among the Mammalia and is therefore of high sy- stematic value. But it is not merely by the number, but also by the kind and general structure of the teeth, and by their earliest development that man and the true apes, especially the Gorilla, are brought so near together. — ** The Catarrhini in general may be divided into two great sections, — the tailed and the tail-less. The first of these sections includes the Baboons, Macaques, true Monkeys, (Cercopithecus) , Slender Monkeys (Semnopithecus), Thumbless Monkeys (Colobus) and Proboscis Monkeys; the second includes the Gibbons, Chimpanzees, Orang-Oulans and Gorilla. WHAT ARE AVE? 8l the formation of its limbs or extremities, and the Gibbon finally by the structure of its thorax. In perfect accor- dance with this peculiar condition of things, the Simian resemblances of the lower races of ma,n are in like man- ner by no means concentrated in any one tribe, but are distributed among different peoples in such a manner that each tribe is endowed with some inheritance from this relationship, some more, others less, as Dr. Weissbach has ascertained by the comparison ofthe measurements of various parts of thebody in different races of man collected by Scher- zer andSchwarz on the voyage ofthe No vara Frig'ate (Vienna 1867) with corresponding- measurements ofthe Orang. According- to this writer the Australian has the most resemblance to the apes in the length and breadth of his foot, the slenderness of his leg^-s, his broad nose and wide mouth and the length of his arms; whilst other anthro- pologists consider that in the lateral compression of his skull, the greater number of his teeth, the later ossification of the intermaxillary bone , his smaller brain and the greater symmetry of its convolutions, as also in his long arms and narrow pelvis, the negro presents the greatest anatomical resemblance to the apes. Some of the Pla- tyrrhini or flat-nosed American Monkeys also possess man-like characters. We find among them skulls of a fine, rounded form, with considerable development ofthe brain-case and a comparatively small projection of the m.uzzle, and in strict accordance with all this frequently a very man-like countenance. Thus the Saim.iri has a facial angle "^^ of 65 — 66 degTees, whilst in rnan this angde averages *) The facial anyle of Camper is formed by two lines, one of uhich touches the most projectinj^ points of the frontal bone and upi^er jaw, whilst the second is drawn from the orifice of the ear to the bottom of the nasal cavity. The more acute tlie angle thus formed, the more bestial in general is the face, wliiL-^t it becomes more elevated and human in character in proportion as the angle approaches a right angle (qo de- grees', because under these circumstances the capsule of the skull, which contains the brain, accpiires a preponderance over the essential parts of the face or muzzle. 82 WHAT ARE AVE? from 70 to 80 degrees (in the Caucasians 80 — 85, in the Negroes 65 — 70) and in the true Anthropoids never amounts to more than 50 degrees *, and thus the Saimiri agrees in this respect completely with the Neanderthal skull described in the first part of this book, the facial angle of which was also estimated at 65 — 66 degrees. According to Giebel, indeed, it is only their size that gives the three first-men- tioned Anthropoid apes their man-like character, whilst, as regards corporeal structure, some American Monkeys, and the Gibbons of which several distinct species exist in southern Asia, are decidedly more anthropomorphous. The anthropoid apes, two forms of which (Gorilla and Chimpanzee) live in Africa and two (Orang and Gibbon) in Asia, have only been accurately known in recent times, so that even the great Cuvier (who died in 1832^ could regard them as creationsof the imagination of his colleague Buffon. NoAV, however, all the considerable zoological gardens and museums of Europe possess living or dead examples of them. It was only by report that early fabulous accounts of the existence of such animals in dis- tant regions of the eirth had penetrated to Europe, and upon these Professor Huxley gives us interesting' informa- tion, (47) together with a sketch of the natural history of the anthropoid apes, in the first of the three memoirs which he has published imder the title of "Evidence as to man's place in nature." His statements, however, althoug'h made only about six years ago, have already in some respects become an- tiquated, at least with regard to the Gorilla (Troglodytes Goj'ilhi or Gorilla GiuaJ, the last discovered and at the same time the most remarkable of the four anthropoid forms. This animal is very large, has very man-like limbs, and, when moving upon level ground, takes a half * The young of the Anthropoid ajics however constitute an exception to this rule. Thus in the young Orang, which possesses a very beau- tifully arched, well formed and man-like skull, the facial angle rises to 67 degrees. WHAT ARE WE? 83 erect postui'e. Du Chaillu's narrati^-es of his extraordi- nary strength and savage nature seem to be exaggerated. It is possible that the Gorilla was seen by the Cartha- ginian sailor Hanno, who, in the year 510 B. C. sailed, with a fleet, round the west coast of Africa and found wild hairy men, which he named Gorillas, upon an island in a gulf. The Gorilla is at any rate of the four anthropoid apes the one which, notwithstanding certain very bestial cha- racters, nevertheless shows the most and most striking approximations in his structure to the human form , and partly for this reason, partly on account of the strange stories related of him, he has attracted a remarkable amount of general attention during- the last few years. Of all the anthropoid apes he is especially characterised by the fact that in consequence of the structure of his foot and of the muscles of his leg he is able with the least comparative effort to stand and walk upright, and at the same time possesses the most human form of hand, although in other respects, especially in the formation of the skull and brain, he is exceeded in resemblance to m.an by some other apes (48). All this shows clearly enough that the separation of man from the IMammalia which approach him most closely as a distinct order or class, or even as forming a distinct human kingdom, can no longer be maintained in the present position of science, and that the entire conception which lies at the foundation of this separation must be rejected even from the points of view opened to us by systematic zoology. But in order to advance as securel}" as possible with regard to this important point we add to the evidence of English and German naturalists already cited the no less clearly expressed opinion of a French zoologist of the most modern school. In an excellent book upon the plurality of Human Races (Paris 1864) M. Georges Pouchet, rejecting the notion of the existence of a distinct human kingdom as set up by Geoffroy Saint - Hilaire and De 84 WHAT ARE WE? Quatrefages , declares that in his physical or corporeal structure man stands in the closest juxtaposition to the anthropomorphous apes, and that this is a fact which no one can seriously dispute. And this resemblance, accord- ing to him, does not exist merely in external form, but we find it to be much greater when we resort to the care- ful examination of the internal parts and most essential organs or to the microscopic investigation of the anatomi- cal constituents of the body. We can only come to the establishment of a distinct ,, human kingdom" when Ave compare the two extremes, — the highly cultivated Euro- pean, elevated and ennobled by inherited qualities from g-eneration to generation through thousands of years, with the brute animal, — overlooking the innumerable intermediate grades which unite them. Even the ideas of good and evil or of God and immortality, upon which, in the absence of essential corporeal differential characters M. de Quatrefages thought he might found his human kingdom, do not exist among all peoples, but are either entirely wanting or in the highest degree discrepant. From the animal to man there is only an uninterrupted gradation or chain of allied links, and the same scientific method must be applied ^to both. The order Biiucuia (as distinguishing man from the ape) is, according to Pouchet, only a creation of the writing table and could only have been invented in a country in which the covering of the feet is universal, for the uncovered foot of man, when not spoiled by the customs of civilised life, in reality forms an admirable prehensile organ and is employed as such by nearly half the tribes on the face of the earth (49). I fence man might be described as qnadrnmanoiis with quite as much justice £is the apes, and most certainly he cannot be regarded as forming a distinct order, but only a distinct family of the group of Mammals hitherto cha- racterised as Quadrumana. So much for the consideration of man and his r(;la- tionship to the animal world from tho st.'ind])oint of syste- WHAT ARE WE? 85 matic zoology. As a matter of course the result thus attained is perfectly in accordance with that furnished by general and comparative anatomy or the study of the general and special anatomical structure of the body in the different classes of animals , a science which , since Cuvier's time, has become so amalgamated with systematic zoology that it is no longer possible to separate them. All the principal parts or organs of the human body agree m.ost perfectly in all essential particulars both of external form and internal composition with the corresponding parts of animals, especially the Mammalia and their highest re- presentatives. Indeed, so much is this the case, that, as is pretty generally known, for thousands of years men had no means of getting a knowledge of the human body, except the dissection of the bodies of animals. Before men ventured, in opposition to the general prejudice, to dissect human bodies, the sole aid to the knowledge of human anatomy was the dissection of Mammalia, and by this means they were as well instructed as to the essential parts of the human frame, as we are at the present day. The celebrated surgeon, Galen of Pergamos, who lived in the second century of our era and set up a system of medicine which maintained its predominance for nearly fourteen centuries, studied the structure of the body only on the carcasses of apes, which he had at once recognised as the most manlike in form of all animals; and as late as the sixteenth century anatomy was taught and studied only from the skeleton of a IMonkey (the INIagot or luiiuus syl- van us). Vesal or Vesalius, the body-surgeon of the em- peror Charles the fifth and of Philip the second of Spain, was the first who ventured to dissect human bodies and in so doing was so unfortunate that during' his dissection of the body of a young Spanish nobleman, who had been under his treatment, the heart began to beat. In accor- danpe with the imperfect physiological notions of that age it was believed that Vesalius had dissected a living man, and in order to expiate this great crime the celebrated 86 WHAT ARE WE? anatomi.st was obliged to mtike a pilgrimag-e to the Holy Land, on his return from which he perished by ship- wreck. How great the anatomical similarity between man and ape must be, may be seen from the words of the celebrated anatomist. Professor Owen, who has studied the subject the most carefully of all living anatomists, and whose opi- nion bears the miore weight, because he has taken his stand on the side opposed to the view here maintained and places man and the apes in distinct subclasses, although not upon purely iinatomical grounds. In a p^lper "On the characters of Mammalia" (Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London for 1857) Owen says: — "Not being able to appreciate or con- ceive of the distinction betw^een the psychical phenomena of a Chimptmzee and of a Boschisman or of an Aztec, with arrested brain-growth, as being' of a nature so essen- tial as to preclude a comparison between them, or as being other than a difference of degree, I cannot shut my eyes to the significance of that all-pervading similitude of struc- ture — every tooth, every bone, strictly homologous — which makes the determination of the difference between Homo and Pithecus the anatomist's difficulty. And therefore ... I follow Linnaeus and Cuvier in regarding- mankind as a legitimate subject of zoological comparison and classification" '■'. Of course all this ciinnot make the anatomical differ- ence between man and his nearest allies in the series of Mammalia any less than it really is, and it is indeed so great that the first gkmce g^enercUly suffices to enable the practised ematomist to recognise any characteristic part of the body, especially of the skeleton or bony framework, as belonging either to man or to an aninuU. Ikit the * "Surely il is a liUle singular", says Tluxky, alter citing llic above passage, "that the 'anatomist' who finds it 'dilTiciilt' to 'determine the dif- ference' between Homo and Fithecus, should yet range them, on anatomical grounds, in distinct subclasses!" WHAT ARE WE? 87 distinction does not affect the systems or organs themselves, such as the bones, muscles, nerves, bloodvessels, viscera, etc., which both in their coarser parts and in their more minute chemical and microscopic constitution present pre- cisely the same kinds of form and arrangement; it is rather a difference of degree, size and development. Sometimes it is in a gTeater delicacy of details, a higher and better development of particular parts or org'ans, that the human structure exceeds the animal; or the special arrangement of the entire structure acquires a peculiar or divergent formation, as is especially seen in the structure of the osseous and muscular systems, in that of the trachea, the brain etc. (50) But even these peculiarities of struc- ture in man often indicate most definitely his animal re- lationships. Thus in dissecting' the human body we not un frequently find in the muscuUir system (which, as is well known, has a greater tendency to individual variation than any other part) peculiarities of arrangement in certain bodies closely resembling those occurring in the apes ; and according- to Dr. Duncan (Transactions of the Anthropolo- gical Society of I^ondon, i86g) this condition of things may even go so far, that he regards it as an indisputable fact, that the anomalies or abnormal variations in the origin and insertion of the muscles in man constitute the normal or reg'ular condition in the apes. Professor Hyrtl, in his "Human Anatomy," also particularly cites a number of such variations in the muscles, presenting an analogy or cor- respondence either with animal structure in general or with that of the apes in particular, and indeed some of these varia- tions are actually described by him as "Ape-structures". Precisely in the same manner, the first or milk- den- tition of man possesses a remarkable similarity to that of the apes, and it is only the second dentition that acquires the true human form. The structure of the three noblest organs of sense (those' of sight, hearing and touch) also shows an agreement between man and the apes which is 88 WHAT ARE WK? wanting to all other Mammalia; this is treated in more detail in the author's "Lectures on Darwin" (p. 185). It is scarcely necessary to add that the results obtained by means of comparative anatomy are completed and con- firmed by the revelations of comparative physiology or the study of the functions of the body in the different classes of animals and in man himself. As the structure and function of an organ or living part of the body are known by observation to be always necessarily in accord- ance so long as there is no disturbance of equilibrium by illness or defective development , the above - mentioned result seems to be a matter of course even upon theore- tical grounds; and although man is somewhat or even very superior to animals physiologically, this is only to this extent, that his physical or corporeal organisation is distinguished from that of animals by its higher and finer development, its more complicated structure, by an increase in the division of labour, by better adaptation or by the greater development of certain particularly importiint organs, and thus is eucibled to perform operations which are impossible to animals. Nevertheless, just as in the case of the bodily structure, there is nothing more than difference of deg"ree or of development, and this deve- lopment commences even with the lowest forms of all, and from these ascends gradually, but always under the strict observance of the same universally prevalent kiws of life. Hence investigators of these laws of life, phy- siologists as they are called, like the anatomists of former days, have never possessed any means of obtaining inform- ation as to the physiological processes, which occur m the human body, of more importance than investigations and experiments on animals. AVe may indeed say that three fourths of our knowledge of human physiology or of the laws of human life have been acquired in this wa3^ and that this knowledge is no less accurate than it would have been had the observations been made upon man himself. So far as observations of this latter kind are WHA'l' ARK WF ? 8g pob.sibl(j tliey have always confirmed the results obtained by the study of animals and the conclusions derived from them, either entirely or with very slig-ht modifications due to the difference of human structure; they have shown that the fundamental laws of life are the same and un- alterable in all living creatures. For instance when the cut nerve in the thig-h of a frog' (certainly a low form of animal) contracts or reacts when irritated, it does this in exactly or almost exactly the same way as the nerve of a man would have done if similarly treated; and when the chest of an animal is laid open and the beating of the heart, or the working of the lungs is observed, we have before us, with only a very slight difference, precisely the same spectacle that would have been presented to us if we sa\v the opened chest of a living- m.an. In the animal, as in man, the eye serves for vision, the ear for hearing, the tongue for tasting, the stomach for digestion and the liver for the secretion of bile; the feet serve for locomo- tion, the lungs for breathing-, the kidneys for the sepa- ration of water etc. By means of chloroform the animal is stupefied just like the man; they live, sicken and die by the same processes and causes. Hence the objection that we so often meet with in antimaterieilistic contro- versial writings, that the knowledge gained from the study of animals cannot be applied to man, who is not an animal but som.ething- quite different, namely a /Jia/i, only betrays the grossest and most absurd ignorance of physiological science or of the laws of life. Even socalled savaii/s, especially out of the philosophical camp, are in the habit of pluming themselves upon wisdom of this kind, which reminds us of the time of INIoses or of the land of the Phceacians (51). The particular bodily organ or system, by which chiefly man is man, which together with his other advantages (such as the structure of his hand, his erect attitude, his articulate speech etc.) gives him his principal superiority over the animal and which is therefore characterized in m.an by a go WHAT ARE WE? strength of development not witnessed elsewhere, is the hrain in combination with the 7iervoits system. This noblest and most important of all organs, with which all the mental or intellectual activities known to us both in man and animals are indissolubly connected, is constructed in the Vertebrata in accordance with a grand and general fundamental plan, which commences in the fishes and from these animals upwards becomes further developed, con- stantly increasing in distinctness ^lnd power, probably under the influence of such momenta or causes as Darwin has described in his immortal work on Natural Selection. The greatest step in this upward development and advance towcirds perfection of structure is not, however, made by the brain at the point where we might perhaps have expected it, namely between animals and man, but in a much lower position, between the marsupial and placental Mammals; for here a perfectly new structure, the great commissure, makes its appearance and unites the two halves of the cerebrum which were previously separate. From this point onwards the two great he- mispheres of the brain, the most important portions, in- tellectmdly, of the whole organ, constantly increase in size and in the complication of their structure, and arch over the cerebellum more and more, until finally, by a complete series of g-radual modifications, they att^iin their highest development in the apes and in man, in which they are exactly alike in all essential parts. For different as the brains of man and of the tipes may be in size and deve- lopment, it lias nevertheless been demonstrated by numer- ous anatomical investigations of the most careful kind, that all the essential parts and relations of the human brain are perfectly prefigured in animals, and that the superiority of man is due solely to the comparatively high development of these parts, combined with a considerably increased size of the whole organ. This important truth cannot be better illustrated than by the recent attempt of one of the greatest of living anatomists, Professor Owen, WHAT AKK ^\'Ef Ql to establish upon the brain and its structure a specifically distinctive character between man and animals, lie affirmed that the complete over-arching- and concealment of the cerebellum by the cerebral hemispheres, the exis- tence of the hinder horn of the great lateral cavity of the brain and the presence of the so-called pes Ilippocaiiipi viiuor, an elongated white swelling on the floor of this hinder horn, are all peculiarities of the human brain which do not occur in animals, and with which, therefore, pe- culiar and high intellectual powers must also be united. 'J'aking- his stand upon these assertions Owen thought that he had a right, from a systematic zoological point of view, to regard man as forming- a distinct subclass of Mammalia, which he called Archcnccphahi or "brain-rulers". This ren.arkable statement at once g-ave rise to a whole series of anatomical investigations upon the brain of the apes and to a philosophical dispute of which'the details may be found in Huxley's well-known "Essay on Man's Place in Nature," and also in the author's "Lectures on Darwin" (2. edit. pp. 182 et seqq). This dispute ended in the demonstration of the exact contriiry of Owen's assertions in so evident a manner, that finally their author himself found it necessary to retract them publicly, although at the same tim.e he declared his adherence to his classiiica- tional views already indicated, supporting- them by the consideration of the general high development of the different parts of the brain (52). Now it is true that, not merely in size, but also in the comparatively higher de- velopment of its individual parts, and especially in the number, depth and want of symmetry of the superficial convolutions and in correspondence therewith in the comparatively stronger development of the gray s/ibsfa/icc, (which, as is wa^U-known, must be regarded as the true seat of menttd or intellectual activity) the human brain far exceeds that of the Mammalia most nearly allied to him; but all these superiorities are rclaiive andnot absohtfr, and in their details are already indicated or prefigured in the gZ WMAl AKK wi;? brains of the apes in such a manner that the ape's brain may to a certain extent be regarded as a sort of sketch or model, which has merely been more accurately worked out in man. "The surface of the brain of a monkey", says Huxley, "exhibits a sort of skeleton map of man's, and in the man- like apes the details become more and more filled in, until it is only in minor characters, such as the greater excavation of the anterior lobes, the constant presence of fissures usucdly absent in man, and the different disposition and proportions of some convolutions, that the Chimpan- zee's or the Orang's brain can be structurally distinguished from Man's" (53). Now as the brain is the sole and exclusive organ of thoug-ht, and as all intellectual power goes parallel with its size, its development and its grade of structure in ge- neral, just as every physiological function depends upon the size, form and composition of the organ which sub- serves it, it cannot be doubtful, that from the standpoint of the materialistic or realistic philosophy the intellectual life of man must be regarded only as a higher stage of development of the faculties which are dormant in the animal world. This proposition is demonstrated not only by the above theoretical consideration, but also by direct comparison of the minds of man and animals and by a thoroughgoing examination of the intellectual and m.oral faculties characteristic of man, both in the civilized and in the savage state. However, before going further into this matter, we must, in order to be able to judge quite correctly of the position of man in nature, first of all take counsel of another science, which stands in such intimate connexion with those to which we have hitherto appealed (zoology, anatomy and physiology) that it cannot be treated separately from them. I mean the equally modern and interesting science of Dcvdopwental History. This comparatively m.odern science has brought to light a number of extremely remarkable facts, which can WHAT ARl'. WE? 93 leave no doubts in the minds of those acquainted with its results as to the close and intimate relationship of man to the animal world. These facts, however, notwithstand- ing- their great importance and significance, are unfortu- nately still entirely or almost unknown in many circles; nay even some naturalists, zoologists and anatomists, some- times show a most lamentable igmorance of these facts in their writings and statements, to say nothing of the speculative philosophers and theologians, who think that they can attain to the understanding of man and his place in nature by pure thought or by Divine inspiration, whilst in general they have scarcely a suspicion of these facts or of the true laws of nature. "Ignorance and super- stition", says Hiickel with equal pungency and truth, "are the foundations upon which most men build up their knowledge of their own organism and of its relations to the totality of thing-s; and those plain facts of the history of development, which might throw over it the light of truth, are ignored." Indeed since Darwin indicated what has given a perfectly new direction to the study of organic nature, namely that in it every thing depends upon development, proper attention has been paid to these facts, at least on the part of the younger and more active naturalists, and their great significance in a philosophical consideration of nature, (which indeed cannot be too highly appreciated) has been recognized. This signifi- cance cannot be better indicated than in the following- words of Professor Huxley: "The facts", he says, "to which I would first direct the reader's attention, though ignored by m.any of the professed instructors of the public mind, are easy of demonstration and are universally agreed to by men of science ; while their significance is so great that whoso has duly pondered over them will, I think, find little to startle him in the other revelations of Biology." — Let us now pass to these facts themselves and give an account of them in as condensed a form as possible. 94 WHAT ARE WE? Every living creature whether large or small, high or low, simple or complex, commences its earthly existence in a very simple form, infinitely different from its fully developed or perfect state, and from this first stage to its final development passes through a whole series of suc- cessive changes or developmental stages. These stages or steps have now become perfectly well-known, by the investig'ations of embryology or th(^ study of the evolution of the germ. In all those living" beings (Plants or ani- mals) which may be called highly org-anized, the first of these stages is the formation of an egg or germ.-cell, whilst in the lowest forms increase or propagation is usu- ally effected by simple division of the general substance of the body into two or more separate creatures, or by budding- {gciiiiuafion\ sprouting and the like (54). This ovum is the same in its fundamental structure throughout the organic world, only differing in slight variations of form, size, colour &c.* We are here specially interested only in the ovum of the Mammalia or at all events of the Vertebrata in general, and this appears every where to be almost the same structure, including even that of man, wdiose ovum differs so little from that of the hig'her Mammalia, that no essential distinction can be demonstrated between them, any more, than between the ova of different Mammalia. "There is not much resem- bla.nce", says Professor Huxley in his luminous manner, "between a barn-door fowl and \\\e dog who protects the farm-yard. Nevertheless the student of development finds, not only that the chick commetices its existence as an egg-, ])rimarily identical, in all essential res])ects, with that of the Dog-, but that the yelk of this (;g-g- undergoes division — that the primitive groove arises, and that the contiguous parts of the g-erm are fashioned, by precisely similar mo- thods, into a young chick, which, at on(^ stage of its exis- * For furthci details uium tliis subject see the authors " Physio- logische Bilder", in the chajiler cm tlie cell (pp. 261 — 270^ — AVHAT ARE AVE? 95 tence, is so like the nascent Dog, that ordinary inspection would hardly distinguish between the two." Here, hoAvever, we must not have the ordinary fowl's egg in our minds, as this, like the eggs of Birds in general, or of the true Reptiles, is distinguishable at the first g-lance from the egg of the mammalia, because in it the true egg, which is not larger than the mammalian egg and in all re- spects behaves in precisely the same manner, has been sur- rounded by a mitrifivc yelk (the well known } elk of the egg) which is easily distinguished from the foniiafive yelk of the egg", and also by the albumen and shell as external additions. By means of these additions the bird's egg brings with it into the Avorld ready prepared all the ma- terials necessary for the formation of the young bird, whilst the egg of the Mammal or of man carries with it from the ovary into the womb only the supply necessary for the first foundation of the young animal and receives all subsequent supplies from the maternal organism (55). The same facts as in. the case of the Fowl and Dog are revealed to us b)" the developmental history of every other Vertebrate animal, whether it be a Mammal, a bird, a lizard, a snake or a fish, and in a broad sense the same ma}^ be said of every organic being. Always at the outset and at the moment of first formation we find a structure which we call an egg, and which consists of a small, round very delicate body, 7s ^o 7ui o^ '^^""•f^""' cliameter, enclosed by a firm membrane and filled Avith a viscid fluid Avith numerous scattered granules Avhich is called the \clk (vi- tcllits). In the midst of this yelk lies the beautiful vesi- cular niichiis, 7r>(» liiiG i" diameter, Avith its clear contents; it is also knoAvn as the genjiiiial vesicle. In this A'esicle again a still smaller body (only 7r,(H) ^i"<") i^ enclosed; this is the germinal spol or inicleolar curpiisele. This, as Avell as the egg itself, consists of an albuminoid mass. This same simple and similar structure then is exhibited by the egg in all the higher animals, especially the Vertebrata, before their fertilisation by the semen or male reproductiA-e g6 WHAT ARE AVE? material. The remarktible discovery of the egg of the Mammalia and of man in ii:s place of origin (the uvary) was made not much more than 40 years ag'o by the cele- brated embryologist von Baer. The detached egg on its migration had however been previously seen in the ovi- duct. When once the existence of the egg was discovered the next thing of course was to ascertain the further course of its development and to observe how the ciiihryo or foetus was gradually developed from the fertilised egg. The first step in this progress is, that the contents of the egg'-cell underg'o the remarkable process called seg- mentation, in which the originally amorphous mass of the yelk, by continual division and subdivision in which the germinal vesicle and its nucleus take part, becomes broken up into an aggregation of elementary parts called einbryo- nal-cells. These cells in their turn tire capable of all possible further changes of form, and from them the future organism is built up by a constantly increasing formation of new cells. As Huxley admirably expresses it: "Nature, by this process, has attained much the same result as that at which a human artificer arrives by his operations in a brickfield. She takes the rough plastic material of the yelk imd breaks it up into well-shaped tolerably even-si;^ed masses — handy for building up into any part of the living edifice. . . . Every part, every organ is at first, as it were, pinched up rudely and sketched out in the rough; then shaped more accurately; and, only, at last, receives the touches which stamp its final character" (56). At the commencement and even through a consider- able period of embryonic life this goes on in the different animals and groups of animals in so uniform a fashion, that the young of all tmimals are almost exactly alike, or at all events are very similar not only in external form but also in all the essentials of their structure, however different may be the form of the animal subsequently to be [)ro(lucod from them. Tn this respect, therefore, the WHAT ARIt WE? Q7 embryos behave exactly like the egg itself, which is found almost everywhere to present at first the same form and size. From a certain period of embryonic life, however, the differences of the individual forms gradually make their appearance and become more and more distinct as the creature under observation approaches its permanent structure and the time of its birth. But even here it is remarkable that the more closely individual animals re- semble each other in the mature state, the long'er and more closely do their embryos also resemble each other; whilst the embryos become earlier and inore distinctly dissimilar in proportion as the animals to be produced from them differ from each other later in life. Thus, for example, the embryos of a Snake and a Lizard, two forms of ani- mals which are comparatively speaking- nearly allied, resemble each other in appearance longer than those of a Snake and a Bird, two animals which are very f^ir removed from each other. In the same way, and for the same reason, the embryos of a Dog and a Cat continue longer to present a resem- blance, than those of a Dog and a Bird, or a Dog and a Marsupial animal. But at the first beg'inning and during* the first period of embryonic life the embryos even of the most different animals or groups of animals, such as Mammalia, Birds, Lizards, Sn^ikes, Tortoises &c., are so similar in appearance that, according' to the definite asser- tion of von Baer, they can generally be distinguished, from their external aspect, only by difference of size. There are also some characters of form and external outline, which sometimes, but not always, render it possible to distinguish them, but these are exceedingly insignificant. Professor Agassiz found this to his cost; for having one day neglected to furnish an embryo in his collection with a ticket, he was afterwards unable to determine whether it belonged to ii Mammal, a Bird, or a Reptile*. * It must not be supposed, however, that no diU'crences exist between ihe various cmbrvos. (.)n tlie conlrarv tlicre nni^t be sucli diU'crences of ^8 What ark. \vk'^ Thus the study of developmental history iurnishes us with cleai- and incontrovertible evidence of the close relationship of all living creatures with respect to their first production and formation, and in connexion with our special subject we have now only to ascertain whether this natural evidence possesses the same validity in the case of our own species. "One burns with impatience", says Huxley, "to inquire wdiat results are yielded by the study of the development of Man. — Is he something apart .-^ Does he originate in a totally different way from Dog, Bird, Frog and Fish, thus justifying those who assert him to have no place in nature and no real affinity with the lower world of animal life? or does he originate in a similar germ, pass through the same slow and gradually pro- gressive modifications,— depend on the same contrivances for protection and nutrition, and finally enter the world by the help of the samiO mechanism? The reply is not doubtful for a moment, and has not been doubtful any time these thirty years. Without question, the mode of origin and the early stages of the development of Man are identical with those of the animals immediately below him in the scale (Sic." As regards the human ovum, it is in all essential particulars like that of any other Mammal, differing, at the utmost, only a little in size. Its diameter is 7io or 'I I., of a line, and it is consequently so small that with the naked eye it can only be perceived as a little point. But when suitably magnified it is seen to be a spherical vesicle containing in its interior a slimy proto- plasm or }r//i, and in this the cell- nude us or geriniiial ve- sicle with its nucleolar corpuscle or germinal spot. Ex- ternally the entire structure, which is also called the (9TW^//, a very (Iclinitc and marked kind as rej^ards both molccuhar and chemical constitution; but they are so delicate that they cannot be detected cither from external appearances, or by any ordinary means of investij^ation at our command. It is to these differences of the most minute constitution therefore, that wc must ascribe the foundation of those differences of structure which afterwards diver<^e so widely. What ARli WEr" §9 is enclosed by a thick, translucent membrane, the cell- membrane, or vitelline membrane. It seems unnecessary to give any further description of this simple and yet complicated structure, with which every man, whether born in a palace or in a hovel, com- mences his existence, as it would require to be made in pre- cisely the same terms that have already been used in describing the egg of the Mammalia. There is no visible difference between them except that of size. Nevertheless such differences do exist, and indeed must exist in a very definite and characteristic manner. But they do not lie in the external form, although even here subtle variations not recognizable by our instruments of research, may and indeed must exist, but rather in the inner chemical and molecular constitution and in the tendency, caused by this, to a peculiar systematic and individual further develop- ment. "These delicate individual differences of all eggs which depend upon indirect or potential adaptation, are indeed not directly perceptible with the extraordinarily coarse means of investigation possessed by man, but they are recognizable by indirect inferences as the first causes of the difference of all individuals" {Hlickel). What is the subsequent destiny of this vesicle or ovicell? It quits the organ, the ovary, in which it was formed and matured (in the human subject every four weeks, in animals only at the so called rutting season) and passes thence by mechanical causes into the oviduct. If the egg-cell is not fecundated here it is lost and dis- appears without leaving any traces. If, on the contrary, it is fertilized by the male semen, it becomes develoj^ed in the womb {1 iter us) into an embryo, and, as a rule, does not quit that organ until its perfect evolution into a young creature capable of life *. And all this takes place exactly in the same way as in any other Mammal. Even the * The vital movement and further development of the egg commences at the moment when it is fertilized by the male seminal cell, and then up to the close of individual life it follows rigidly the direction which 7* lOO AVHAT ARE WE? changes of form or transformations wliich the human embryo undergoes from this period are exactly the same as have been already described in the case of animals. First of all the process of segmentation of the yelk or cell- division occurs, commencing by the division of the germi- nal spot and then of the germinal vesicle itself into two separate cells. These then divide again, and this process is continued until, finally, a spherical mass of cells, called globules of segmentation, is produced. This aggregation of cells now becomes converted into a spherical vesicle, the blasfodcnii, on one side of which a disciform thickening (the aiihryonal spot) is produced by continual increase or growth of cells from the globules of segmentation which are more strongly accumulated at this point. Soon after- wards this embryonal spot acquires an elong'ated or bis- cuit-like shape and forms the first definitive foundation of the true body of the embryo, whilst the blastoderm itself is only employed for nutritive purposes. The embryonal spot consists of three superimposed and closely united leaves, the three gcrvi-lamellae, produced in this way, — the cells formed by the process ofseg^mentationarrang-e themselves. has been impressed upon it both by its own constitution and by that of the male reproductive material. As to the purely mechanical and mate- rial nature of this process there can be no doubt, and yet the two repro- ductive elements which meet in it are so minute and so slightly dis- tinguishable from other elements of the same nature, that there is nothing but an inlinitesimal and inconceivable delicacy and dillerence of these materials in their intimate chemical and molecular constitution that can l)e regarded as the cause of the innumerable (systematic and individual) differences of the subsequent development. — "We must stand", says Iliickel, "in wonder and admiration before the infinite and to us incon- ceivable delicacy of the albuminoid material. We cannot but be astoni- shed at tlie undeniable fact, that the simple egg-cell of the motlier and a single seminal fdamcnt of the father transfer the individual vital move- ment of these two individuals to the child so exactly, that afterwards the most subtle bodily and mental peculiarities of the two parents reap- pear in it." Who can venture, in the presence of such facts, to .speak of "brute" iiKitler or to deny ils ability lo iirodnce mental ])hcnomena .'' M'H.VT ARft WE? lOT in accordance with d plan common to all Vertebrata, in three membranous layers, each of which has a perfectly definite shiire in the subsequent building up of the tissues. From the outermost or superior leaf are produced the ex- ternal skin with its folds and appendages (such as the sebaceous gdands, sudorific glands, hairs, nails iS:c.) and also the active central nervous system, the brain and spi- nal cord. The innermost or inferior germ-lamella furnishes the material for the formation of the mucous membranes which line the entire alimentary apparatus from the mouth to the anal aperture with all its enlargements or append- ages, such as the lungs, liver, intestinal glands &c. Lastly the middle lamella gives origin to all the other organs, namely the bones, muscles, nerves &c. As the first visible rudiment of the young org'anism, an elongated, shield-shaped elevation of darker colour makes its appearance in the middle of the embryonal spot ; it is surrounded by a lighter coloured pear-shaped part of the spot, and along it the three germ lamellae are intim- ately united. In the middle line or longitudinal axis of this shield -shaped prominence a straight shallow furrow or groove now makes its appearance; this is \)aQ primitive groove (also called the primitive band or axial plate) which, as Huxley says, "marks the central line of the edifice which is to be raised, or, in other words, indicates the position of the middle line of the body" of the future animal. On each side of the groove the superior or outer germ-lamella then rises in the form of a long fold or ridge; these two ridges finally unite above and form thesocalled medullary tithe, em elongated cavity for the br^un and spinal cord, which are to be produced from the w^alls of this tube. The cavity itself becomes the central canal of the spinal cord and the brain cavity. In the lowest forms of Vertebrated animals (Ampliioxiis) it remains through life a simple tube pointed at each end; whilst, in all other Vertebrata, the anterior extremit}^ of the medullary tube becomes enlarged into a rounded vesicle, the first rudiment I02 WHAT ARE WE.'' of the brain, and only the posterior extremity, forming the tail, remains pointed. wSimultaneous with these processes is the formation at the bottom of the primitive groove, or in the middle germ-lamella, of a solid cellular thread or cartilaginous rod, the notoclwrd (or chorda dorsalis), on each side of which the middle lamella becomes developed into quadran- gular dark spots, arranged in pairs, the primitive ver- tebrcc, which, with the notochord, constitute the first rudi- ment of the vertebral column. The latter is produced by the growth, from the dorsal surface of the notochord, of certain arched processes, which springing upwards finally unite to form a tube embracing the spinal cord. Many fishes retain this dorsal chord, (which in all Mammalia, and in Man, is entirely absorbed), throughout their whole existence, — indeed all the grades of development which the human embryo gradually passes through, are perma- nently represented in the great series of the Vertebrata when we pass from the lowest forms upwards. The most ancient Vertebrata which w^e find buried in a petrified state in the depths of the earth and which opened the great procession of the Vertebrate type in the organic history of the world millions of years ago, also possessed, instead of a vertebral column, only a cartilaginous rod or gelatinous cord to which we have given the name of chorda, and it was only at a later period that this was replaced by the true vertebral column composed of bicon- cave vertebrcG. In this stage tJie embryos of all Vertebrata, inclttdiiig mail, are still perfectly similar. "In the earliest rudiment of the embryo", says Giebel *, "when it consists only of the primitive groove and notochord, it is impossible for us by the most minute observation to distinguish the human in- dividuality from that of any other Vertebrate, — of a ]\Iammal or a Bird, — a Lizard or a Carp." * Der JNIensch, i86i. WHAT ARE WE.-' IO3 But even at a still later period the greatest similarity of development persists, and it is only by degrees that the differences become more prominent by the stronger growth of particular parts. Thus the four extremities of the Ver- tebrata, which at first grow out of the dow^nward processes of the walls surrounding the primitive groove in the form of little buds and by degrees acquire the true structure of the limbs, are so much alike during the first weeks or days of their production that the delicate hand of man, the coarse paw of the Dog, the elegant wing of the bird and the stumpy fore-leg of the Tortoise can hardly be distinguished from one another. Nor is there any more distinction between the leg of man and of the bird, or the hind leg of the Dog and Tortoise. And yet there are scarce- ly any parts of the body which, when fully developed, are more variously formed than the limbs of the Vertebrate ani- mals. In a somewhat earlier stage, when even the rudiments of the fingers or toes are not yet formed and the limbs only form simple rounded processes shooting forth from the sides of the trunk, it is not even possible to distinguish between the fore and hind limbs. With regard to the fingers and toes themselves it is a very remarkable cir- cumstance that their presence to the number of five is the rule throughout nearly all the INIammalia. This applies even to the socalled Solipedes (e'.^. the Horse) which, in the embryo-state, exhibit 5 toes; these however are afterwards fused together into the Iioof-bonc, but in individual cases (deformities) the whole or a part of them are retained. What is true of the limbs, is true in exactly the same manner of all other parts or org-ans, which all at first have the same form and gradually develope their specific and permanent differences. The difference however consists very often merely in the fact that certiiin parts or organs, which in the lower series of animals attain a permanent development and a corresponding importance, lose this importance in higher groups, become retrograde and are either entirely lost or retained in a very aborted state. T04 WHAT ARK WE? As an example of such organs we may take the tail in man. In the earliest jieriod of his embryonic existence man possesses this part in just the same state of develop- ment as the embryos of tailed and tailless Mammals. It is only towards the sixth or seventh week of embryonic life that the tailbegins to retrograde and finally disappears, leaving only a small rudiment, consisting of from 3 to 5 aborted vertebrae, which form the lower extremity of the vertebral column even in the adult and fully developed man, but remain concealed beneath the skin. They are imme- diately connected with the sacrum and bear the name of the OS coccygis. The theme of tailed men has already often been treated in a burlesque fashion, and the £ibsence of a tail in man has always been regarded as an essential prero- gative of his and as an important distinction from the animal world. In all this it was indeed forgotten that in the first months of his embryonic existence man is not destitute of this animal appendage, — nay that he even bears it about witli him (although in a very rudimentary form) throughout the whole of his life. Nor was it taken into consideration that the large apes, which are so nearly allied to man (Orang, Chimpanzee, Gorilla), are also tailless, of course in precisely the same sense as man. According to Hackel the aborted tail of man is "an incontrovertible proof of the undeniable fact that he has descended from tailed ancestors." He siiys indeed that in the tail of man rudimentary muscles are still present,— the remains of those muscles which in earlier days served to move the tail of his ancient progenitors. But even amongst those ancestors of man which are much further removed from him in the great series of organic development, some have impressed their striking and unmistakable seal upon the human (Mnl:)r\(). \n the first weeks (or days) of their embryonic life all Vortebrata WHA 1' ARE WE? 105 possess cin extremely important external structure, which is comm.on to all, but subsequently becomes converted into organs of the most different kinds. These are three or four fissures on each side of the neck, with intervening processes or arches, which in Fishes become the branchial ar- ches and are destined to bear the respiratory organs or gills {branchiae). These branchial or visceral arches, also called bronchial arches, with their intervening branchial or visceral fissures are originally present in man or in the Dog as w^ell as in other Vertebrata. But it is only in the Fishes that they remain as they were in the embryo, and become converted into respiratory org-ans, — in the other Vertebrata, on the contrary, they find a different employm.ent and serve as the rudiments of the different parts of the face and neck. Similar leg-acies from the animal world to man, or so- called rndiiiicntary organs, are very numerous. AVe may indicate, for example, the socalled inleri/iaxillary bone, which was so long' supposed to be wanting in man and yet was at last discovered by Goethe (57); the rudimentary muscles for the movement of the ear, which by long prac- tice some individuals are actually able to use in moving' that organ; fhe male milk-glands, which in many men have even been seen to the number of 4 (the two lower ones in a very rudimentary state); the human milk-dentition and its resemblance to that of the lower Mammalia in form; the traces of ribs on the cervical (or neck-) vertebrae in man &c. &c. Rudimentary or aborted org'ans, whicli may be detect- ed in great abundance throughout both the animal and vegetable kingdoms, are among the strong'est supports of the theory of derivation, as indeed of the monistic or unitarian conception of the Universe generally. "If the opponents of this conception", says Professor Hackel, "understood the enormous importamce of these facts, they must be reduced to despair. None of these op- ponents has been able to throw even a faint glimmer of light upon these extremely remarkable and important I06 WHAT ARli WT:? phenomena. There is scarcely a, single one of the more highly developed forms of plants or animals that has not some rudimentary organs. It is the reverse of the formative process, in which by adaptation to peculiar conditions of existence and by the use of a still undeve- loped part new organs are produced &c." These remarkable facts of inheritance and of the existence of rudimentary organs, like the previously described embryological and comparative anatomical re- semblances in general, stand in immediate connexion with another, no less remarkable discovery, which shows that there is not merely a complete joarallelism of the iJidivi- diial and sysfeinafic development, but also a parallelism of these two with the palcToutological development, — that is to say the laws, in accordance with which the first development of the individual creature takes place, may be recognized not merely in the present world, but also m the history of the past. It is the w^ell known re- lation of juxtaposition, cause a?id effect and successio7i that is unmistakably presented to us in this triple deve- lopmental series and demonstrates to us, with a distinct- ness which cannot be misunderstood, the great affinity ot all organic beings to and their derivation from each other. Thus in the great series of the Vertebrata we find per- manently represented all the grades of development which the human embryo successively passes throug^h; and, on the other hand, the human embryo passes through a graduated series of metamorphoses which closely approxi- mate it at each stage of its development to the lower grades ot development of the Vertebrate type, — that is to say man (after representing in the egg-state the lowest stag'e of life, the cell or Protozoon) resembles a Fisli in the earliest stage of its embr^'ological development, then an Amphibian and only at a later period a IVIammal. Moreover the different steps, which it surmounts in this last or Mammalian stage, correspond to the different stages of de- velopment through which the Mammalian type gradually WHAT ARE WE.'' IO7 rises from the lowest to the higher orders and famihes*. But this is not all; all these stages or grades of development again precisely resemble the steps by which the Verte- brate type has risen gradually during geological times and in the course of many millions of years to its present state of perfection, and the remains and representatives of which we iind buried in the depths of the earth. This great truth cannot be better expressed than in the admirable words of one of the greatest of living- Naturalists, Professor Agassiz, who says: "It is a fact which I can now assert as universal that the embryos and young of all actually existing animals, to whatever class they may belong, are the living mtmatures of the fossil representatives of the same families." Exactly the same idea is expressed by Professor Hackel in the following words: — "The series of multifarious forms which any individual of any series of animals passes through from the commencement of its existence, from the egg to the grave, is an abridged and condensed repetition of that series of different specific forms through which the ancestors and primitive progenitors of that species have passed during the enormously long pe- riods of geological history." Consequently the development of the individual during and even after its embryonic existence is nothing more than a short and rapid repetition of the course of develop- ment of the type to which it belongs, or in other words the miniature, enclosed in a narrow frame, of the sequence of those ancestors which form the entire ancestral chain of the individual in question and which in its most essential features is still represented by the system.atic sequence of the living types of animals. There can be no more striking' proof of the close relationship and connexion of man with * "The different animals," says Professor Schaaffliauscn, ''are the forms of animal life fixed at different stages, and the higher animal advances during its development through the lower forms, but never perfectly reproducing them, since the incessant formative impulse is con- stantly tending to remove Ihe similarity again immediately." I oh WlIAl' ARE WKr* the Lotiility of org'anised nature and especially with the iinimals immediately below him. This fact at once throws an equally bright and astonishing" light upon the important question of the origin and derivation of the human race itself, a question which as a matter of course is most in- timately and necessarily connected with our subject, or the question of the position of man in nature. vSince the celebrated Darwinian theory has brought the doctrine of the derivative nature and conversion of organic beings into more general acceptance and at the same time general attention has been attracted directly to the relation of man to that doctrine, this equally important and interesting question has excited the minds of men in a most remark- able manner, and its answer in a Darwinian sense has given rise to a very wide spread emotion. We may re- mark in passing that this emotion, which has often been accompanied or followed by the drollest outbreaks of virtuous indignation, is a striking proof how little the great results of natural history have become generally diffused notwithstanding the innumerable attempts that have been made to popularise them, and that it is pre- cisely the most important results of these investigations and the conclusions founded upon them that are still the great- est mysteries to the majority of men. It is true that at the root of this emotion lies the just conviction which is productive of uneasiness to many minds, that all investigations into the position of man in nature and his relation to the rest of the organic world must finally lead up to the question of the origin and deri- vation of the human race, and certainly these researches, which are in part of a very difficult and subtle kind and 111 themselves possess interest chiefly for those who make a special study of them, would scarcely have interested the public so much, if there were not always in the back- ground the necessary and unavoidable tendency to this very question. As I stcited in my third lecture on Darwin, the whole question is to a certain extent an affair of /he AVHAT ARE WE ."^ lOQ lieart for us, and no doubt it requires the most thorough- yfoinL,"" examination and investigation. Professor Huxley, who was the first to con e boldly before the general public with opinions as to the natural origin and animal derivation of man founded upon anatomical considerations, expresses himself in the same terms. It is true that similar views had often been expressed before Huxley, but they were supported less upon particular facts than upon general philosophy, or upon reflections derived from ci general view of natural phenomena. Since Huxley came forward, however, numerous voices have been raised in other countries on the same side, — in Germany •especially those of Professors Ernst Hackel of Jena and Hermann Schaaffhausen of Bonn, the latter as I shall speedily show, having really a claim to priority over Huxley, in so far that he definitely asserted the animal derivation of man ten years previously. It is a very widespread notion that Professor Carl Vogt, the celebrated naturalist and writer, is the true originator of the idea of the natural and especially of the Simian origin of man. This opinion, probably a consequence of Vogt's lectures delivered in all the great towns of Germany, is in fact quite erroneous. Vogt w^as even for a long time a very decided and energetic champion of the doctrine of the niimufabilify of species, which necessarily excludes the theory in question, and it is only since Darwin and by Darwin's means that he has become of a difterent opinion. But even since this conversion he has never, so far as I know, expressed himself publicly upon the point in question so distinctly and decidedly as the naturalists just mentioned. In his well known "Lectures on Man" (Giessen 1863) the intimate relationship between jNIan and animals is c