Chapter II, it follows that it is the female rather than the male that

we have to consider. The male gametes vastly outnumber the female, and, generally speaking, the male is always ready for intercourse. When studying the possibility of increasing the fecundity of domestic species, attention can, as pointed out by Marshall in the case of sheep,[104] be limited to the female. Taking a broad view of the matter, it is clear that there has been no change in fecundity due to any change in male reproductive power.

There are, nevertheless, two points concerning the male which we may notice before we pass to the consideration of the female. First, with regard to the problem as to changes in fecundity during the course of history, we shall bring forward evidence to show that good conditions favour an increase in the reproductive power of the mammalian female. There is reason to think that good conditions have a similar effect on males. Thus among some mammalian species in a state of nature there is a special ‘rutting season’ for the male, and it is not infrequently found that in captivity the males of such species will rut all the year round.[105] We shall also bring forward evidence to show that with improvements in conditions, sexual excitement is more easily aroused and that there has been an increase in the development of the generative organs, and we may note here that these observations apply to the male as well as to the female. As, however, any increase in male reproductive capacity can have had no general influence upon fecundity, we may, so far as the question of any general increase or decrease in fecundity is concerned, neglect the male and confine our attention to the female.

Secondly, with respect to the influence of certain factors at particular times, it is in nearly all cases the female and not the male which is affected. But it may be observed that sterile marriages are in part due to male sterility. Mayer estimates that this is so in a third of such marriages.[106] Kelly gives the result of an investigation into 110 cases, of which 59 per cent. are attributed to the male.[107] Male sterility is due either to inborn or acquired conditions. So far as sterility due to the former is concerned, there do not appear to be any grounds for thinking that it has to any important extent varied from one epoch to another. So far, however, as sterility due to disease is concerned, there have been in all probability certain changes. Gonorrhoea is perhaps the most important of those diseases which bring about sterility. Of the 59 cases mentioned above 12 per cent. were due to gonorrhoea. Other diseases may cause sterility, such as tubercle and epididymitis. Relatively to the historical period as usually defined, gonorrhoea is an old disease; but we shall find reason for thinking that the great majority of diseases have evolved since the time of the pre-human ancestor, and to the extent to which this is true it must be allowed that male sterility due to disease is more or less recent. With these remarks we may leave the question of male sterility, as it is relatively of little importance.

3. It is therefore to factors which influence the female generative process that we must look for the causes of such increase or decrease of fecundity as are of importance. Certain factors may be put aside on the grounds that there is no reason to think that they have been of more importance at one time than at another. Such are malformations of any kind that prevent the meeting of the male and female gametes.[108] With regard to the factors of importance it is by their influence upon different aspects of the female generative process that they are best classified. There are three main aspects of this process, variations in any of which will influence fecundity. These are the length of the mature period, the interval between births, and the number at a birth.

Some reference to the nature of the female sexual cycle in mammals has been made. The beginning of maturity is usually measured by observing the beginning of menstruation. It is, perhaps, worthy of mention that the beginning of menstruation does not always coincide with the beginning of ovulation. Thus the estimation of the duration of the mature period made by watching for the beginning and end of menstruation is not always exact; the difference is not of consequence here, but the fact that a difference is possible emphasizes that what is essential in the whole process is ovulation. The true mature period is the period during which ovulation occurs. The interval between births is also dependent upon ovulation and so is number at a birth.[109] In fact what we are asking is in the main what factors influence ovulation.

4. The information regarding the duration of the mature period is not satisfactory. Though there is a large amount of information about the beginning of menstruation, there is little information about the age at which it ends. There are at least three factors which influence the age at which menstruation begins—climate, race, and general nature of the surrounding conditions.

Generally speaking, the hotter the climate the earlier menstruation begins. Englemann gives the following figures:[110]

_Zone._ _Average Age for Menstruation._ Tropics 12·9 years Temperate 15·5 „ Cold 16·5 „

and Krieger gives the following figures:[111]

_Place._ _Average Age for Menstruation._ Christiania 16 years 9 months 25 days Berlin 15 „ 7 „ 25 „ London 15 „ 1 „ 14 „ Lyons 14 „ 5 „ 29 „ Marseilles 13 „ 11 „ 11 „ Calcutta 12 „ 6 „ 0 „ Sierra Leone 10 „ 0 „ 0 „

It further appears that there is a tendency for menstruation to end earlier in hot climates; so much so that upon the whole the mature period is shorter in hot than in cold climates.

There is, however, no very close or definite connexion between climate and menstruation. In the United States it has not been found possible to detect any influence of climate upon menstruation, though this country stretches from 29° to 45° of latitude, and has a temperature the annual average of which varies from 40° F. to 70° F. But if the conditions concerning the different racial elements in the population of the country are examined, it is found that in whatever part of the country they may be the average age for each racial element remains constant, and usually varies slightly from the average age for the whole population.[112] There are other indications that the age at which menstruation begins are connected with differences in race. Krieger quotes the following from Joachim for girls in Hungary:[113]

_Race._ _Average Age of Menstruation._ Slavonic 16 to 17 years Magyar 15 „ 16 „ Jewish 14 „ 15 „ Styrian 13 „ 14 „

Other figures show that Jewesses menstruate earlier than the average age for menstruation in the country in which they live.[114]

What is of chief interest to us is that good conditions also influence the age at which menstruation begins. The better the conditions, the earlier does it begin. Further, it is also known that the mature period tends to be prolonged where conditions are good. It is known, for example, that the mature period comes to an end earlier among the labouring than among the richer classes.[115] Therefore good conditions tend to be connected not only with an earlier beginning but also with a longer duration of the mature period. Thus Mayer found the average age at which menstruation began among 3,000 women of the upper classes to be 14·69 years, and among 3,000 poor women to be 16·0 years.[116] Several observers have recorded the average age for the beginning of menstruation among the different classes in the population. The following table is given by Krieger:[117]

_Brienne de _Tilt._ _Krieger._ _Ravn._ Boisment._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ _Yrs._ _Mths._ Upper Class 13 8 13 5½ 14 1⅙ 14 3 Middle Class 14 5 14 3½ 15 4–2/6 15 5½ Lower Class 14 1 16 8⅙ 16 5¼

5. With regard to the question as to the interval between births some interesting indirect evidence is obtained from what we can learn regarding the former condition of the sexual cycle in man. A sketch was given in the second chapter of the main features of the mammalian sexual cycle. These cycles may follow one another without any prolonged interval, or there may be a lengthy period of rest. In monkeys and also in man the interval is short; but the former cannot breed at every heat period; special sexual seasons are experienced at definite times of the year when breeding takes place. It is probable that ovulation is limited to this special season, and that, although copulation may take place at other seasons of the year, conception can only follow copulation at this special season.[118] In civilized man, so far as is known, ovulation is never confined to any particular season of the year; conception can, therefore, follow copulation at any period. But we do find evidence of the former existence in man of a special sexual season, and this is of particular interest because it suggests that at one time there was in man, as there usually is in monkeys, one season only during which conception could follow copulation.

This evidence has been reviewed by Westermarck, by Ploss and Bartels, and by Havelock Ellis.[119] Some examples of this evidence may be cited in order to show upon what facts this suggestion is founded. According to Mr. Johnston, the Indians of California “have their rutting season as regularly as have the deer, the elk, the antelope, or any other animals”. And Mr. Powers confirms the correctness of this statement, at least with regard to some of these Indians, saying that spring ‘is a literal St. Valentine’s day with them, as with the natural birds and beasts of the forest’. As regards the Goddanes in Luzon, Mr. Foreman tells us that ‘it is the custom of young men about to marry to vie with each other in presenting to the sires of their future brides all the scalps that they are able to take from their enemies, as proof of their manliness and courage. This practice prevails at a season of the year when the tree—popularly called by the Spaniards “the fire tree”—is in bloom.’ Speaking of the Watch-an-dies in the western part of Australia, Mr. Oldfield remarks, ‘Like the beasts of the field, the savage has but one time for copulation in the year. About the middle of the spring the Watch-an-dies begin to think of holding their grand semi-religious festival of Caa-ro, preparatory to the performance of the important duty of procreation. A similar feast was, according to Mr. Bonwick, celebrated by the Tasmanians at the same time of the year.’[120] Similar evidence is forthcoming as regards many other primitive races. It is interesting to note that among civilized races there are traces of customs which point to the former existence of a season of sexual licence. Such were the mediaeval Feast of Fools, and the classical festivals of Brumalia and Rosalia.[121] ‘Feasts, similar to the erotic feasts which were indulged in by the ancients ... were still practised to some extent in Russia and in some parts of India at a much later date, while such customs as “gwneyd Bragod” and possibly our own “bean feasts” may not improbably be the modern representatives of these ancient customs in our own country.’[122]

This evidence all points to a former condition when conceptions could only take place at one season of the year. We must suppose that it has gradually become possible for copulation to be followed by conception at any period, and that therefore fecundity has increased.[123] Some light is thrown upon the causes that underlie these changes by a reference to certain facts regarding other species. Before we turn to this question reference may be made to the phenomenon of ‘mittelschmerz’—or intermenstrual pain. It is not uncommon and is sometimes accompanied by a discharge. The interpretation of this phenomenon is doubtful. One explanation, however, has some interest for us. It is suggested that it may represent the first steps in the establishment of a different variety of sexual cycle in which the dioestrous periods occur fortnightly instead of monthly. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that the sexual cycle is evolving in the direction of still greater fecundity.[124]

6. It has frequently been observed that when members of a wild species are brought into captivity there is a change in the sexual season. This change may be in the direction of an increase or of a decrease in the generative power. If the bringing into captivity involves such an alteration of conditions as to disorganize the generative process, then a decrease in fecundity may result. It frequently happens, for instance, that carnivores are infertile in captivity, and this may be due among other things to the absence of fresh meat.[125] Generally speaking, however, if the alterations do not produce disorganization, an increase in fecundity results, and as there is no reason to suppose that the change in human circumstances was ever of such a nature as to produce disorganization, we must suppose, on the analogy of what happens among other mammalian species, that, if the betterment of the conditions has had any effect, it has been in the direction of an increase in fecundity.

A few examples of what is meant may be given. The wild dog of South America, the wolf, and the fox breed only once a year under natural conditions; in captivity they experience two annual heats like the dog.[126] The otter in the wild state breeds but once a year; in captivity oestrous may occur at regular monthly intervals all the year round.[127] Bears are monoestrous in the wild state; in the Zoological Gardens oestrous may be experienced for two or three months.[128] With regard to the Ungulata we have numerous facts of the same nature. The red deer offers the best example; under natural conditions there are two dioestrous cycles lasting three weeks; in captivity the sexual season extends over the whole year.[129] The facts are somewhat similar in respect to cattle and horses. Examples might also be taken from other mammalian classes. The wild rabbit breeds from February to May; in captivity the sexual season lasts nearly the whole year. Further it may be noticed that among lower groups good conditions are, as is well known, markedly favourable to increased fecundity.

Before we go on to look into the causes of this increase in fecundity, it may be noticed that the number of young produced at a birth among domestic species is on an average greater than that produced by the wild ancestor. This evidence, it will be observed, refers to the third factor which bears upon the increase in fecundity. The wild rabbit is said to produce at the most six young at a time; the tame rabbit has four to eleven, and a case is known in which eighteen were born, all of which survived.[130] The wild sow bears from four to eight, and sometimes twelve, young. The domestic sow is considered to be of no value unless she produces at least eight at a birth. Equally remarkable examples are to be found outside the Mammals. ‘The hen of Gallus bankiva lays from six to ten eggs; the tame one in the course of a year from eighty to one hundred.’

7. It is clear that one common feature in the conditions surrounding domesticated species and civilized man, as compared with species in a state of nature, is the increase in the richness and regularity of the food-supply, and the general betterment of the environment. In fact, just as this increase in the richness of the surroundings may increase the length of the mature period, so it may increase the number at a birth and also decrease the interval between births. That this is the result of an improved environment in the case of the sheep has been shown by Marshall. He found, for instance, that in ‘Scotch Blackfoot, Cheviot, and other Scottish sheep the normal percentage of ova discharged at any single oestrous is not appreciably in excess of the usual percentage of births at the lambing season’.[131] This, it may be noted, is an example of what was said in the second chapter regarding, in the first place, the measurement of fecundity by the number of ripe ova produced, and, in the second place, regarding the fertilization on the average of all, or nearly all, ripe ova. Marshall also found that ‘there was every reason for supposing that the processes of growth and maturation can be very largely influenced both by insufficiency of food-supply on the one hand and by artificial stimulation on the other’.[132] What apparently happens is that insufficiency of food retards the development of the ova and may cause the degeneration of some of them. Therefore if the food-supply is good, there will be more ripe ova at the sexual season, fewer sterile females, and a greater number of twin births. ‘There is overwhelming evidence,’ says Heape, ‘that flocks in good condition at tupping time have a higher subsequent development of fertility than flocks in poor condition at tupping time.’[133] By ‘good’ condition is meant not a ‘fat’ but a strong, healthy, and vigorous animal.

It may be asked whether there is any evidence as to the increase in numbers at a birth in the human female. Among civilized races about one birth in eighty to ninety is on the average a twin birth. Our knowledge of primitive races is not sufficiently precise to enable any estimate to be made regarding the frequency of twin births among them. There are, however, very numerous references in the accounts of these races to the superstitions attaching to twin births. The nature of these superstitions, and in general the mystery felt to surround twin births, very strongly suggests that the phenomenon is rare. It can only be said that it is probable that twin births are rarer among primitive races than among civilized races.

So far, therefore, as we have gone, the evidence points to the conclusion that two of the three factors which determine fecundity have varied in the direction of increasing fecundity, and that possibly the third factor may have varied in the same direction. It has also been noted that similar changes have been observed to take place in animals which have been subject to better conditions. The fact that human conditions have certainly been bettered suggests that the same cause may have been at work in the case of man. There is, however, no doubt that changes in the case of man are not wholly explicable in this way. In part the differences are racial differences, and to the degree in which the differences are racial they cannot be attributed to the direct effect of the surroundings.

8. Additional support to the view that fecundity has increased with civilization is given by certain other types of evidence. In the first place it appears to be a fact that the reproductive organs of the more primitive races of mankind are smaller and in all respects less well developed than those of civilized races.[134] It is not meant that the organs differ qualitatively in any way; they are merely smaller relatively to the other organs than among civilized races. It is doubtful how we should interpret these facts; but it does not seem unreasonable to assume a connexion between a lesser development of the reproductive organs and a lower degree of fecundity.

Secondly, we have a considerable body of evidence with respect to the strength of sexual desire among these races.[135] Many observers have recorded their opinion that the members of these more primitive races do not experience sexual excitement to the same degree as do the members of the more civilized races. There are other observations which record the difficulty experienced in obtaining sexual erethism. It seems reasonable to associate these observations with a lower degree of fecundity than that found among civilized races.

In this connexion the fact that lack of sexual excitement renders fertilization less likely is relevant. As fertilization has been achieved with the female in a condition of narcosis,[136] it is clear that sexual excitement is not necessary. Nevertheless, if the question of sexual excitement has any bearing at all upon the degree of fecundity as between higher and lower races, it must be in the direction of rendering the lower races less fertile.

It was observed in the second chapter that the willingness of the female to receive the male at any time in the sexual cycle is a peculiarity of man. It may be observed in passing that evidence has lately been brought forward suggesting that the indifference of the female to the point in the sexual cycle at which intercourse takes place has been exaggerated, or rather that the existence of periods of desire has been somewhat overlooked.[137] However this may be, what concerns us here is the peculiar fact that the male is received by the female at any time in the sexual cycle. It is possible that copulation at one time in the sexual cycle is more likely to result in conception than at other times, though the facts are obscure. But whether this is so or not is scarcely relevant to our purpose, because there is no reason to think that there have been any variations in the practice of copulation between one time and another or between one race and another, as could have sensibly affected fecundity even if the limitation of copulation to one period of the sexual cycle is of marked importance.

9. Lastly, we have to refer to what we may call the statistical evidence. The interpretation of the evidence as to number of children among primitive races is so difficult a matter that it cannot in itself be held to throw much light upon the question of fecundity. The trend of the evidence, however, certainly supports the conclusion that fecundity is less among primitive races than among civilized races. There are a vast number of observations recorded by travellers regarding the number of children among these races. For the most part these observations have reference only to the number of children seen alive, and therefore are not even a measure of the fertility—far less a measure of the fecundity.

Practically all such observations emphasize the small size of the families. When dealing with hunting and agricultural races in another connexion we shall have reason to refer in some detail to this evidence. Here we may give a few typical examples of this evidence, remembering that it is evidence for the most part of the number of children seen and not of the number of children born, though, in selecting the following examples for quotation, an effort has been made to pick out those in which the authors have attempted to discount the effects of infanticide and other factors of elimination.

Of the Australians Curr remarks: ‘I am of opinion that the Australian females bear on an average six children, or did before the advent of the whites and whilst living in their natural state.’[138] Spencer and Gillen state that sterility is common among the Australians[139] and that the number of children rarely exceeds four or five and is generally two or three.[140] Of the Eskimos we read: ‘the women are not prolific. Although all the adults are or have been married, many of them are childless, and few have more than two children. One woman was known to have had at least four. Dr. Simpson heard of a “rare case” where one woman had borne seven children.’[141] ‘On the average the pure breed Greenlanders are not prolific. Two, three, or four children to each marriage is the general rule, though there are instances of families of six or eight or even more.’[142] Of the American Indians there is a large amount of evidence. Dr. Holder, who combined medical knowledge with exceptional opportunities for observation, says: ‘With Indians large families are the exception. The Crow tribe, of less than 2,500 people, is divided into 630 families, which gives less than four to each family, and this includes parents and often grandparents and relatives by affinity or adoption, leaving the average offspring, to each child-bearing woman decidedly lower than in white communities.’[143] Speaking of the Indians of Vancouver Island, Sproat says: ‘As a rule they have few children.’[144] Bancroft reports of the Nootka tribe: ‘Women rarely have more than two or three children.’[145] Of the Chinooks: ‘Barrenness is common, the birth of twins rare, and families do not usually exceed two children.’[146] Catlin says: ‘It is a very rare occurrence for an Indian woman to be “blessed” with more than four or five children during her life; generally they are contented with two or three.’[147]

It is merely suggested here that evidence of this kind, which will be much amplified in the following chapters, may have to be interpreted as pointing to a lower degree of fecundity among these lower races than among the civilized races. The trend of the evidence is at least suggestive when it is remembered that according to the estimate made by Matthews Duncan a normal woman among civilized races living in wedlock throughout the mature period under favourable circumstances should bear from ten to twelve children.[148]

If the view suggested is correct, we should expect to find in such countries as India and China a higher fecundity than among primitive races, but a lower fecundity than among European races. There is some indication that this is so. At first sight it might seem that the well-known fertility of these races indicated a higher fecundity than in Europe. When, however, in the case of India, not the crude fertility, but the fertility corrected for the number of married women of reproductive age is calculated, it is found to be lower than in Europe. The figures per 1,000 are 160 in India and 196 in England.[149] It has, of course, to be remembered that there are in both countries certain factors bearing upon fertility—early marriage in India and restraint from intercourse and contraceptive methods in England. But it can hardly be supposed that the former is more effective than the latter in decreasing fecundity, and it is probable that we have here an indication of lower fecundity in India.

10. All the evidence, therefore, points to the same conclusion. If there has been any general change in the strength of human fecundity in the course of human history, using that phrase in the widest sense, it has been in the direction of an increase. It is not necessary for our present purpose to attempt to be more precise. This view is, as we shall show below, that of the best authorities. It may be noticed that different opinions are frequently expressed by authors who are not professional biologists.[150] Such opinions are in most cases so vaguely worded that it is seldom clear what precisely is meant. In many cases it is fairly evident that it is intended to imply that there is some connexion between growth of civilization and decrease in fecundity. So far as this is what is meant, there is no evidence for this view. (There is no indication whatever that increasing intellectual activity is accompanied by decreasing fecundity. On the other hand, inasmuch as intellectual activity is connected with an amelioration in the conditions, to that degree there is a connexion between it and an increase in fecundity.) Such views clearly owe their origin to the attention paid to the decline in the birth-rate. It is not always realized that a declining birth-rate may be due to a decline in fertility alone, wholly unconnected with a decline in fecundity.

That fecundity has increased was the opinion of Darwin. ‘There is reason to suspect’, he says, ‘that the reproductive power is actually less in barbarous than in civilized races.... It is highly probable that savages, who often suffer much hardship and do not obtain so much nutritious food as civilized men, would be actually less prolific.’[151] According to Heape, ‘it would seem highly probable that the reproductive power of man has increased with civilization, precisely as it may be increased in the lower animals by domestication; that the effect of a regular supply of good food, together with all the other stimulating factors available and exercised in modern civilized communities, has resulted in such great activity of the generative organs, and so great an increase in the supply of the reproductive elements, that conception in the healthy human female may be said to be possible almost at any time during the reproductive period.’[152]

It is interesting to note that no differences in fecundity can be observed as between modern civilized races.[153] The conclusion we have reached is merely that there has been, broadly speaking, an increase in fecundity, and that in large measure this is explicable as a result of the betterment of conditions, and there is nothing to lead us to expect that there would on this account be any difference between modern European races.

11. We may now pass to a brief consideration of certain habits, customs, and other factors which, operative from time to time, have, or are widely supposed to have, an influence upon fecundity, and in some cases upon fertility; for though fertility is not, properly speaking, considered in this chapter, it is convenient to deal with certain matters here.

To polygamy has often been attributed a decrease in the number of children born to a woman. Whether it is supposed that the practice of polygamy in some way decreases fecundity or has an influence upon fertility is not clear. In any case there is no evidence that it has any influence either upon fecundity or upon fertility. There is no reason to think that polygamy is attended by any structural or physiological changes such as would influence fecundity, and the statistical evidence does not show any difference in the average number of children born, whether monogamy or polygamy is practised. Theal investigated this question as far as marriages among Bantu women are concerned. He collected a number of returns and sums up the returns as follows. ‘Altogether these returns embraced 393, the wives or widows of monogamists, mostly professing Christians, and 591 women, the wives or widows of polygamists. In a few instances it was noted that the women might not have passed the age of child-bearing. The 393 women, wives of monogamists, had borne 2,223 children, that is on an average 5·65 children to a woman. The 591 women, wives of polygamists, had borne 3,298 children, that is on an average 5·58 children to each woman. Thus monogamy made hardly any appreciable difference in the birth-rate.’[154]

The question of the influence of lactation on fecundity is of considerable importance, but unfortunately no very definite conclusions can be drawn from the facts known. There is a considerable amount of evidence to the effect that the continuance of lactation to some extent inhibits heat in animals and menstruation in women. Though the effect of continued lactation is doubtless in this direction, it cannot be said to be of any very definite strength. It is stated that mares giving suck are liable to miss a season.[155] ‘There can be no doubt that in the case of sows early weaning is conducive to a more frequent recurrence of oestrous and an increased number of litters.’[156] ‘The return of menstruation during lactation in women has been dealt with recently by Heil and Dingwall Fordyce. Heil, who has studied the conditions of 200 nursing mothers, expresses the belief that the recurrence of menstruation and not the condition of amenorrhoea is the normal state during lactation, but that menstruation is not so frequent in the later lactations as in the earlier ones. Fordyce has reached similar conclusions, finding that menstruation occurred during lactation in 40 per cent. of the cases in which suckling was performed, while in 92 per cent. of the cases its return was within nine months of parturition, and that menstruation during lactation was commoner with the earlier than with the later lactations, showing that age is an important factor.’[157]

There is another question of importance. It may be asked what influence age at marriage has upon fecundity. As far as the age of the husband is concerned, there is scarcely any influence at all. For any given age of wife the fecundity remains nearly the same, whatever the age of the husband. The age of the wife, however, is of importance, apart from the fact that delay in marriage reduces the use made of the limited period of maturity. For a woman is not equally fecund throughout the mature period. The earlier years are the most fecund years, and therefore postponement of marriage reduces the fecundity, other things being equal, by more than the fraction of the mature period which is passed in celibacy. According to Dunlop’s observations on marriage in Scotland ‘the effect of one year’s delay of marriage is to reduce the average family by fully one-third of a child, or that three years’ delay may be expected to result in the family being one child less. This result may be fairly correct in general, but it cannot be strictly applied, for the crude observations show that the effect of one year’s delay is not constant through the fertile period of the woman’s life, but is greater for the younger and less for the later years. Thus a year’s delay when the woman is aged from 20 to 25 averages 0·45 of a child, 0·37 when she is aged from 25 to 30, 0·32 when she is aged from 30 to 35, 0·29 when she is aged from 35 to 40, and 0·19 when she is aged from 40 to 45.’[158] It requires, it may be noticed, a delay of about forty years on the part of the husband to decrease the number of children by one child.[159]

A further problem is the influence of sexual intercourse before puberty upon fecundity. Exactly what influence early intercourse has upon the generative organs and their functions is not clear. It is known, however, that early intercourse is injurious to the general health, and it is not difficult to understand in a general way how, if this is so, the reproductive functions would be adversely affected. In the Punjab Census Report ‘it has been shown that the states which practise early marriage on an extensive scale have generally a smaller proportion of females at the age period 12 to 15. Inquiries into a large number of cases show that, when the marriage of young people is consummated at an early age, a fairly large number of wives dies of phthisis or some other disease of the respiratory organs or from some ovarian complication within ten years of the consummation of marriage.’[160] It is also known that when of two races both living a similar kind of life under similar conditions, one practises early marriage and the other does not, as for example the Hindus and Mohammedans in India, fertility is higher among the latter than among the former.[161]

Finally, it may be noted that the development of fat may lead to sterility. It is a fact well known to breeders that excessive fatness is accompanied by sterility. Animals that have been fattened for agricultural shows are often barren. There is no doubt that the development of fat may have the same effect in women. It is not quite clear why the development of fat should be inimical to fecundity; formerly it was supposed that the sperm was prevented from reaching the ovum owing to the presence of a mechanical obstruction. Although this may at times be the cause, it seems that the presence of an excessive amount of fat has a deleterious influence upon the metabolism of the organism and that the maturation of the ova must be in some way affected. Marshall found signs of abnormal ovarian metabolism in interstitial tissue of the ovaries of fat cows and heifers.[162] Sterility, it may be remarked, is not to be regarded as an ultimate consequence of ‘good’ conditions which have been made too ‘good’. ‘Good’ conditions do not merely consist in abundant food, but also in sufficient exercise and so on. The development of fat in such a degree as to cause sterility is due to an excessive amount of food—an abundant food-supply being one only of the factors going to make up ‘good’ conditions—to the exclusion of other factors.

12. In conclusion, some calculations may be conveniently added to illustrate the strength of human fecundity, which, as we shall see, is constantly under-estimated. Let us consider a population of a million born in the same year, half of whom are males and half females. Let us suppose that they all marry, each couple before the age of twenty producing two children, half of whom are girls and half boys. For the sake of simplicity we may imagine that at the end of each twenty-year period the parents die simultaneously with the birth of their offspring. Then, if the children marry and produce offspring as did their parents, we shall have a standard population of 1,000,000, which will neither increase nor decrease so long as these conditions are fulfilled. If, however, the average number of children is 2½ per couple, then in 100 years the population will be 3,050,000; if three, 7,954,000; if four, 32,000,000; if five, 97,650,000.

VI HUMAN HISTORY

1. As a further preliminary to the separate inquiries into the two parts of the problem, we have to sketch the main outlines of history in its broadest aspect. The facts will in themselves form an important element in the subject-matter when we come in the second part of the book to discuss the qualitative problem. They also form, as explained in the third chapter, a framework into which such knowledge as we have of primitive races may be fitted with all the necessary qualifications and safeguards. The procedure will be in the first place to glance at the main subdivisions of the sedimentary deposits, and to ask how far they can be dated. In this fashion alone can we arrive at any chronological basis with regard to human evolution. We have then to refer to the evolution of the Primate branch of the mammals to which man belongs, and afterwards to the evolution of the bodily form of man. As the fossils upon which the evidence is based are connected with certain geological strata, some vague indication of their date, or at least of their relative appearance in time, can be arrived at, in any case with regard to the later forms. We can then refer to the evidence of the cultural remains of man and correlate this evidence with that derived from the fossil remains. In this fashion some indication can be obtained of the evolution of culture and of the physical form of man anterior to the last three or four thousand years. For the last period written records are available, and supplement the evidence derived from cultural remains. Finally we have to discuss the manner in which we can use the evidence derived from primitive races to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

2. The deposition of the sedimentary strata is usually divided into four main periods, each of which is subdivided into smaller eras. The following table shows the divisions most commonly adopted.

{ Recent { Quaternary { Pleistocene { Cainozoic { { Pliocene { { Miocene { Tertiary { Oligocene { Eocene

{ Cretaceous Secondary { Jurassic { Triassic

{ Permian { Carboniferous Primary { Devonian { Silurian { Cambrian

Archaeozoic Precambrian

It is with the Cainozoic period that we are alone concerned, and chiefly with the Pleistocene and Recent subdivisions of that period. Before we consider the Quaternary epoch, one or two facts with regard to the dating of the other periods may be mentioned. However long it is supposed that the deposition of the sedimentary deposits has occupied, it is usually held that the Archaeozoic period occupied at least half of the whole length of time. This supposition is rendered necessary by the fact that already in the Cambrian era organisms of a high degree of complexity are found; thus in this era Crustaceans, Brachiopods, and Worms are common; Echinoderms, Coelenterates, and Sponges are also known. In the Silurian most of the classes of the animal kingdom are represented, the exceptions being amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The presence of fish shows that by this time vertebrates had already been evolved. Amphibians first appear in the Carboniferous and reptiles in the Permian. Birds first occur in the Upper Jurassic and mammals towards the close of the Triassic. The estimates as to the time occupied by the deposition of all these strata taken together vary very greatly—the average being about 100,000,000 years, though it should be mentioned that as long a period as 1,000,000,000 years has been proposed.[163] With regard to the length of time which it is supposed that the later subdivisions of the Cainozoic period have covered, it may be noticed that Penck estimates the length of the Pliocene and Miocene periods at about two and three million years respectively.

It is the dating of the subdivisions of the Pleistocene epoch that is of interest here. This era is also known as the glacial epoch. During this period large areas both in the northern and southern hemispheres were covered by the formation of glaciers or by the advance of previously-existing glaciers. It is now almost universally admitted that in Europe at least there were four separate advances of the ice. After reaching on each occasion a point of maximum extension, the ice retreated, and there were thus three inter-glacial or genial epochs, while the period since the fourth glaciation is known as the Recent period. The limit of the extension of the ice varied in each glaciation, and was at its maximum in the second glaciation. These separate glaciations and intervening genial periods serve to subdivide the Pleistocene era, and when fossil and cultural remains are discovered an attempt is made to ascertain in which of these subdivisions they occur.

Nothing more than guesses can be made as to the length of the glacial period as a whole and of the subdivisions, and these guesses differ very widely. Osborn gives the following list of estimates:[164]

1863. C. Lyell 800,000 years 1874. J. D. Dana 720,000 „ 1893. C. D. Walcott 400,000 „ 1893. W. Upham 100,000 „ 1894. A. Heim 100,000 „ 1900. W. J. Sollas 400,000 „ 1909. A. Penck 520,000–800,000 years 1914. J. Geikie 620,000 (minimum) years

Osborn adopts the more conservative estimate of Penck for the duration of the whole period, and gives a subdivision of the period, which is as follows:[165]

│ _Period._ _Relative Duration._ _Grand Totals._ ───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────── │Recent 25,000 25,000 ───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────────── Pleistocene│Fourth Glacial 25,000 50,000 „ │Third Genial 100,000 150,000 „ │Third Glacial 25,000 175,000 „ │Second Genial 200,000 375,000 „ │Second Glacial 25,000 400,000 „ │First Genial 75,000 475,000 „ │First Glacial 25,000 500,000

3. With man are associated among mammals more or less closely five groups of animals—the Anthropoid apes, the Platyrrhini or Old World monkeys, the Catarrhini or New World monkeys, the Lemurs, and the Tarsii. It is clear that all these groups diverged from a common stem; the first divergence, however, must have occurred not later than the Eocene. To ascertain the interrelationship of these groups and the order of their divergence we have to rely chiefly upon the evidence provided by fossils. This evidence is very incomplete and, so far as the definitely pre-human ancestor is concerned, is lacking entirely until we come to a form known as Pithecanthropus, found in Java in a deposit attributed either to the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene. With regard to the evolution of the Primate stock it is usual to assume that the Lemurs[166] and the Tarsii branched off from the main stem very early, and that the Catarrhini followed by the Platyrrhini branched off in the Eocene. It is usual, therefore, to assume that in Oligocene times there was existing a Primate stock ancestral both to the anthropoid apes and to man. It is possible that Propliopithecus from the Fayum is a representative of this common stock from which the gibbons branched off in the Miocene in one direction, and the orang, chimpanzee, gorilla, and man in another. Man, it is imagined, branched off from this latter stock in the early Miocene and the orang shortly afterwards, the separation of the chimpanzee and gorilla occurring somewhat later. Various ancestral gibbons (Pliopithecus and Pliohylobates) and ancestral anthropoids (Dryopithecus, Neopithecus, and Palaeopithecus) are known from the Miocene and Pliocene, but nothing has come to light as yet of the distinctively pre-human stock in these times.

Apart from the question as to how the distinctively human stock is related to the rest of the primate stock, there is much to be said for the view that the pre-human ancestor of Miocene times was a small arboreal primate which probably lived in a restricted area. But of the mode of life we have of course no direct knowledge. It is possible, however, that the mode of life of the anthropoid apes may give some indication of the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor lived. That they are all confined to warm climates in the Old World is suggestive when it is remembered that Pithecanthropus was found in Java. They are all more or less arboreal. The orang seldom comes to the ground; the chimpanzee, though more arboreal than the gorilla, is less so than the orang, while the gorilla is the least arboreal of all. The first two species construct nests in the trees, and the same is asserted of the gorilla, though this appears to be doubtful. They all adopt in varying degrees a semi-erect attitude from time to time. They exhibit a certain development of the social instinct; the gorilla is seen in bands, the gibbons congregate in the evening in groups. It seems certain that marriage in the sense in which Westermarck employs the term exists among them; it is asserted that they are all polygamous, though the chimpanzee may be monogamous. In any case they are not promiscuous in their sexual relations.

If a guess is to be made at all as to the mode of life of the pre-human ancestor, it is most reasonable to assume that it was something after the same kind. But whereas the apes are powerful specialized animals, the pre-human ancestor must have been a weaker and more generalized primate, having specialized only in the increase of the brain. It was this character which undoubtedly enabled him to maintain himself, and which compensated for the relative absence of other means of defence. The apes, on the other hand, are well able to look after themselves. ‘The orang, as Selenka informs us, is more than a match for the dangerous carnivora with which he has to contend, and the gorilla is monarch of the woods.’[167]

When we survey the Tertiary period as a whole we see that there was a rapid and varied evolution of the mammalian stock in Eocene and Oligocene times which culminated in the Miocene. All classes of mammals were in process of rapid evolution. After this epoch of evolution, specialization, and adaptation, the way was opened to the taking of the lead by a species which exceeded others rather in intelligence than in bodily superiority. The pre-human ancestor, we must suppose, had somewhat fallen behind in this contest to achieve adaptation by means of specialization, and could not then have taken a prominent place among mammalian species. Nevertheless, somehow he managed to maintain himself, and ultimately, as we shall point out later on, the retention of a generalized bodily form became of a very distinct advantage in that it enabled the best use to be made of his growing intellect.

4. The fossil remains of man from the Pleistocene are few and incomplete. It is a matter of great interest to observe in what subdivision of the Pleistocene these fossils occur, in which glacial or genial epoch, that is to say, they are found, as in this manner some indication can be gained, if not of their absolute, then of their relative, distance from the present epoch in time. As already mentioned, abundant evidence of human cultural remains are also found in the Pleistocene, and these remains likewise can be associated with the subdivisions of the period. Various names have been given to these cultural periods, and we shall glance later at the evidence upon which these periods are based. But it will be of assistance now to give a table showing how the cultural periods are connected with the subdivisions of the epoch, as it will thus be apparent how the fossil remains stand in relation not only to the glacial and genial periods, but also to the cultural periods.[168]

With regard to this table, except in respect to epochs of the later post-glacial period, the dates are only intended to give an idea of relative distance in time.[169] Some approximation to accuracy can be obtained for the Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron ages. In the case of the latter two epochs, different dates have been given for the beginning of the period in the Orient and in Europe. The remaining dates refer to Europe only. As many cultures, so far as can be deduced from the evidence, came from the Orient, the beginnings of such culture periods in the Orient are doubtless to be dated some considerable time before they first appeared in Europe. The names of the cultural periods, it may be remarked, are taken from the places where either specimens of the culture were first found, or where they are seen at their best. Thus Chellean is derived from Chelles—a palaeolithic station close to Paris—Acheulean from St. Acheul in the valley of the Somme, Mousterian from Le Moustier on the right bank of the Vézère, and so on.

_Period._ _Date._ _Culture._ _Racial Type._ ───────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────── Post-Glacial 1,000 B.C. Iron │Europe „ 1,800 „ „ │Orient ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── „ 2,000 „ Bronze │Europe „ 4,000 „ „ │Orient ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── „ 5,000 „ Neolithic │Copper „ 7,000 „ „ │Swiss Lake Modern racial │ types. „ 10,000 „ „ │Early ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── „ 12,000 „ Upper │Azilian Palaeolithic│ „ 16,000 „ „ │Magdalenian Brünn and other │ races. „ 20,000 „ „ │Solutrian „ 25,000 „ „ │Aurignacian Cro-Magnon and │ Grimaldi. ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── Fourth 50,000 „ Middle │Mousterian H. Glacial Palaeolithic│ neanderthalensis. ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── Third Genial 150,000 „ Lower │Acheulean Palaeolithic│ „ │Chellean Third Glacial 175,000 „ „ │Pre-Chellean Eoanthropus. ───────────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────── Second Genial 375,000 „ │ H. heidelbergensis. Second 400,000 „ │ Glacial │ First Genial 475,000 „ │ First Glacial 500,000 „ │ Beginning of 525,000 „ │ Pithecanthropus. Pleistocene │

5. Turning to the fossil remains of man we have first to deal with Pithecanthropus. In September 1891 Dr. Eugene Dubois of Amsterdam discovered at Trinil in Java certain fossil remains; he continued to excavate for some two years, and succeeded in finding other remains, all of which he attributed to the same individual. To this individual he gave the name of Pithecanthropus erectus.[170] Dubois considered that the strata in which Pithecanthropus was found belonged to the Pliocene. Very great interest naturally attaches to this question; Dubois’s view has been challenged: subsequent visitors to Trinil have very carefully considered the matter, and the weight of scientific opinion now favours the attribution of the strata to the early Pleistocene.[171]

The scantiness of the remains renders a reconstruction of the individual a difficult and doubtful matter. Nevertheless, after some twenty years of discussion there is a very general agreement that Pithecanthropus was in many respects intermediate in type between modern man and the hypothetical pre-human ancestor. The bones of the cranium are fused, the brow ridges massive, and there is a marked narrowing behind the orbit—all ape-like features. Further the cranium is flattened somewhat as among the apes, but not to so great a degree; the altitudinal index is 34·2; of the average European it is 52; of Neanderthal man 40·4. The cranial capacity is about 855 c.c., or 250 c.c. greater than the largest known skull of any of the Simiidae, whereas the average cranial capacity of the Australian, the lowest living race, is about 1190 c.c. The femur has only a slight curvature, and is decidedly human, indicating that its possessor was some 1650–1700 mm. in height, and probably walked upright. The teeth are simian rather than human, the roots diverge and the crowns are large; they exhibit, nevertheless, certain human features.

If we attempt to reconstruct Pithecanthropus, we must picture a creature half ape, half man, which was probably terrestrial and erect. His body weight must have been about 70 kilograms. If this fact is correct, it provides a very useful method of estimating the relation of Pithecanthropus to the apes on one hand and to man on the other. We know roughly what proportion brain weight bears to body weight. If Pithecanthropus had been human—given the brain weight deduced from the cranial capacity—the body weight should be 19 kilograms. If Pithecanthropus had been simian, the body weight should be 230 kilograms. We have in fact reason to think that it was about 70 kilograms, which emphasizes the intermediate position of Dubois’s famous discovery.

It is further probable that Pithecanthropus had free use of the arms, the legs having become specialized for progression. It is quite possible that he may have employed tools of wood or of stone, though there is no evidence to this effect. It is further possible that some rudimentary form of speech may have been employed. The motor centre for speech is found in a particular area of the brain known as Broca’s area. This area can be identified in the brain cast of Pithecanthropus, and it is stated to be twice as great as in the apes, but only half as large as in man. ‘The undeveloped forehead of Pithecanthropus and the diminutive frontal area of the brain indicate that the Trinil race had a limited faculty of profiting by experience and accumulated tradition, for in this prefrontal area of the brain are located the powers of attention and of control of the activities of all other parts of the brain. In the brain of the ape the sensory areas of touch, taste, and vision predominate, and these are well developed in Pithecanthropus. The central area of the brain, which is the storehouse of the memory of action and the feelings associated with them, is also well developed, but the prefrontal area, which is the seat of the faculty of profiting by experience or of recalling the consequences of previous responses to experience, is developed to a very limited degree.’[172]

Pithecanthropus is thus a form of the highest interest in the history of man. Provisionally, it may be put at the dawn of the Pleistocene. Uncertainty also surrounds the position of the next human remains to be mentioned, which consist of a lower jaw from the Mauer Sands near Heidelberg.[173] It is generally agreed that these sands were deposited in a genial epoch, and opinion now inclines to associate them with the second genial epoch. The jaw itself is very simian, scarcely showing any approach to human characters. The teeth, however, are remarkably human, and it is said that in some respects the teeth of existing primitive races approach the simian condition more nearly than do the teeth of the Heidelberg race. The relation of this form to Pithecanthropus and to those which follow may be left for consideration until we have completed our sketch of human fossil types.

There remains a third early form to be mentioned—Eoanthropus dawsoni from Piltdown near Lewis.[174] The gravel in which Eoanthropus was found was certainly deposited in a warm period. It probably dates from either the second or the third genial epoch, but great uncertainty attaches to the correlation of these gravels with the phases of the glacial period. Some implements found near the bones have been referred to the pre-Chellean culture period, which would indicate the third genial epoch. The mammalian fauna seems also to favour the reference of these strata to the same period.

The remains of Eoanthropus consist of the greater part of the brain case and part of the right mandible with the first and second molars _in situ_. The canine tooth was found later. The skull has been reconstructed from several fragments. There has been much controversy as to the correct method of performing this reconstruction. The first estimate of the cranial capacity put it at about 1,100 c.c. Woodward has later revised his estimate, and arrived at a figure approaching 1,300 c.c. Keith has suggested a higher figure. The bones of the skull are very thick, brow ridges are almost absent, and the forehead is very steep. The jaw, on the other hand, is even more ape-like than the jaw of Heidelberg man; it slopes away with scarcely any vestige of a chin, the pre-molar series of teeth is parallel, and the molars do not decrease in size backwards. It is owing to the simian features of the jaw that the authors felt justified in creating a new species for these remains. Although the absence of brow ridges and the presence of a steep forehead are characters which mark the higher human types, they are also found among all young apes. It is thus possible that Eoanthropus may represent in the general form of the skull the missing Miocene and Pliocene ancestor more nearly than Pithecanthropus. The brain, though very primitive, was decidedly human; there was a moderate development of those areas connected with speech.

6. It is a matter of doubt to what subdivisions of the Pleistocene the types hitherto mentioned should be assigned and with what cultures, if any, they should be connected. At this point we come to a region of less uncertainty. Associated with Mousterian implements and with the deposits of the fourth glacial period we find a distinct type of man whom we may call Mousterian or Neanderthal; for it was in the Neanderthal near Düsseldorf that the first specimen of this race was discovered in 1856.[175] Since that date several other examples of this type have been found. Some of the specimens have been preserved almost complete, and Professor Boule has been able to make a detailed study of the skeleton from La Chapelle-aux-Saints.[176] In the course of his memoir he institutes a comparison between this and other examples of Neanderthal man, and shows that they all agree in the possession of certain features of importance. Neanderthal man was small but massive; the facial portion of the head was much developed in comparison with the cranial; the head was low and narrow, the forehead receding, the occiput protruding, the orbits large, and the brow ridges heavy. The lower jaw was strong, the chin rudimentary, and the hinder molar teeth primitive. The vertebral column indicates a less upright posture than that of modern man. With regard to one feature—the cranial capacity—there is great variability. The cranial capacity of the Gibraltar skull is only 1,296 c.c., whilst that of the Chapelle-aux-Saints specimen is 1,620 c.c. According to Boule, however, this variation is no greater than that found among modern European skulls. He makes out the average capacity of Neanderthal man as 1,400 c.c.; this estimate is far lower than that usually given; it is often said that the average capacity approaches 1,600 c.c.

The Neanderthal race forms a very distinct type. It is found only in the Middle Palaeolithic period.[177] Of its origin there will be something to be said later; it appears that it died out before the Upper Palaeolithic age began, for, as we shall see, apparently none of the types which occurs later descended from this race.

7. The Upper Palaeolithic culture is associated with the end of the fourth glacial epoch. In place of the remains of Neanderthal man we find the remains of several types, none of which shows any affinity to Neanderthal man. On the contrary they all approximate more or less closely to modern man. At one bound we seem, when looking at the fossil remains from this epoch in Europe, to have passed into the modern period so far as human bodily form is concerned. As we shall see later, it is probable that the various types entered Europe from the East, and probably originated somewhere in Western Asia. The most important of these types is known as Cro-Magnon man. It is found throughout the Late Palaeolithic period. The first specimen was found at Cro-Magnon in the valley of the Vézère. Other specimens have been found in the Grotte de Grimaldi and assigned to the beginning of the Aurignacian, the first subdivision of the Upper Palaeolithic, and others again at Obercassel, and assigned to the Magdalenian, or last subdivision of the Upper Palaeolithic. In modern France in the region of Périgueux there is existing at the present day a type which in so many features resembles Cro-Magnon man that it may be a survival from Upper Palaeolithic times.

The general features of the chief types of the Upper Palaeolithic may be very briefly indicated. The skull of Cro-Magnon man was narrow, the face low and broad; the brow ridges project slightly; the orbits are low and rectangular; the nose is long and narrow and the root broad. Cro-Magnon man was tall, approaching an average of 6 ft. in height; the cranial capacity was large, being somewhere about 1,600 c.c.[178]

In the Grotte de Grimaldi were also found two skeletons of what has been called the Grimaldi race. No other skeletons of this type have been found in Europe. There are two points to notice about this type; first it is not relatively speaking a low type; the cranial capacity was, for instance, 1,580 c.c.; secondly, it shows undoubted resemblance to the Negroid type. The skull is narrow, the face large and low, and prognathism is marked. The orbits are large and of low vertical height, the nose broad and flat.

The third type is that found at Brünn and again at Brux in connexion with Solutrian culture (middle of Upper Palaeolithic). The skull is very long and generally of a lower type than the Cro-Magnon skull. In certain respects there is a slight resemblance to the Neanderthal type. Finally from deposits at the close of the late Palaeolithic period at Offnet two further types are known. One of them is a long-headed race not unlike the Mediterranean type of European at the present day. The other is a broad-headed race, which is not unlike the Alpine type of modern European.

In a general sketch further details need not be added. There is no essential difference between the physical type existing in Neolithic times and that of modern man. Leaving the discussion of the interrelationship and origin of these types until after we have spoken of the evolution of culture, what we have found so far is that in the beginning of the Pleistocene and in the early Palaeolithic there are three primitive types of man known, and that in the Middle Palaeolithic there is a peculiar type with many primitive features, whereas in the Upper Palaeolithic we are in the presence of types which for the most part differ but little from modern races, and even show affinity to certain modern races in particular cases.[179]

8. We have now to give some account of the evolution of culture as shown by the implements and other remains left by primitive man. The story of the first identification of stone implements by Boucher de Perthes is well known. Gradually a succession of periods has been recognized, and the names given to them have already been introduced in the preceding pages. Of the two main periods—Palaeolithic and Neolithic—the first is distinguished by the facts that stone implements were not polished, agriculture was not practised, pottery was not made,[180] and animals were not domesticated. Within the Palaeolithic period several successive types of culture can be distinguished, but before we deal with them something must be said regarding the so-called Eolithic period.

There are found in many places stones supposed to exhibit a very primitive form of human workmanship. To them the name of eoliths has been given. They have been described from the

Oligocene, Miocene, and Pliocene. Many archaeologists believe that they are the remains of a primitive form of culture which preceded the Palaeolithic form of culture. The matter is still under debate.

We may note that eoliths exhibit very little variation. The same types appear from the Oligocene onwards, and if there was an eolithic culture it must have lasted some millions of years and been accompanied by little or no progress in the fashioning of implements. An exception must be made in the case of the so-called ‘rostro-carinate’ implements described by Mr. Reid Moir, and attributed to the late Pliocene.[181] These stones are of a distinctive type, and apparently do not occur in the Oligocene and the Miocene.[182] There are several considerations which make it difficult to accept eoliths as genuine remains of an early culture; some of these considerations do not apply to the rostro-carinate type, and some apply with less force, (_a_) Breuil has pointed out that as good eoliths occur in the Eocene as in the later strata.[183] Apart from this, the occurrence of eoliths in the Oligocene, taken together with the immense length of the period during which no progress in skill was made, is almost incompatible with what we must suppose to have been the course of human evolution. The various classes of mammals were in rapid evolution at this time, and it is difficult to understand how, before this period of mammalian expansion, man alone could have evolved to something akin to the type of the early Pleistocene, and then for so long a period have failed to progress.[184] If indeed Propliopithecus, or any similar form in the Oligocene, is a type from or near the line of human ascent, then we cannot allow Oligocene eoliths to be genuine artefacts, and there is no reason why, if we reject Oligocene eoliths, we should consider Miocene or Pliocene eoliths to be genuine. (_b_) Numerous observations have been made showing that stones similar to eoliths are formed under natural conditions of pressure, wave action, and so on. It is of particular interest to note that even the rostro-carinate type can be thus formed.[185] (_c_) Upon the whole eoliths are only found where other stones of the same composition are found, whereas palaeoliths may be found anywhere—the deduction, of course, being that eoliths, inasmuch as they are formed under natural agencies, remain associated with other stones of the same composition whereas palaeoliths were widely distributed by those who used them. The question of eoliths is very far from being settled. Lest it be thought that the difficulties in the way of accepting eoliths as genuine have been exaggerated owing to some bias, it may be mentioned that the chief deduction we shall draw from human history as a whole would be considerably strengthened if eoliths could be regarded as genuine artefacts. If we cannot accept eoliths as without question genuine, it does not mean that before the Palaeolithic period man did not make and use stone implements. Undoubtedly he did so. But it may be from the nature of the case that it is impossible to recognize these instruments.[186]

9. In a warm period of the Pleistocene, now almost universally identified with the third genial epoch, occur the first implements of undoubted human workmanship. Within this early Palaeolithic epoch three phases of culture are distinguished, the pre-Chellean, Chellean, and Acheulean. It is worth while observing that M. Rutot, who is a foremost supporter of the eolithic theory, remarks, on arriving in a general review of the evidence at this pre-Chellean period, that there can be observed the ‘apparition subite d’objets nouveaux’.[187] It is precisely these ‘objets nouveaux’ which many authorities consider as the first genuine artefacts, and not as mere improvements of a more primitive type of implement.

The typical instrument of the Chellean period was the hand axe—a stone shaped to fit the hand, and used for striking blows.[188] Knives and scrapers were also common. In the Acheulean or latest period of the Palaeolithic there is seen a general improvement in workmanship. The hand axe is lighter and more carefully worked. There is a great variety of small implements, often showing a considerable degree of care and skill. For the first time there is in the Acheulean era evidence that man employed fire. It does not appear that bone was yet used for making implements. It can be shown that early Palaeolithic implements represent a steady and continual advance in skill with the improvement of old types and the development of new types.

During the late Acheulean period it was becoming colder, and the succeeding stage, or Middle Palaeolithic era, falls almost wholly within the fourth glacial period. Man began to make his home in caves, and we are well acquainted with the physical type under the name of Neanderthal man, described above. There are again traces of fire. Some kind of ceremonial burial was employed. A skeleton found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints showed that the body had been carefully disposed for burial; implements had been placed close to the body, one fine implement lying within reach of the left hand. There is a marked difference as regards the stone implements between this and the preceding period. A different method of shaping implements was employed. There is some inclination to regard the Mousterian stone industry as of a lower grade than the stage previously attained. With regard to this stage in general we may note that it is the first in which we have a detailed knowledge of the physical type and in which we have some indication of the stage of psychical development as shown by the employment of ceremonial burial.

This stage is sharply divided from that which follows it. So far as is known, Neanderthal man disappears at the end of the Middle Palaeolithic, and Mousterian industry is replaced by the Aurignacian, a wholly new type of culture, presumably introduced by some new racial element. As we have seen, there are several racial types in the Upper Palaeolithic, and the Cro-Magnon type, which occurs from the beginning of this period, may have brought the new culture into Europe. The art of stone implement making reached a height during the Aurignacian never previously approached; knives and scrapers were especially finely shaped. In the Solutrian, or middle period of the Upper Palaeolithic, stone implement making reached the highest point to which it attained in the Palaeolithic period. The workmanship exhibited in the well-known willow and laurel leaf lance-heads is very fine. Bone tools are first found in the Upper Palaeolithic. It is clear from the disposition of the skeletons that burials were again employed, and indicate, if not a belief in a future life in our meaning of the phrase, at least the presence of a body of tradition regarding the state of the deceased. It is not certain whether man at this stage possessed the bow and arrow. Nothing can, of course, be known with certainty regarding the degree to which perishable substances were manufactured; it can only be said that in all probability skins and furs were used as clothing, that basketwork was understood, and nets constructed. The most remarkable remains which have been preserved from this period are the drawings and paintings on the walls of caverns. They are found throughout the Upper Palaeolithic period, and indicate a high degree of skill and taste.[189]

That the Solutrian Age shows an improvement upon the Aurignacian from the point of view of stone implement making has been indicated. It also shows a similar improvement as regards bone implements; bone needles with perforated eyes, for instance, occur for the first time. There is a distinct improvement in the drawings and paintings. In the next or Magdalenian period of the Upper Palaeolithic there is a loss of skill so far as stone implements are concerned; there is no general decadence, however, as the making of implements from bone, horn, and ivory shows a considerable advance. Further, drawing and painting reached their highest development. The remains from this era are very abundant and well known, and exhibit a vast number of types of implements giving a general impression of a considerable degree of material wealth relatively to the fact that agriculture was not practised.

At the very end of the Upper Palaeolithic the Magdalenian culture is succeeded by a rather obscure stage known as the Azilian-Tardenoisian. There is again a sudden and very distinct break in the evolution of culture. In nearly all respects there is a failure to reach the previous level of skill. Both flint and bone implements are of inferior workmanship. The artistic spirit vanishes. Little is known about this culture; possibly man at this period was not so unskilled, as at first sight seems to have been the case, for he had apparently domesticated the dog.[190]

10. Neolithic culture is marked by the practice of agriculture, the domestication of animals,[191] the polishing of stone implements, and the making of pottery.[192] Though it is strongly contrasted with the preceding culture, there is considerable evidence of a transition period. This evidence, however, is generally interpreted as indicating the infiltration of the new culture from the East, and not the evolution of the new culture in Europe. Even at this relatively recent period in history the chronology is vague. The Swiss Lake Dwellings (Robehausian period) represent the typical fully developed European Neolithic culture, and are dated about 8000 to 7000 B.C. Farther East there is evidence of a far greater antiquity. Montelius on the basis of De Morgan’s observations at Susa calculated that the Neolithic Age began there about 20,000 years ago.[193] Sir Arthur Evans estimates that at least 14,000 years have elapsed since the beginning of the Neolithic period at Cnossus.[194] All that can be said is that the Neolithic culture was flourishing in the eighth millennium B. C. in many parts of Europe, having been brought from farther East, where it had originated at a considerably earlier date. It has proved very difficult to subdivide the Neolithic epoch into successive periods. In the Palaeolithic period superimposed deposits containing relics of various cultures are not infrequently found, thus enabling the succession of culture periods to be made out. In the Neolithic period evidence of this kind is for the most part lacking. It is not proposed to enter upon the subject here beyond saying that three stages are recognized by French archaeologists, the Campignienne, the Chasséo-Robenhaussienne, and the Carnacéenne. The first of these stages is markedly more primitive than the succeeding stages. The second is that of the Swiss Lake Dwellings, and the third that of Megalithic monuments—Dolmens, Menhirs, Cromlechs, Allées Couvertes, stone circles, and so on.[195]

What has been said regarding culture periods in general—namely, that they are not definite periods in time in the history of mankind as a whole, but epochs through which different races have passed at different times—is well illustrated in the case of the Neolithic. The Neolithic culture had existed some thousands of years in Western Asia before it penetrated into Europe, and was practised in some parts of Europe, in Britain, for instance, up to about 2000 B. C. or later, for thousands of years after metals had been taken into use elsewhere. In general the Neolithic period has to be regarded as a period of great advance in material wealth. Relatively to Palaeolithic men, Neolithic men were rich, and often lived in villages of some size. Several animals were domesticated, several varieties of cereals cultivated, linen was manufactured, and the vine as well as a large number of fruit-trees known. It appears that many at least of the well-known trading routes used in the Bronze Age were open in the Neolithic Age. Some of these routes brought the Baltic into communication with the Mediterranean, one began at Venice, passed over the Brenner, and reached the Danube by means of the Inn; thence it traversed the Bohemian forest to the Moldau, and thus reached the Elbe, which was followed to its mouth. Another began at Trieste, and passing through Laibach and Grätz reached the Danube by means of the Leitha; thence it followed the March, traversed Moravia, passed through Silesia along the Oder, while the Vistula was reached by striking across Posen, the principal terminus being Danzig.[196]

11. Obscurity surrounds the location and date of the first use of metal.[197] Gold was probably the first metal known to man; it is found in the pure state in many countries, and would attract attention owing to its lustre. It was not, however, of economic importance until much later. In all probability man learnt the art of metal working from the accidental reduction of ore that formed one of the ring of stones round the camp fire. Copper may have been first used where it appears at the surface in a pure state, having been beaten into implements, as was done by the Indians near Lake Superior; the use of this metal is, however, until heat is employed, to be regarded merely as a variation of the art of stone implement making, and does not form the first step in the art of metal working for which knowledge of reduction by heat is required. It is frequently said that an age of copper preceded the age of bronze, and in many places copper implements were used before bronze implements. Probably the occurrence of a Copper Age in any one place was dependent upon the nature of the ore found there. Copper is frequently associated with tin and other metals in a state of nature. We may suppose that the first metal workers were simply trying to get metal—being aware that metal could be obtained by heating certain kinds of stone—and that in some places they got copper and in other places bronze. Later they learnt to add a definite percentage of tin or some other metal, and thus to produce an alloy of definite composition. Thus a true Bronze Age followed either a Copper Age or an accidental Bronze Age. It is somewhat curious that iron was not taken sooner into use, for less heat is required than in the case of copper for reduction—700° C. to 800° C. as against 1,100° C.

Whether there was more than one place of origin of the use of any metal in the Old World is not known. Copper was independently taken into use in the New World, and the use of copper may have originated independently in North and South America.[198] Bronze was known in Peru. Heat was certainly employed for hammering and annealing copper, and casting may have been employed. Iron was sometimes used in North America to make ornaments. With regard to the Old World a claim is made for many countries as the original home of metal working. Reisner found copper daggers, spear heads, harpoons, pins, needles, and bracelets in the graves of the middle pre-Dynastic period of Egypt; by the time of the first dynasty the Egyptians were ‘in possession of a full equipment of copper weapons’.[199] In the early pre-Dynastic period metallic pigments containing copper were in use, and it is possible that the reduction of copper may have been first suggested by some accidental fusion of these substances. It is further claimed that there is evidence of the local evolution of copper implements since the earliest forms imitate stone implements, and the later forms are merely improvements of pre-existing types.[200] Reisner concludes that there is no reason to assume that the invention came from beyond the frontiers of Egypt.[201] The Sumerians, on the other hand, when we first meet them at a very early date, must have been using copper for some considerable time. All that can be said with certainty is that the use of metals originated in the Orient, probably before 4000 B. C.—possibly some two or three thousand years earlier. Copper, it may be noticed, occurs in Armenia, in the upper basin of the Tigris and in Sinai amongst other places. The use of bronze gradually spread over Europe. It is found in Crete about 3000 B. C., in Southern Thessaly about 2500 B. C., and seems to have reached England about 2000 B. C. or somewhat later. Generally speaking, we can connect the taking into use of metals with the rise of the first civilizations. These civilizations reached their greatest development before the introduction of iron. The whole Minoan civilization, the Mycenean survival of Minoan civilization on the mainland,[202] the most glorious period of Egyptian history up to and including the greater part of the Second Empire, the Sumerian kingdom, the earlier periods of Babylonia and Assyria, all fall within the Bronze Age.

Though it is clear that a great advance took place in the Bronze Age, it is not evident how far this advance is attributable to the taking of metals into use and how far to other discoveries which were made about the same time. The first use of the wheel and of the plough, for instance, dates from this period, and very considerable importance without question is attributable to the plough. Still greater importance is in all probability to be attributed to writing, which again was first used about this time. At a far earlier period various methods of marking sticks had doubtless been employed as aids to memory, as they are still employed by the Australians, and some progress may have been made towards such a system as that of the use of knotted cords in Peru. But the invention of writing properly speaking came much later. By the time of the fourth dynasty Egyptian writing had reached its final form, and the Sumerians, when we first meet them, were using cuneiform writing. This invention of such great import, whether it arose independently or not in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China, was evidently roughly coincident with the first use of metals.

Estimates as to the date of the first use of iron in the Mesopotamian region vary considerably; 1500 B. C. to 1300 B. C. is the date most usually given. In Egypt the earliest known iron weapon dates from 1200 B. C. By 900 B. C. the use of iron had spread over most of Europe. It reached Scandinavia about 500 B. C. It was introduced into Greece by the Thresprotian invasion, which put an end to the Mycenean period, and inaugurated the Homeric Age. It is possible that the Etruscans brought the knowledge of iron to Italy where they arrived during the eleventh century B. C. Upon the whole, opinion inclines to the view that the use of iron originated in Western Asia. Claims have also been made for Europe (neighbourhood of Hallstatt) as the place of origin,[203] for Egypt, and for Africa south of Egypt.[204] With regard to Egyptian claims it may be noticed that iron does not become common until after 1200 B. C. But four examples of iron have been found in Egypt from periods before this date—some of them belonging to very early times. The finding of these pieces of iron presents a rather difficult problem, of which the solution seems to be that iron was very occasionally used, and probably only for ornamental purposes, long before 1200 B. C. in Egypt; it was not, however, brought into general use at this early date.

It is not necessary to carry this sketch of cultural evolution any farther. The Bronze Age marks a turning-point in history. The outline at least of the subsequent course of events is sufficiently familiar. One point may be noticed. We have found reason to place the centre of progress somewhere in the Orient. After metal has been taken into use the centre of progress begins to shift westwards. Once metals had been introduced into Crete, for instance, Minoan civilization was in any case largely an autochthonous growth. Speaking of Crete, Hall says: ‘We have nothing to show any intrusion of any other culture system which in any way suddenly modifies or alters the course of this development, which is that of the civilization of a single people raising itself on its own lines from Neolithic barbarism. Its first development from the static condition in which it had existed for many centuries in the Neolithic stage was sudden, and the dynamic influence which was given by the acquisition of metal speedily carried it to the great height of cultivation which we have seen.’[205] Hitherto—before, that is to say, the taking into use of metal—the centre of progress has been looked for in Central Asia.[206] There had been progress in Europe within the culture periods, but the great steps in progress were made in the East.

12. Let us now review what has so far been said in this chapter. Such indications as the evidence provides point to the origin of man in the eastern portion of the Old World, and probably in a warm climate. The principal facts in favour of this view are the distribution of the anthropoids, the occurrence of Pithecanthropus in Java, and the failure to find any evidence of the antiquity of man in the New World.[207] Unless Pithecanthropus is to be attributed to the Pliocene, we have no knowledge of man before the Pleistocene. It would seem that the pre-human ancestor of the Miocene and Pliocene was probably rather an obscure member of the primate stock retaining generalized features. Somehow without specialization he managed to survive—possibly in some very limited area. When the rapid evolution of bodily form among the mammals had slowed down, the only specialization in which the pre-human ancestor had indulged began to stand him in good stead. That it carried him as far as it did—to the dominion over all living things—was made possible by the fact that his bodily form was not specialized, but was capable of being turned into an instrument of the mind. The evidence seems to indicate the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene as the era when man began to develop along this path.

Just as the East was probably the place of man’s origin, so it remained the seat of both bodily and cultural evolution. There is no sign of the evolution of human physical form in Europe, nor is there any evidence of the evolution of the main stages of culture in Europe until after the taking of metals into use, though there is evidence both of progress and of decay within the culture periods. The evidence points to the conclusion that successive waves of immigrants brought with them new cultures from the East. Some may have entered Europe from Africa, as perhaps did the Cro-Magnons, bringing the Aurignacian culture. These waves of migration are not, however, to be regarded as comparable to migrations within the historical period—the Islamic migrations of the Arabs, for instance. These earlier movements were rather of the nature of slow driftings of peoples. They may have been connected with climatic changes and have occupied long periods of time. Quite possibly when we appear to see the extinction of one culture and the sudden replacement of it by another, what in fact happened was that, owing to climatic changes, those who practised the earlier culture had shifted elsewhere before the newcomers occupied the area in question.

With regard to the bodily evolution of man the first detailed knowledge we have is of the Neanderthal race. We know that Neanderthal man lived in the fourth glacial period. Before this epoch we know nothing of human bodily evolution except from three imperfect specimens which we cannot assign definitely to any period in the Pleistocene beyond placing them before the Middle Palaeolithic. No definite conclusions can be drawn as to the relation of these three forms one to another, or to the forms which follow.

Pithecanthropus may or may not be on the direct line leading to all the higher races. There is some probability that Heidelberg man is a forerunner of Neanderthal man, whereas Eoanthropus would seem to be related on the one hand to the hypothetical Pliocene ancestor, and on the other hand to the Late and not to the Middle Palaeolithic races. It is quite possible that, as Europe was not the scene of human evolution, Piltdown and Heidelberg men represent varieties which have died out, and not stages from the main line of human evolution. This is certainly the case with the Neanderthal race. In the Upper Palaeolithic we find races of as high a physical type as those of the present day, but we have no certain knowledge of their direct ancestors.

By far the most remarkable feature of the whole process has been the speeding up of the rate of progress of the evolution of culture. This speeding up would be very much emphasized if we could accept eoliths as genuine, as indicating, that is to say, the existence of an eolithic culture before the Palaeolithic culture extending over an immense period of time. As it is, the acceleration of the rate of progress is striking enough. The whole Palaeolithic period probably lasted at least 100,000 years. Regarding this period as a whole, we can observe a noteworthy speeding up of progress in the last part of the period. A few thousand years only separate the early from the late divisions of the Upper Palaeolithic and the progress exhibited is very considerable, whereas but relatively little progress is visible during the huge length of time which the Lower Palaeolithic must have occupied. The whole progress made, however, up to the opening of the Bronze Age is insignificant compared with that made since. Nevertheless, progress has not been uniform within the historical era. There have been periods of stagnation and even of decadence. Little progress in command over nature was made between the time of the later Egyptian civilization and the later Middle Ages as compared with the progress made in the last hundred years. Progress in skill gathered speed in the thirteenth century, and the speeding up became very marked in the eighteenth century. There has been a similar lack of uniformity in the evolution of culture where culture is judged by standards other than command over nature.

13. How far can we employ our knowledge of primitive races to fill in this framework? Some reference has been made in the fourth chapter to the position which these races occupy. It was pointed out that they represent ‘relicts’ of stages of culture through which the civilized races have passed, due allowance being made for the fact that they have developed to some degree on specialized lines of their own since their separation from the main stream of progress. In some few cases, as in the example of the Seri Indians, there may have been decadence.

Broadly speaking, these races fall into two groups. There are the hunting and fishing races, and there are those which practise a primitive form of agriculture. The former, it is to be presumed, ceased to be in any important manner influenced by, if they were not wholly cut off from, the main current of cultural evolution before the end of the Palaeolithic Age. The latter may have remained more or less in contact with the main stream of evolution until late Neolithic times, or they may have lost touch earlier and have acquired independently the art of agriculture, as was presumably the case with those American Indians who practise agriculture. The chief hunting and fishing races are the Tasmanians, Australians, Bushmen, Eskimos, and certain of the American Indians. Professor Sollas has drawn up a comparison between the culture of some of these races and that of certain epochs in the Palaeolithic era. He has shown that Tasmanian and Australian culture may be compared with early and late phases respectively of the Middle Palaeolithic. A very striking similarity indeed can be shown between the Aurignacian culture and that of the Bushmen on the one hand and between the Magdalenian culture and that of the Eskimo on the other. When we consider the osteological evidence, however, we do not find any striking similarity between Neanderthal man and Australians and Tasmanians. The existence of the negroid skeleton of Grimaldi is suggestive, but the likeness between it and the Bushmen type is not close. The skull found at Chancelade, however, and generally considered as an aberrant type of Cro-Magnon man does show a very curious resemblance to the Eskimo skull. Thus though we cannot think of the Tasmanians and Australians as actual relicts of the Neanderthal racial type, which we know in Europe, we may think of Australian culture in its broad general features as representative of the Middle Palaeolithic.[208]

As has been already indicated in the fourth chapter, it is not proposed to attempt to carry the method so far as to attribute to peoples of different Palaeolithic cultures peculiarities of certain primitive hunting and fishing races. All that it is proposed to do is to look into the general conditions which obtain among hunting and fishing races with the object of throwing light upon the conditions in the Palaeolithic era as a whole. Similarly it is proposed to throw light upon the Neolithic period by an inquiry into the conditions obtaining among primitive agricultural races. This method is clearly legitimate. It may nevertheless be said at once that as a matter of fact, so far as the most important conclusions are concerned, we shall find no reasons for thinking that hunting and fishing races differ from agricultural races. The legitimacy of the method is therefore not strictly relevant. It follows from this that the splitting up of the data and the consideration separately of hunting and of agricultural races is in reality only a matter of convenience.

14. Before we embark upon this attempt to throw light upon such general characteristics of prehistoric races as are relevant to our particular purpose, there is another point to be considered. One supposition regarding the mode of life of man in early days is that he lived in groups of polygamous families. As monogamy occurs among some of the lowest of existing primitive races, he may have been monogamous. In any case it seems that early man was not promiscuous in his sexual relations. Whatever his primitive mode of life may have been, man gradually rose to the recognition of common bonds and to the observation in common of certain rules and restrictions. Primitive social organization in fact gradually came into being, and this step, slowly and painfully achieved as it no doubt was, represents one of the most important steps ever achieved by man. Then for the first time he began to reap the benefits of co-operation. Clearly we must imagine a primitive form of social organization to have existed in the late Palaeolithic; the attainment to so relatively high a degree of skill and achievement is not otherwise comprehensible. The achievements of late Palaeolithic man indicate the presence of a considerable body of tradition, and the presence of tradition in any considerable amount indicates social organization. It is difficult to come to any conclusion with regard to early and Middle Palaeolithic times. The mode of life of Neanderthal man is perhaps apt to be considered as more primitive than was in fact the case, owing to the somewhat brutal form attributed to his bodily features. It has to be remembered that he practised ceremonial burial, and was acquainted with the use of fire—very significant facts which render it on the whole probable that social organization of a kind existed. Possibly we may have to suppose that social organization existed among lower Palaeolithic men. They too employed fire, and it may well be that their mode of life was not very different from that of the Tasmanians.

Among all primitive races we find a form of social organization, and unless it has been achieved more than once they are all ‘relicts’ of the periods succeeding that in which men wandered in family groups. In the first place, therefore, primitive races are only comparable with prehistoric races which have achieved this great step forward. They throw little or no light upon the conditions anterior to the taking of this step. Further, when we look into the life of these races, we find that the form of social organization is rigid. Men are bound hand and foot by custom.[209] It has been suggested that the peculiarly rigid nature of the social organization among these races—the fact that they are soaked in tradition—is due to their having been left out of the main stream of progress. It has been suggested in fact that, while other races have gone forward, they have more or less stagnated, and that—this is what is important—the relative stagnation has been the cause of the rigidness of the organization. It follows that, to the extent to which this is so, primitive races are not properly comparable with prehistoric races. But it may be doubted if the facts are altogether as sometimes alleged. Doubtless the earliest social organization was far less rigid than it afterwards became, and we must beware of attributing to those early races, which first became socially organized, the features characteristic of primitive races, at least in many aspects. But we must date back the origin of social organization in all probability nearer 100,000 than 50,000 years ago. In other words, later Palaeolithic races must have had some thousands of years of social organization behind them. Is then the peculiar rigidity of the organization of primitive races altogether to be regarded as an acquirement attained during the 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 years, or whatever the period may have been, since they have been out of the main stream of progress? It can scarcely be so. A hardening of the system may have taken place, but not to such an extent as to render it impossible to make comparisons between primitive races and prehistoric races, and, what concerns us, to render unacceptable the attribution to prehistoric races of those general conditions of life found among primitive races, which will form the subject-matter of the next two chapters.

VII HUNTING AND FISHING RACES

1. We now pass to a consideration of the quantitative problem. In this chapter we deal with hunting and fishing races. We require information first regarding those factors which hinder the realization to the full of the power of fecundity, and secondly regarding those factors which cause elimination. Not until we have this information can we hope to determine how numbers are regulated among these races. This inquiry is not intended to be exhaustive; our aim is merely to gain an idea of the nature of the more important factors which are in operation. When we come to the interpretation of the evidence, there will be more to say both as to the incompleteness of the evidence as here presented and as to the inherent difficulties of ascertaining what the position was before European influence had made itself felt.

2. We may first consider sexual intercourse before maturity. It is perhaps more difficult to determine the prevalence of this custom than that of any other practice which we shall have to examine in the course of this chapter. The difficulty is due to the nature of the facts under discussion; first it is clearly not easy to ascertain them and comparatively few authors have the intimate knowledge necessary to enable definite statements to be made; secondly such veiled and guarded language is often used that the true state of the case remains uncertain. We shall see that marriage, or at any rate cohabitation, very soon after puberty is the universal rule among these races. Statements therefore concerning ‘very early’ marriage must, in the absence of more exact information, be taken to mean no more than that marriage follows at once after puberty. Of the Tasmanians there is no certain information. Statements exist to the effect that marriages are sometimes consummated in Australia before puberty;[210] these statements are seldom specific or on good authority. The more trustworthy accounts state definitely that, no matter at what age betrothal occurs, the husband does not claim his wife until she is mature.[211] The existence of early betrothal as a widespread habit has no doubt betrayed some authors into an error.[212] We know little of the customs of the Bushmen in this as in most other respects. Statements have been made, however, to the effect that marriage took place at so early an age that the girls could not have been mature.[213]

Passing to the Eskimos it would appear that pre-puberty intercourse is not uncommon. Of the Eskimos of Greenland we read as follows: ‘Often indeed he marries before there is any chance of the union being productive.’[214] Murdoch says of the Port Barrow Eskimos that ‘promiscuous sexual intercourse between married or unmarried people, or even among children, appears to be looked upon merely as a matter for amusement’;[215] similarly Turner says of the Eskimos of the Ungava district that ‘many of the females are taken before that period’ (i.e. before maturity).[216] There are some indications that similar habits occur among the Indian tribes of the far north and of the Pacific Coast. Ross reports of the Eastern Tinneh that ‘they marry sometimes, but not often at ten, and have their menses at thirteen’.[217] Bearing in mind the average age at which menstruation begins among American Indians, the following statement by Gibbs, referring to the tribes of Western Washington and North-western Oregon, points to the same conclusion. ‘Cohabitation of unmarried females among their own people brings no disgrace if unaccompanied by child-birth. ... This commences at a very early age, perhaps ten or twelve years.’[218] There does not seem to be any definite statement with regard to the Californians; nevertheless the common accounts of marriage at twelve or thereabouts, coupled with statements as to freedom before marriage, are suggestive. Speaking generally of the Californians, Powers says that ‘marriage frequently takes place at the age of twelve or fourteen’,[219] and that ‘there is scarcely an attribute known as virtue or chastity in either sex before marriage’.[220] Another observer speaks of very early marriage among the Comanches in such a manner as to suggest that it may be consummated before puberty.[221] Lastly, there is some information for certain other races which belong to this group. We are told that among the Fuegians sexual relations begin at about ten to twelve years of age,[222] whereas menstruation begins at about fourteen or fifteen years of age.[223] Of the Veddahs we read that ‘marriage takes place at an early age; it was said that marriage sometimes takes place before puberty, and as we have heard of this at Herrebedda, Barrdaraduwa, and Omuni, we see no reason to doubt the truth of the statement’.[224]

3. There is ample evidence to the effect that the period of lactation is always prolonged among these races. Speaking of the Tasmanians, Ling Roth mentions two years[225] and Bonwick three to four[226] as the length of this period. Of the central Australians Eyre says that ‘infants are not often weaned until between two and three years old’.[227] Of the Western Australians Grey says that ‘the native women suckle their children until they are past the age of two or three years’.[228] For the Southern Australians, Eylmann mentions four years,[229] for the Narrinyeri, Taplin two years,[230] for the aborigines of Encounter Bay, Meyer ‘a considerable time, sometimes to the age of five or six years’,[231] for the aborigines of Victoria, Curr three years,[232] and for the natives of King George’s Sound, Brown four to five years.[233]

From America the evidence is similar. Among the Port Barrow Eskimos the children are nursed until about three or four years of age.[234] Nansen states that ‘Greenland mothers are very slow to wean their children. They often give suck until the child is three or four, and I have even heard of cases in which children of ten or over continue to take the breast.’[235] Crantz, speaking of the same country, corroborates this evidence,[236] and Bessels mentions a case from Smith Sound in which a child was suckled up to seven years of age.[237] Heriot, speaking generally of the Indian tribes of the North, mentions ‘the length of time employed by the women in nursing their children, whom they nourish for three or four years’,[238] and Long gives four, five, and even six years.[239] For the Ingaliks Dall mentions three years,[240] for the Eastern Tinneh Ross three or four,[241] for the Thlinkeet Krause four years,[242] and Lord for the Indians of Puget Sound two or three years.[243] Speaking of the Ahts of Vancouver Island, Sproat says he has seen ‘a boy of four following his mother for her milk’,[244] and of the tribes of California Schoolcraft that ‘children are sometimes not weaned until five years of age’.[245] Similarly the Nootkas suckle their children until they are three or four years old,[246] and Chinooks their children ‘until three, four, or five years old’.[247] The facts are similar for the inland Salish and Shushwap[248] as well as for the tribes of Oregon and Washington[249] and the Chepewayans.[250] So also in South America the Puelches[251] and the Abipones[252] suckle their children for three years, and the same is reported of the Fuegians[253] and of the Andaman Islanders who ‘never wean their babies so long as they are able to suckle them’.[254] Among the Ghiliaks suckling is continued up to the age of three years.[255]

4. Initiation ceremonies at the period of maturity are of common occurrence among primitive races. These ceremonies are sometimes accompanied by mutilation of the genital organs; but there is apparently no reason to believe that this mutilation has any effect upon fecundity, except possibly among the Australians.[256] It is unnecessary to describe the exact nature of the operations performed upon Australian boys and girls. The operations are severe and it seems very possible at first sight that they might affect the reproductive power. The opinion of authorities is divided on this point. Spencer and Gillen think that the operations may have an injurious effect;[257] others, such as Roth[258] and Mathews,[259] hold the contrary view. Upon the whole, opinion inclines to the latter side.

Less doubt exists with regard to the assertion sometimes made that these ceremonies are practised with the intention of producing sterility, or in any case relative sterility.[260] For this there is no good evidence and the best authorities definitely assert that it is not so.[261] Another assertion has been made for which there is even less foundation; it is said, for instance, that ‘in some tribes we find it a custom that every man submits to this operation after the birth of his second or third child’.[262] It would appear that as a matter of fact the operation is performed at puberty and at no other time.

5. The three further factors to be considered which may have a bearing upon fecundity are all connected with marriage. It has been shown by Westermarck that marriage exists as an institution among all races, however primitive.[263] What we have to ask is whether there is any postponement of marriage, whether, that is to say, there is any temporary or permanent celibacy and, so far as fecundity is concerned, the age of women at marriage alone is relevant. The evidence points to the fact that marriage of women takes place almost universally among these races if not before, then at or very soon after, puberty. This is Westermarck’s conclusion, after a wide survey of the races belonging both to this and the next group. It will be sufficient to give some examples of the evidence and then to note a few cases in which some postponement is reported.

Summing up the evidence with regard to the Australians, Malinowski says that in general it is true that there are no unmarried girls under sixteen and no widows under forty-five, though there is some evidence with regard to the existence of unmarried females;[264] thus Smyth, speaking of the inhabitants of Victoria, records that girls were married between the ages of ten and twelve,[265] and similar evidence is given by Taplin of the inhabitants of South Australia.[266] In Australia there is no evidence worth mentioning of either temporary or permanent celibacy. Apart from the instances to be given below the evidence with regard to other races in this group is very similar to that given before of the Australians. Thus the average age for a girl to marry in Vancouver Island was sixteen.[267] among the Californians generally between twelve and fourteen,[268] and among the Stseelis and Skaulits tribes fifteen.[269] Veddah girls married between eleven and twelve.[270]

There is no doubt that, generally speaking, postponement of marriage is rare, though occasionally some slight delay is reported, as in the instances given in what follows. It should be mentioned, however, that from time to time there is quite a considerable delay upon the part of the man amongst these races; to this point we shall return later. As regards women, Crantz states that sometimes Eskimo girls do not marry until they are twenty.[271] Hill Tout, speaking of the Salish and the Tinneh, says ‘with the exception of the Carrier tribes early marriages were everywhere the custom’.[272] The same author mentions that among the Thompson tribes girls did not marry until seventeen or eighteen,[273] and this is confirmed by Teit.[274] The latter author gives somewhat similar evidence for the Shushwap,[275] and also says that among the Lillooet Indians girls are isolated for two years after puberty, and only marry when from sixteen to twenty years old.[276] As regards South America we are told by Musters that among the Tehuelches the girls ‘often remain several years spinsters’,[277] and by Dobrizhoffer that among the Abipones girls do not marry before their twentieth year.[278]

There is one other matter to which reference may be made here. There is often very considerable disparity in age between husband and wife at marriage among primitive races. It is frequently the practice for the girls on reaching the age of puberty to be taken in marriage by the older men, while the young men marry women twice their age.[279] Since, however, as pointed out in Chapter IV the age of the husband has little or no effect upon fertility, this practice is of no importance from our present point of view. The important fact which results from the evidence is that almost universally among these races the women are married at or soon after puberty and remain married throughout the mature period.

6. Among almost every uncivilized race there are numerous occasions upon which sexual intercourse is tabooed. Common instances are those of taboo during the preparations for a hunting party or a military expedition. It is not worth while to enumerate these occasions, because with one exception it does not seem that they can, even when considered together, have any marked effect upon fertility.[280] The exception referred to is the prohibition upon intercourse that follows the birth of a child. This taboo is of very great importance among certain races that we shall consider in the eighth chapter. As regards hunting and fishing races there is no record of its existence in Tasmania, Australia, among the Bushmen, the Eskimos, or any other people of importance with the exception of the American Indians. The evidence in this case is scanty; there are certain difficulties and the matter is better left for discussion in the next chapter when we come to deal with the agricultural races of this part of the world. It is enough to say here that certain early observers, speaking generally of the American Indians, refer to this custom, and that two early observers speaking specifically of two hunting tribes—one in North and one in South America—record this custom. Cabeça de Vaca says that the Yguazas abstain from intercourse for two years after child-birth,[281] and Dobrizhoffer records of the Abipones that ‘the mothers suckle their children for three years, during which time they have no conjugal intercourse with their husbands’.[282]

7. At this point we may refer to the remarkable fullness and unanimity of the evidence with regard to the number of children observed among these races. The evidence is to the effect that the number of children is always small.[283] Bonwick says that ‘families were never large with the Tasmanians’,[284] and that ‘the native woman as a rule had very few children, and fewer still were ... permitted to live’;[285] he attributes this to the fact that women did not begin to bear children until after several years of marriage,[286] and that women ceased to bear at or soon after the age of thirty-five.[287] Abundant evidence is forthcoming from Australia. ‘Large families of children are unusual among the aborigines,’ says Dawson, ‘however many may be born, rarely more than four are allowed to grow up.’[288] Lumholtz remarks that there are seldom more than three or four children.[289] Mathew referring to two Queensland tribes records that ‘the number of children in a family was small on the average. Six would be rare. I know of no aboriginal family with more than five who survived infancy.’[290] Grey obtained some statistics in Western Australia with reference to the average number of children born by women who had passed child-bearing age. ‘Forty-one females, of whose families I have obtained (from themselves and others) lists upon the accuracy of which I can rely, had 188 children, or about 4·6 children each.’[291] Among the native tribes of Central Australia the number of children in a family rarely exceeds four or five, and is generally two or three;[292] at the same time sterility is common; the greatest fertility is noticed among the stout and the strong, whereas the thin and weak have scarcely any children.[293] Eyre quotes some observations of Moorehouse, also made in Central Australia, and says that ‘his investigations have led to the conclusion that each woman has on an average five children born (nine being the greatest number known)’;[294] Eyre adds that he agrees with this estimate. Schürmann records that ‘the number of children reared by each family is variable, but in general very limited, rarely exceeding four’. He adds the interesting information that in spite of early marriage he has not observed that they have children at an earlier age than is common among the Europeans, and says that it is rare for a mother to have children ‘in rapid succession’.[295] Wilhelmi’s evidence is similar; with reference to the aborigines of the Port Lincoln district he states that ‘the number of children in a family varies considerably; but, on the whole, it is limited—seldom exceeding four’; he also adds that it seldom happens that ‘children are born in a family quick after one another’.[296]

Stow remarks that ‘the Bushmen seldom had large families’;[297] Theal, on the other hand, says that ‘the earliest Dutch colonists observed that they were remarkably prolific’[298]—one of the very few statements which attribute a high fertility to any of these races. Passing now to the New World we find a similar abundance of evidence pointing to the same conclusion. ‘The Greenlanders are not very prolific. A woman has commonly three or four children, but at most six; they generally bear but one child in two or three years.’[299] Writing more than a hundred years later than Crantz, Nansen gives very similar testimony, which has already been quoted,[300] as has that of Murdoch for the Port Barrow Eskimos.[301] The latter adds that ‘they do not commonly bear children before the age of twenty’.[302] According to Bessels the number in an Eskimo family near Smith Sound is on the average two; this low figure is due to infanticide, he goes on to say.[303] In the Ungava district ‘the number of children born varies greatly, for, although these Eskimo are not a prolific race, a couple may occasionally claim parentage of as many as ten children. Two or three is the usual number.’[304] Armstrong notes of the Eskimos generally ‘that they are not a prolific race from all that I could learn’.[305] Of the Aleutes Ritter says that the average number in a family is two or three.[306]

Writing of the neighbourhood of Hudson Bay, Hearne says: ‘Providence is very kind in causing these people to be less prolific than the inhabitants of civilized nations; it is very uncommon to see one woman have more than five or six children; and these are always born at such a distance from one another, that the younger is generally two or three years old before another is born into the world.’[307] Among the Eastern Tinneh to be confined once every three years is ‘a high average’.[308] The author responsible for this statement goes on to say that ‘the women are capable of bearing children from fourteen to forty-five—a long period of their lives—but in it very few infants are produced. Families on an average contain three children ... and ten is the greatest number I have seen.’ In Alaska ‘the females of the coast tribes are not fruitful, and to see four children of one mother is quite a rare occurrence, one or two being the common number of children to a family’.[309] The evidence of Sproat for the Ahts and of Bancroft for the Nootkas and the Chinooks has already been quoted.[310] Among the Omahas ‘the usual number of children may be stated at from four to six in a family’.[311] Of the Sound Indians Bancroft states that ‘the women are not prolific, three or four being ordinarily the limit of their offspring’.[312] The woman of the interior of the Pacific Coast ‘is not prolific’,[313] and the number in a Chepewayan family is on the average four.[314] In California ‘barrenness was not infrequent, twins very uncommon, and the general average of families did not exceed two children’.[315] Of the same people Baegert states that ‘it is certain that many of their women are barren and that a great number of them bear not more than one child’.[316] Of the Comanches we read: ‘they are not a prolific race; indeed it is but seldom that a woman has more than three or four children.’[317] Among the Puelches of South America ‘children are not nearly so numerous as might be imagined’; this is due in part, however, according to the author, to infanticide.[318] According to Bridges, in Tierra del Fuego ‘few women have more than six children owing to the great length of time between the several births’.[319] Of the same people, Hyades and Deniker record their opinion that four is the average number of children to a married woman.[320] They add that in spite of early marriage very few young couples of eighteen to twenty years of age had any children, although sterility was rare.[321]

Of the other races which belong to this group the evidence points to a similar conclusion.[322] Man thinks that three or four is an average number of children in an Andamanese family, and six is the largest number he met with.[323] Portman mentions three as an average.[324] The Sarasins are of opinion that Veddah women are fairly prolific and that the small families recorded are due to infant mortality.[325] Of the Tuski tribes Dall says ‘they are not prolific’,[326] and according to Deniker ‘the Ghiliak women do not have many children; it is rare to find more than two or three to a family’.[327]

8. We now come to the consideration of the factors of elimination. The first practice, the extent of which we have to investigate, is that of abortion. The methods employed need not be specified in each case; the use of violent physical means is perhaps the most common; among other methods the drinking of various decoctions is frequently referred to. Doubt is sometimes expressed as to the efficacy of some of these means—especially that of the last named. It may be that in some cases it is of the nature of a magical ceremony without any practical result; as a general rule, however, there is no doubt that the methods used are effective.

Among the Tasmanians ‘abortion was frequently practised’.[328] Statements are sometimes made which seem to imply that abortion was not uncommon among the Australians.[329] A survey of the literature does not support this view; the practice is indeed mentioned occasionally, but it is clearly negligible in comparison with the universal presence of infanticide. Curr says that it is occasionally employed.[330] In Collins’s account of the aborigines in the neighbourhood of Port Jackson there is a reference to ‘the horrid and cruel custom of endeavouring to cause a miscarriage’.[331] Palmer records the practice as occurring among the Mythuggadi tribe,[332] and Roth says it is common among certain districts of North-west and Central Queensland.[333] Abortion has been noticed among the Eskimos, but never as a common practice.[334] It is among the Indian tribes of the North and the Pacific Coast that we find the most numerous references to this custom.[335] Speaking of the tribes near Hudson Bay, Ellis mentions ‘a very strange maxim of policy which prevails much amongst them, which is that of suffering rather than of obliging their women to procure frequent abortions by the use of a certain herb common in that country’.[336] Similar facts are recorded of the Knisteneaux.[337] Abortion is not ‘uncommon among the Haidahs’.[338] The Nootkas ‘frequently prevent the increase of their families by abortion’.[339] Lord says that the ‘causing of abortion’ is ‘not uncommon’ among the natives of Puget Sound,[340] while we find this practice spoken of as ‘common’ in Vancouver Island.[341] Teit mentions abortion as being ‘rarely practised’ among the Thompson Indians,[342] and as ‘rare’ among the Shushwap.[343] Gibbs speaks of abortion as being ‘almost universal’ among the tribes of Western Washington and North-western Oregon.[344] According to Bancroft abortion is of ‘frequent occurrence’ among the Chinooks, and ‘not uncommon’ among the inland tribes.[345] Powers also records the practice among the Kabinapek of California,[346] and Castelnau among the Guaycurus[347] and Rengger among the Payaguas.[348] Cooper, who has reviewed the evidence so far as the Fuegians are concerned, states that ‘deliberate abortion is common’.[349]

9. There is one common form of infanticide—the killing of deformed children—which can have no importance so far as numbers are concerned. But this practice may be noted here because of its bearing upon quality. We may also note in particular when the killing is said to be of female children.[350]

Bonwick states that infanticide was fairly prevalent in Tasmania.[351] Ling Roth, who summarizes the evidence of several authors, finds it somewhat conflicting; but it would seem that infanticide undoubtedly occurred though it is not known with any certainty whether it was practised on a large scale or not.[352] In Australia infanticide is practised on a very large scale. Parker states that it was very frequent and that deformed children were always killed.[353] Lumholtz’s testimony is similar,[354] while, according to Dawson, no matter how many children are born, ‘rarely more than four are allowed to grow up’—the deformed children apparently always being destroyed.[355] According to an estimate made by Curr of conditions in Victoria ‘nearly one-half [of the children born to any one married woman] fell victims to infanticide’[356], and more girls than boys perished.[357] According to Wilhelmi, if, as rarely happens, births follow one another quickly among the aborigines of the Port Lincoln district, ‘the youngest is generally destroyed’;[358] Beveridge says that the practice prevails in Victoria and Riverina ‘to a very considerable extent’.[359] This last statement is supported by that of Mathews to the effect that ‘infanticide is common’ in New South Wales and Victoria.[360] Among the inhabitants of the River Darling region ‘it seems to have been the custom to kill many of the children directly after birth’,[361] and in Southern Australia infanticide was very prevalent.[362] According to Howitt infanticide was practised ‘to some extent’ among the Mining Tribe,[363] in the Tongeranka tribe it was ‘common’;[364] in the Mukjarawaint tribe ‘the grandparents had to decide whether a child was to be kept alive or not’;[365] in all the tribes of the Wotjo nation and also the Tatuthi and other tribes of the Murray River frontage, when a child was weak and sickly they used to kill its infant brother and sister and feed it with the flesh to make it strong;[366] in the Wadthaurung tribe the practice was evidently not uncommon;[367] in the Narrinyeri tribe infanticide appears to have been very prevalent, so that ‘more than one-half of the children fell victims to this atrocious custom’,[368] whilst deformed children seem always to have been killed both in this case[369] and among the aborigines of Encounter Bay.[370] Infanticide was common among the tribes of Port Lincoln—girls being less often spared than boys[371]—among the Dieyerie tribe, where deformed children were never spared,[372] among two Queensland tribes,[373] in the neighbourhood of Port Darwin,[374] in Central Australia,[375] and among the Northern tribes of Central Australia.[376] In Western Australia deformed children were always killed.[377]

Our information with regard to the Bushmen suggests that infanticide was prevalent, though not confined to new born children. ‘The Bushmen will kill their children without remorse on various occasions; as when they are ill-shaped, when they are in want of food, when the father of a child has forsaken its mother, or when obliged to flee from the fathers of others.’[378] Infanticide is more common than abortion among the Eskimos.[379] Nelson says that in the neighbourhood of Behring Straits even girls of four to six years of age are at times killed.[380] Among the Central Eskimos ‘it is practised to some extent’, though apparently only girls and the children of widows and widowers are destroyed.[381] Murdoch never heard of infanticide in the Port Barrow region,[382] but says that it is reported to be ‘frequently practised among the Eskimo of Smith Sound without regard of sex’ and that female infanticide occurs among the people of King William Land.[383] It is also recorded of the inhabitants of Smith Sound by Bessels that, after two children have been born, any others that may come are more often than not killed.[384] In Greenland ‘the heathen Eskimo killed deformed children, and those that seem too sickly to live, as well as those that lose their mothers at birth, when no one else can be found to take charge of them’.[385] Killing of deformed children is also reported by Smith,[386] and that of children who have lost their parents by Rink.[387] Among the Aleuts infanticide is said to be rare,[388] but among the Malemutes infanticide, especially of girls, was not infrequent.[389]

Infanticide is frequently practised among the Kutchins[390] and the killing of deformed children by the inhabitants of the Copper River District is especially mentioned in the account of Jacobsen’s journey.[391] Among the Chinooks Lord says it is ‘not uncommon’[392] and Bancroft that it is of ‘frequent occurrence’.[393] The Thompson Indians seldom kill their children, and a woman who did so was reprimanded.[394] With the Haidahs, on the other hand, infanticide is reported to be ‘not uncommon’,[395] and among the tribes between the Frazer and Columbia Rivers it was formerly common.[396] The same impression is gained from accounts of the Chepewayans.[397] The Koniagas ‘prize boy babies, but frequently kill the girls’.[398] Powers, referring generally to the Californians, speaks of ‘the prevalence of the crime of infanticide’;[399] in particular he records that it was common among the Gallinomero, who never spared deformed children,[400] that among the Kabinapek[401] and the Nishinan[402] children who had lost their mother were killed, and that deformed children were destroyed by the Woruk.[403] Among the Yguazes infanticide was fairly frequent.[404] The Abipones of South America ‘do not bring up more than two children to a family, the others being killed to save trouble;’[405] According to another observer ‘they seldom rear but one child of each sex, murdering the rest as fast as they come into the world, till the eldest are strong enough to walk alone’.[406] This practice, on the other hand, is said to be ‘extremely rare’ among the Botocudos.[407] It occurs among the Guaycurus.[408] Among the Puelches infanticide is common and deformed children are always killed.[409] In spite of what has sometimes been said, infanticide ‘only occurs occasionally’ among the Fuegians.[410] In the literature with regard to the Veddahs reviewed by the Sarasins, there is only one author who mentions infanticide.[411]

10. Wars[412] were apparently common between the Tasmanian tribes, but we have no trustworthy information as to their character.[413] Of conditions in Australia we have abundant evidence; the literature has been recently studied by Wheeler.[414] He distinguishes between regulated and unregulated warfare, of which the latter is rare.[415] By regulated warfare is meant not only that the use of heralds, messengers, and preliminary negotiations is recognized, but also that the fighting itself is regulated in such a manner as to restrict bloodshed. Most commonly, if it comes to fighting, the two opposing sides meet and throw boomerangs until one or two men are knocked down. Then, before further damage is done, fighting stops and peace is re-established—not a single life perhaps having been lost.[416] Unregulated warfare is a more serious matter; a war party may attack and destroy a local group of some other tribe without observing any of the formalities described above.[417] In the latter case women are sometimes slain, although this never happens in regulated warfare.[418] On the whole the loss of life owing to warfare in Australia must be very small.

The Bushmen gained the reputation of being vigorous fighters during the wars with the colonists and managed to inspire terror throughout a large part of Africa. We have, however, but little information as to their habits before they were so rudely disturbed and, it must be said, so barbarously treated. ‘They never appear’, says Stow, ‘to have had great wars against each other; sudden quarrels among rival huntsmen, ending in lively skirmishes, which owing to their nimbleness and presence of mind, caused little damage to life or limb, appear to have been the extent of their individual and tribal differences.’[419] Of the Eskimos about the Behring Strait Nelson says that ‘an almost continuous inter-tribal warfare’ formerly existed;[420] such a state of things is clearly uncommon; in Greenland, for instance, we are told that war is rare,[421] whereas among the Central Eskimos real wars have never happened.[422] Nevertheless a good deal of fighting seems often to occur between the Eskimos and the Tinneh, whom they hate and fear. ‘Along the line of contact with the Tinneh tribes of the Interior a bitter feud was always in existence,’ says Nelson,[423] who is confirmed by Bancroft,[424] Hall,[425] and Ellis.[426] Of the Malemutes we are told that ‘the occupants of the several islands are almost constantly at war’.[427]

It is among the American Indians both in the North and South that we find war to be more frequent and sanguinary than elsewhere. Certain tribes are more peaceful than others, but in the lives of only a few did war play an unimportant part. In addition to the evidence of actual fighting we have, what is suggestive in this connexion, many accounts of the large part which martial training played in the upbringing of these races. ‘The whole force of public opinion in our Indian communities’, says Schoolcraft, ‘is concentrated upon this point, its early Lodge teachings, its dances, its religious rites, the harangues of prominent actors made at public assemblies, all, in fact, that serves to awaken and fire ambition in the mind of the savage, is clustered about the idea of future distinction in war.’[428] ‘They are’, says an eighteenth-century traveller, ‘early possessed with the notion that war ought to be the chief business of their lives.’[429] And war does play a very large part in their lives. ‘All Indian tribes are frequently at war with one another,’ says Harmon.[430] The Thlinkeet are often at war[431] and the same applies to all the tribes of the Pacific Coast, including the Haidahs,[432] the Ahts,[433] and the Kwakiutl.[434] Among some of these tribes, however, as, for example, the Chinooks,[435] frequent as fighting may be, it is not very sanguinary. The Northern tribes of the interior we have seen to be at war with the Eskimos from time to time, and we are told that among themselves it is practically continuous.[436] The Inland tribes are perhaps somewhat less warlike,[437] though the accounts of the Shushwap,[438] Lillooets,[439] and Thompson Indians[440] give the impression of tribes among whom fighting—and fighting of a severe kind—is by no means infrequent. The Crees and the Blackfeet, for instance, waged ‘unceasing war’;[441] the warlike instinct of the Chepewayans is well known.[442] The tribes of Western Washington and Northern Oregon engaged in constant warfare, though the actual encounters did not result in any great loss of life.[443] In Central California ‘battles, though frequent, were not attended with much loss of life’.[444] In Southern California we hear of ‘frequent and deadly wars’[445] from one author and of ‘continual wars’ from another,[446] the last laying stress upon warfare as an important factor in the population question. The Seri Indians of Tiburon Island engage in practically continuous warfare,[447] and the Comanches ‘highly honour bravery on the battlefield’. From early youth they are taught the art of war.[448] ‘In consequence of continual hostilities’ the Ygauzas ‘cannot travel the country nor make many exchanges’.[449] Among the Puelches war is both common and sanguinary,[450] and the same is the case with regard to the Guaycurus[451] and the Charruas.[452] The Fuegians are ‘almost always at war with adjoining tribes; they seldom meet, but a hostile encounter is the result’.[453]

11. Passing to the consideration of feuds it is found that they originate largely from motives of blood revenge. The expression blood revenge suggests retribution for a murder actually committed, but among primitive races the origin of blood revenge is far more often the natural death of some member of the tribe. Owing to the almost universal belief among these races that death is never natural in our sense of the word, the loss of a relation or fellow-tribesman is attributed to magical influence, and the guilt fastened upon some individual by a process of magical divination. It appears that women are judged to be equally capable with men of causing death, and that therefore elimination from this cause falls equally upon both sexes.

‘No such thing as natural death is recognized by the [Australian] natives; a man who dies has of necessity been killed by another man or perhaps even by a woman.’[454] ‘If an Abipon die from being pierced by many wounds, or from having his bones broken, or his strength exhausted from extreme old age, his countrymen all deny that wounds or weakness occasioned his death, and anxiously try to discover by which of the jugglers and for what reason he was killed.’[455] I Among different races the holding of this belief has different results. With regard to Australia, Messrs. Spencer and Gillen in the passage quoted above continue as follows: ‘sooner or later that man or woman will be attacked. In the normal condition of the tribe every death meant the killing of another individual’—the guilty person being indicated by a medicine man.[456] The avenging party is at times merely directed by the medicine man to proceed in a certain direction and after a march, it may be of a considerable distance, discovers another local group which it entirely wipes out.[457] At other times an individual near by is indicated and at once dispatched. It is obvious that if such results commonly followed upon the death of every tribesman the population would rapidly diminish, and, as a matter of fact, serious as the consequences of this belief are, there are many indications that blood revenge is not carried out with the extreme rigour that the above passage would seem to indicate. Probably most deaths go unavenged,[458] yet in spite of this blood revenge must be accounted as a factor of importance in Australia,[459] especially as it affects women as well as men.[460]

Among the races belonging to the second group we shall meet with a somewhat similar state of affairs. But, widespread as this belief is, it does not appear to provoke bloodshed among the other races belonging to this group on any large scale. We hear of feuds among the Eskimos and the punishment of witchcraft by death. Murder is also reported as occurring among the Eskimos. ‘It is not a rare occurrence that a man who is offended by another man takes revenge by killing the offender,’ and a feud then follows which may last for generations.[461] Blood feuds originating in actual murder are also recorded of various Indian tribes;[462] but it does not appear that bloodshed, owing to belief in witchcraft, occurs on any significant scale either in North or South America. Of the Haidahs we are told that ‘death is ascribed to the ill-will and malign influence of an enemy and one suspected of causing the death of a prominent individual must be ready to die’.[463] Niblack, speaking of the Coast tribes from Southern Alaska to British Columbia and thus including the Haidahs, says: ‘all severe diseases or illnesses are ascribed to the evil influence of enemies, and in the case of the death of an important personage, a victim is usually found who has presumably charmed away the life of the deceased.’[464] The implication is, of course, that a victim is only sought on rare occasions, as on the death of a prominent man.

12. The custom of killing the old and the sick is of sufficient importance to deserve mention. Among these races it is not uncommon and is connected with the nomadic nature of their existence.[465] The Tasmanians would seem to have been in the habit of abandoning the sick and infirm.[466] There is some evidence of this habit in Australia,[467] but on the whole sick and aged are well looked after in that country.[468] ‘The Bushmen frequently forsake their aged relations when removing from place to place for the sake of hunting. In this case they leave the old person with a piece of meat and an ostrich egg-shell full of water; as soon as this little stock is exhausted, the poor deserted creature must perish by hunger or become the prey of wild beasts.’[469] The aged are not treated well by the Eskimos. In the Ungava district they are put to death,[470] and among the Central Eskimos a man may kill his aged parents.[471] ‘On the East coast (of Greenland) it sometimes happens that old people, who seem likely to die are drowned, or else drown themselves.’[472] For the most part the Indians treat their sick and aged well; but there are some instances to the contrary. The Queka Indians abandon the sick and aged.[473] The Ahts,[474] the tribes of Washington,[475] and the Chepewayans[476] did the same. The Central Californians killed the old people,[477] and, according to MacGee the Seri ‘often abandoned the sick and aged who cannot keep up with them in their constant wanderings to and fro’.[478] In some of the accounts of the Fuegians similar habits are attributed to them; there is, however, some reason to doubt their accuracy.[479] These practices certainly occur among the Zaporos.[480]

13. We have now to mention certain other modes of elimination. That form of elimination, which we saw to be of great importance among animals in a state of nature whereby the young perish on a large scale because they are consumed by other species, is of little importance among men who have reached the stage of the lowest races known to us.[481]

The subject of elimination from disease can be approached from different aspects. We can ask what evidence there is regarding the prevalence of disease among primitive races when they first came under the observation of Europeans. This evidence is of somewhat doubtful value. It is also of assistance to ask how far these races were immune from diseases prevalent in Europe; for it is in general to be inferred that marked liability to disease is a sign that no immunity has been evolved against disease because it was previously absent. We can further consider the question of the evolution of disease in general and ask to what conclusions it points. The latter aspect of the matter can be taken first.

The organisms which cause disease do not belong all to one class. Some, such as the bacteria, are plants, others are animals. Further, those species which cause disease are closely related to other quite innocuous species. Non-virulent diphtheroid bacteria are, for instance, found in the throat. What has happened has been that certain species, belonging to different groups in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, have taken to a parasitic mode of life. It is not very difficult to imagine how this could occur. It is to be presumed that organisms now parasitic were once free-living and saprophytic. There is a bacillus which lives on grass; it is closely related to the tubercle bacillus but is harmless. Such an organism might be frequently swallowed; if liable to destruction, resistance might be evolved.[482] Its presence might be innocuous, or it might not be so and a new disease might be the consequence. The invasion of a host by a parasite appears usually to be followed by a struggle—on the part of the host to get rid of the parasite, and on the part of the parasite to maintain itself within the host—in the course of which struggle the parasite may develop activities noxious to the host. To this struggle there are different possible solutions. But, when we find the struggle in progress, it is a fair assumption that the association of host and parasite is recent. The very fact of disease, therefore, suggests that it is of relatively recent origin.

There are two further facts which are relevant in this connexion. Diseases are very rare among species in a state of nature. Such diseases as we know of among animals and plants occur for the most part among domesticated species. Again, there are certain conditions which favour the evolution of disease; these conditions are found among domesticated species and also among civilized man. There are many ways in which disease can be transmitted—by insects, by liquid particles in the air, by drinking water, by water used for bathing, by water introduced within the tissues, and so on. Transmission by all these means, with the partial exception of transmission by insects, is obviously very greatly favoured by the aggregation of the members of the host species. In fact only when such aggregation occurs can we understand how disease on a large scale could be evolved. The aggregation of men, such as occurred within the third period, into villages and towns, gave rise to conditions under which bacteria could flourish in close proximity to man; under these conditions there was far more opportunity for bacteria and other micro-organisms to become parasitic than before. The suggestion, therefore, is that most diseases evolved in that relatively recent period when, owing to the increase in skill, men came to live in close proximity under settled conditions.

This suggestion is supported by two other lines of evidence. It would appear that Australia and America were upon their discovery free from most of the diseases known in Europe. With regard to the former Davidson says: ‘Australia presents us with a spectacle of a continent, from the pathology of which entire classes of diseases, prevalent in other divisions of the globe, were, until comparatively recent times, completely absent. Thus the whole class of eruptive fevers—small-pox, scarlet fever, and measles—so fatal elsewhere, were unknown. Epidemic cholera, relapsing fever, yellow fever, whooping cough, and diphtheria were equally absent, as also was syphilis.... Leprosy was absent from the southern continent.’[483] The facts with regard to America are very similar. It has been asserted that the only lethal disease of importance present in America before the visit of Columbus was malaria, and it is worthy of note that malaria is an insect-born disease. The question whether tuberculosis was known in America before the discovery has been studied by Hrdlicka, who concludes that, though it cannot be affirmed that it did not exist, it is highly improbable that it did.[484] Again, the marked liability on the part of primitive races to common European diseases points strongly to the fact that no immunity had been evolved against these diseases because they were formerly unknown. Since contact with Europeans has been established, these races have been swept by epidemics, such as the epidemic of measles which carried off a large proportion of the population of Fiji in 1875.

It is not to be concluded that most diseases are recent in the ordinary sense of the word, but only when a broad view is taken of human history. It is known, for instance, that tuberculosis, plague, leprosy, and bilharzia existed in ancient Egypt. Where and when diseases originated we cannot say, but the fact that certain widely-spread diseases can be traced to a previously limited and localized incidence—cholera, for instance, to the Ganges Valley—suggests that such diseases originated in those places in relatively recent times and spread thence. But in spite of such indications the place of origin of most diseases is obscure; syphilis was often said to have been introduced from America; the evidence, however, that it was apparently present in Germany in 1495 is against this view.[485] It is further of great interest to note that certain diseases may have evolved in very recent days. Diphtheria may date from the beginning of the last century and trench fever may be a new disease.

Little as we may know regarding the facts concerning any one disease, the general conclusion is not doubtful. It was not until the third period, and, therefore, only among the races of the third group, that disease became a factor of the first importance in elimination. Some diseases may have reached the African races through Egypt; and to the extent to which this has occurred they are not typical representatives of the time preceding the last of the three periods.[486]

14. In further support of this conclusion some passages may be quoted regarding the races in this group when they had been little influenced by contact with Europeans. Such passages are perhaps not of great weight as evidence of the former absence of disease; they are, however, worth notice because they also bear upon another subject that will come up for discussion in the ninth chapter. According to Bonwick ‘there are strong reasons to believe that, before connexion with the whites, the aborigines [Tasmanians] were a healthy as well as a happy people’.[487] Of the Australians Curr says that ‘as a rule the health of the blacks in their wild state was excellent’.[488] Longevity may be considered as evidence of good health, and of the presence of aged people in Australia many observers speak. ‘From numerous instances it would appear that the former generations were fairly long aged. Almost every small community would have in it two or three men or women over seventy years of age, and here and there some centenarians would be met with.’[489] So, too, Burchell records having noticed many old people among the Bushmen.[490] Writing of the Eskimos in a medical journal Smith calls them ‘uncommonly healthy’.[491] This is the opinion that one gains from other accounts,[492] some of which specially mention longevity as a characteristic.[493] ‘The North Americans are in general robust and of a healthful temperament, calculated to live to an advanced age.’[494] Another author says that the Indians east of the Rocky Mountains are ‘in general subject to few diseases’.[495] Krause quotes the opinion of a doctor who lived among the Thlinkeets in the year 1836 to the effect that they were a strong, healthy people.[496] Of the Shushwap we are told that they were formerly healthy and lived to a great age.[497] Hill Tout sums up the situation with regard to the Salish as follows: ‘the great age, to which both men and women formerly lived, shows the vigour of the race and the general wholesomeness of their lives and condition.’[498] ‘The Nootkas are generally a long-lived race, and from the beginning to the failing of manhood undergo little change in appearance. Jowitt states that during his captivity of three years at Nootka Sound, only five natural deaths occurred, and the people suffered scarcely any disease except the cholic.’[499] Powers, referring to the Californians as a whole, calls them ‘a healthy, long-lived race’,[500] and Baegert speaks of them as ‘strong, hardy, and much healthier than the many thousands who live in daily abundance’[501] [in civilized countries]. Among the Abipones ‘the diseases which in Europe fill houses with sick persons and graves with the dead bodies are unknown here.... You scarce hear once in three years of any of them dying of a fever, pleurisy, or consumption.’[502] Hardt mentions the good health of the Botocudos[503] and King and Fitzroy consider the Patagonians to be very healthy.[504]

15. There remains one other matter to be mentioned. There is abundant evidence that the rate of child mortality is very high amongst all these races. The causes of death are various; disease is seldom mentioned, and death is most often due to exposure as the result of improper treatment or of certain customs, or to want of suitable food. In Tasmania it was difficult to rear children largely owing to the fact that suitable food was not available.[505] Turner says of the Eskimos of the Ungava District that ‘many die in early childhood’,[506] and this would seem to be generally true of this race. The reason usually given is the absence of proper food;[507] and it is not difficult to understand that the peculiar Eskimo diet should be unsuitable for children. Child mortality is heavy among the Indians, ‘only a small proportion coming to maturity’.[508] The reason given in this case is generally the absence not only of knowledge with regard to the simplest requirements of children, but of any reasonable care of them.[509] To this we may add—as the evidence will show—the practice of extraordinary customs which seem designed to eliminate all but those with the strongest constitutions. ‘With all the affection of the mother, the women are almost completely ignorant of ordinary sanitary rules as to feeding, exposure, &c., with the result that infant mortality is something terrible in almost every tribe.’[510] Heriot speaks of ‘incredible fatigues, whose excess occasions the death of many long before the age of maturity’.[511] According to Domenech: ‘many Indians die in infancy; their mothers, to inure them to suffering and to strengthen their constitution, do not take all the necessary care of them.... Till the age of ten or twelve years they are kept quite naked, having only in winter a garment which we would hardly call such in the warmest summer.’[512] Throughout America it is a common custom to bathe even new-born children in cold water at all seasons of the year, and to this Krause attributes the high child mortality that he records among the Thlinkeet.[513] ‘Many children [of the Eastern Tinneh] die at an early age,’ according to one author,[514] whilst from another we hear that ‘the infant is not allowed food until four days after birth, in order to accustom it to fasting in the next world’.[515] Nootka mothers ‘roll their children in the snow to make them hardy’,[516] and the Thompson Indians take small care of their children, allowing them to run about without any protection.[517] Of the Californians the Jesuit missionary Baegert, who dwelt long among them when they were almost uninfluenced by European culture, says: ‘that many infants die among them is not surprising: on the contrary, it would be a great wonder if a great number remained alive. For when the poor child first sees the light of day, there is no other cradle provided for it but the hard soil, or the still harder shell of a turtle, in which the mother places it, without much covering, and drags it about wherever she goes. And in order to be unencumbered and enabled to use her limbs with greater freedom while running in the fields, she will leave it sometimes in charge of some old woman, and thus deprive the poor creature for ten hours or more of its natural nourishment. As soon as the child is a few months old the mother places it, perfectly naked, astraddle on her shoulders, its legs hanging down on both sides in front, and it has consequently to learn how to ride before it can stand on its feet. In this guise the mother roams about all day, exposing her helpless charge to the hot rays of the sun and the chilly winds that sweep over the inhospitable country.’[518] Conditions seem to be much the same in South America. Dobrizhoffer tells us that the Abipones plunge their new-born babies into a cold stream,[519] and Guinnard says that very few diseases occur among the children of the Puelches, though child mortality is high.[520] ‘Few [Fuegian] women save all their children; most die in early infancy.’[521] So, too, among the Andamanese child mortality is said to be excessive[522] and is ascribed to injudicious management on the part of the parents.[523] According to the Sarasins it is the high death-rate that is the cause of the small size of the Veddah families which they observed.[524] New-born Ghiliak children are bathed ‘often when it is 40° below zero. The children who can survive such an experience are necessarily very strong.’[525] ‘According to Schrenck, the Ghiliak woman never dares “to give birth to a child at home; she must, in spite of severity of season or of stormy weather, go out of the hut for the purpose. In late autumn or in winter they build a special hut for the woman, but a very uncomfortable one, so that the mother and the child suffer the cold and feel the wind”.’[526]

This concludes our survey of the races of the first group. Before we consider what conclusions are to be drawn from these facts, we have to deal in the same fashion with the races of the second group. This will form the subject-matter of the next chapter.

VIII PRIMITIVE AGRICULTURAL RACES

1. It is necessary first to explain what races will be considered. The lower limit has already been made clear. As regards the upper limit, some description has been given of the stage of Neolithic culture, and the races to be considered here are those which may be in general compared with the Neolithic races. The comparison can only be rough; as we saw, the subsequent evolution of culture was rapid; metals came into use, and, generally speaking, about the time of the first taking of metals into use arose the first great empires. At this point we clearly enter upon a new epoch and the upper limit in time is defined by the rise of Eur-Asiatic civilization. We wish to study here the conditions anterior to this step in the evolution of culture. It so happens that this Eur-Asiatic culture has influenced in varying degrees many of the races of Africa, Oceania, and Asia. The upper limit among the races to be considered here is best defined by the degree to which they have been influenced by this culture. America stands apart as there has clearly been no influence of this culture upon the races in that continent. But it should be remembered that in some places in America a degree of culture was reached which was probably higher than that to which any Neolithic race attained.[527] Nevertheless all the races of America not already dealt with may be considered here. Many African races are acquainted with the use of iron; it has been suggested that the knowledge of the use of this metal originated in Africa; this, however, is doubtful and the existence of this practice is probably to be regarded as due to the spread of an element of Eur-Asiatic culture. The use of the plough is also an example of the spread of an element of this culture;[528] roughly speaking the use of the plough does not spread towards the west, south of the latitude of Lake Chad; towards the east it extends farther south, and on this account the Gallas, Somalis, and Abyssinians can scarcely be considered as representative of the second group of races.[529] The peculiarity of the Oceanic region is that many of the races now found there undoubtedly migrated from some point on or close to the Asiatic coast after Eur-Asiatic culture had reached a high degree of development. Nevertheless they are for the most part ignorant of the use of metal and of the plough.[530] The Dyaks are metal users and the plough is known in parts of Borneo. We shall not on this account, however, exclude the Dyaks from consideration here. The true Malays on the other hand will be excluded; they are Mohammedans and, originally located in Sumatra, spread in the twelfth century over a large part of this area. On the fringe of Asia are a number of races which, though in a broad survey are of no great importance, may be noticed here. Such are the Ostiaks, Yakuts, Chuckchees, Samoyeds, and so on.[531] What races are dealt with here may be made more clear by a reference to those which will be considered in Chapters X and XI. In those chapters we shall consider the ancient empires, the classical races, mediaeval and modern Europe and its derivatives as well as the chief races of Asia, whether pastoral such as the Arabs or existing by a higher form of agriculture than that practised by the races to be noticed here. In this manner we shall obtain a broad view of the conditions both before and after the rise of Eur-Asiatic civilization.

It is obvious that we have before us a very large mass of material—too large, in fact, to be dealt with without further subdivision. It might seem that the only reasonable course is to distinguish between various grades of agricultural progress, and to consider in turn those races which fall into each grade. Such distinctions have been made by Professor Hobhouse and his collaborators, who recognize three grades of agriculture and two grades of pastoral nomadism. As has already been indicated, we do not find any correlation between economic stages and the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination. What we do find is a certain correlation between these factors and large geographical areas, and in what follows the races of the second group will be considered according to the geographical areas in which they are situated, and not according to the stage of economic progress which they have reached. The areas selected are as follows. There is, in the first place, America; secondly, there is Africa, and thirdly Oceania. The first two areas are, on the whole, fairly homogeneous; though the third area is not so homogeneous, the level of agricultural skill is fairly uniform—nearly all these races falling into Hobhouse’s second grade. Lastly, there are the Asiatic peoples among whom Eur-Asiatic culture has not penetrated; many of them are inhabitants of the northern fringe of the continent. It will be noticed that the pastoral races chiefly fall within the last group. The so-called pastoral races of America—the Navahos, for instance—have only acquired domestic animals since coming into contact with Europeans. The pastoral races of Africa are with difficulty distinguished from their neighbours, who also raise cattle but practise some agriculture at the same time. It will thus be observed that this mode of classification is, as a matter of fact, roughly in correspondence with the mode of classification based upon the stage of economic progress reached.

_America_

2. We have now to examine in turn the races of these four regions. The procedure will be that followed when dealing with hunting and fishing races. As before we begin with examples of intercourse before maturity. This may take the form of marriage before puberty or of less regular connexions. As Mr. Hartland says, ‘it would appear that sexual intercourse before puberty is either recognized by a formal marriage or tolerated as the gratification of a natural instinct among a great variety of peoples in all quarters of the globe’.[532] It will be sufficient here to note a few instances of this practice. Of the tribes of Guatemala, Bancroft says that ‘marriages take place at an early age, often before puberty’,[533] and the same would seem to be the case among the Navahos.[534] Accounts of the great laxity of manners and of early intercourse are given of some North American tribes—as, for instance, of the Hurons and the Illinois by Charlevoix.[535] The same is also commonly reported of the Brazilian tribes in such a manner as to leave little doubt that intercourse before puberty is common among them.[536]

3. Generally speaking, throughout America lactation lasted two years or more.[537] The suckling period indeed sometimes extended over several years; thus among the Sioux it might be continued until the child was five years old;[538] of the Lengua Indians of the Paraguayan Chaco, Hawtrey says that ‘it is customary to suckle children till five or six years of age’;[539] Bancroft reports that a child might be suckled until eight years old among the Chichmics.[540] Two years would appear to be about the minimum; in Mexico[541] and Guiana[542] it was three years or more. D’Orbigny gives three years,[543] and Forbes one or more, often two, for the Aymara Indians.[544] In Mexico suckling was said to last three or four years.[545]

4. With regard to postponement of marriage the facts are very similar to those in respect to the races of the first group. As an almost universal rule girls are married soon after puberty, if not before. There is no postponement of marriage of a nature to affect fertility in any noticeable manner. There is at times a certain postponement of marriage among the male part of the population, and occasionally some evidence of lifelong celibacy. This, however, has no bearing upon fertility; it is of interest in another connexion, and we shall on that account return to it later.

5. As noticed in the last chapter there are among nearly all primitive races a number of occasions upon which sexual intercourse is prohibited. Alone among these prohibitions, that against intercourse for some time after the birth of a child is of importance as a factor bearing upon fertility. We shall find that in Africa this prohibition becomes of very great importance. The evidence as to the existence of this prohibition in America is somewhat puzzling. In the last chapter two instances were given in which intercourse during lactation was prohibited in two hunting races. Both these instances are reported by authors who made their observations many years ago when the customs of the American Indians had been less modified by contact with white men than is the case with most of the observations upon which we have to rely. We also find that two other observers, who wrote more than a hundred years ago, record the existence of this custom. It is not clear to what tribes these remarks refer—whether to hunting peoples or to agricultural peoples, or to both. Weld says: ‘They suckle the few children they have for several years, during which time, at least among many of the tribes, they avoid all connexion with their husbands.’[546] Heriot speaks of ‘the length of time employed by the women in rearing their children, whom they nourish for three or four years, during which period they cohabit not with their husbands’.[547] In addition to this evidence we have the following records of the existence of this practice for various agricultural races. Two eighteenth-century writers—Le Beau, speaking of the Iroquois,[548] and Charlevoix of the Illinois[549]—state that intercourse was prohibited during lactation. Speaking of the Crow tribe, Holder mentions that abstention from intercourse during lactation was observed.[550] In Mexico, according to Bancroft, the suckling period lasted for three years or longer, and during this time there was often no intercourse.[551] D’Orbigny says of the Moxos and Chiquitos that the mother ‘invariably suckles her children for three years or more, during which time she has no relations whatever with her husband’.[552] There do not seem to be any denials of the existence of this practice except in the following instance; in most individual cases there is no mention of the practice. The exception referred to is in the case of the Fuegians. Hyades and Deniker, referring to the statement of D’Orbigny mentioned above, remark that sexual relations are resumed within two months of the birth of a child among the Fuegians.[553] It is not possible to arrive at any conclusion as to what the condition of affairs was before the habits of the Indians had been much modified by contact with white men. The fact, however, that the habit is definitely recorded by various authors, who for the most part made their observations at a time when the habits of these races were far less modified than when the more detailed accounts were written from which these races are best known, strongly suggests that this custom was formerly widespread.

There is no evidence of the use of any effective methods to prevent fertilization. We are told that among the Shawnees ‘the girls drink the juice of a certain herb which prevents conception, and often renders them barren throughout life’.[554] But in those cases which have been carefully investigated it would seem that such methods are not in fact effective. Hrdlicka, for instance, referring to a number of tribes, among whom are the Apaches, Navahos, Pueblos, Pimas, Nahua, Aztec, and Uti, says that ‘there is a very general belief among the Indians visited that sterility may be artificially induced’.[555] On investigation, however, it was found that the substances used were quite ineffective.

6. Among agricultural, as among hunting and fishing races, we find numerous references to the small average number of children in a family. Speaking generally of the Indians of the North, Weld states that the number of children is small,[556] and Le Beau that the number of children born is less than in Europe.[557] Charlevoix comments on the small size of the family among the Iroquois and attributes it to early intercourse, abstention from intercourse during lactation, and to prolonged lactation.[558] Catlin, whose experience was chiefly obtained among the Mandans, has given the estimate quoted in the fourth chapter,[559] and Holder’s estimate for the Crow tribe has also been cited.[560] Of the Sioux we are told that ‘sterility among women is by no means uncommon’,[561] and of the south-west Texas tribes ‘they are not prolific—a woman seldom having more than three children’.[562] In South America the facts are similar. Nordenskiöld visited the tribes between Peru and Bolivia. ‘The families are not large,’ he says, ‘they live in monogamy, and one sees in each family one to three children; in the largest family that I saw (and that was among the Atsahuaca Indians) there were four children.’[563] Of the Aymara Indians of the same district we are told that ‘there seem to be but few large families—very seldom more than four children, and often less than that number’.[564] Spix and Martins, travelling in Brazil, ‘seldom saw more than four children in a family’.[565] Azara was much impressed by the small number of children that he observed in South America. He investigated the matter among the Guaranis with particular care, and found that the average number in a family was four.[566] Taking into account various factors he came to the conclusion that the number of children born was less than among the Spaniards.[567] Rengger, who also visited the Guaranis, is of the same general opinion though he estimates the average number in a family to be smaller than does Azara;[568] to the Guanas he allows only two or at the most three children.[569] According to von Martius the marriages of the Macusis ‘are not rich in children’.[570] D’Orbigny carefully investigated the average number of children in a family among the Moxos and Chiquitos; he found it to be roughly about two in the case of the former and three in that of the latter. He attributed the small number to early intercourse and also to abstention from intercourse at certain periods.[571] Two is the average number of children in a family of the tribes of the Upper Hualaga, and marriages are often sterile.[572]

7. We have now to examine the extent of the practices of abortion and infanticide; with regard to the former, we may repeat what was said above—namely, that there is every reason to suppose the methods used are usually effective. Among the Sioux, Keating says that ‘married females frequently obtain miscarriages with the knowledge and consent of their husband’;[573] this fact is confirmed by Schoolcraft.[574] It was very common in the Crow tribe.[575] In a report upon the tribes of the South-western United States and Northern Mexico, Hrdlicka states that ‘artificial abortion is practised by all the tribes visited’.[576] The tribes visited include, among others, the Apaches, Navahos, Pueblos, Pimas, Nahua, Otommi, and Aztec. The Pima Indians practised abortion if conception took place before the previous child had been weaned; the suckling period among these people lasted until the child was six or seven years old.[577] The habit is recorded of the Menomini tribe and of the Zunis, though it is rare among the latter.[578] Among the Cheyennes ‘it has long been the custom that a woman should not have a second child until her first is ten years old’.[579] Abortion is not mentioned in this case, but in view of the widespread prevalence of this custom, abortion is presumably the means used to bring about this result. In Mexico[580] and throughout South America abortion was commonly employed. ‘The use of the means of abortion is common and explains the small number of children’, says Karl von den Steinen of the Bakairi.[581] It is especially frequent in Brazil and among the Indians of the Chaco.[582]

8. Compared with the prevalence of abortion, infanticide was not very common among the agricultural tribes of the northern half of the Continent. It was occasionally practised among the Sioux, and more girls were killed than boys.[583] Of the Creeks it is said that ‘to destroy a new-born infant is not uncommon’.[584] It was common among the Pimas.[585] Infanticide is usually confined to the killing of deformed children, and in this form it is recorded of the Apaches, Mohaves, Navahos, Zuni, and the Tepecano.[586] Infanticide is more common in South America. It is found in Brazil among the Guanas[587] and the Mbayas.[588] The former are said to kill more girls than boys. It is also practised to a considerable extent in the Chaco. ‘Infanticide is quite common among the Lenguas, an interval of seven or eight years being always observable between children of the same family.’[589] Grubb states that the first child is always killed if a girl.[590] The killing of deformed children is reported from many parts, including Dutch Guiana[591] and Peru.[592]

9. War plays no less a part in the lives of the agricultural than of the hunting tribes in America. It was perhaps more murderous among the famous tribes of the Atlantic coast and the great plains than anywhere else except possibly Brazil. ‘As all nations of the Indians in their natural condition’, says Catlin, ‘are unceasingly at war with the tribes that are about them, for the adjustment of ancient and never ending feuds, as well as from a love of glory, to which in Indian life the battlefield is almost the only road, their warriors are killed off to that extent, that in many instances two and sometimes three women to a man are found in a tribe.’[593] Another author, himself a member of the tribe, describes the manner in which the young Ojebway Indian is brought up to regard war as his chief object in life. ‘When they are young a spirit of war is instilled into their bosom; and in order to excite them to courage and ambition, the parents and the old wise men recount to them the wonderful exploits of the braves in former days, such as a single warrior stealing up secretly to a village, killing a number of the enemy, taking off their scalps, and making his escape before the remainder were apprised of the slaughter.’[594] So again, ‘among the earliest songs to which a Dacotah child listens are those of war. As soon as he begins to totter about, he carries as a plaything a miniature bow and arrow. The first thing he is taught as great and truly noble is taking a scalp, and he wants to perform an act which is so manly. At the age of sixteen he is often on the warpath.’[595]

The neighbouring tribes maintained feuds that must have been the cause of a regular and by no means inconsiderable amount of elimination. The Crows were at war with the Blackfeet,[596] the Sioux with the Ojebway,[597] the Minnetanes with the Shoshones.[598] The Sioux are said to have killed women.[599] Farther south the Yuchi and other members of the Creek Confederacy were very warlike.[600] The Pueblo Indians were more peaceful, though they were subject to vigorous and frequent attacks from the Apache and other neighbours.[601] The wars undertaken by the empires of Mexico and Peru were of rather a different nature. Both states pursued a regular policy of aggression towards the less advanced peoples who surrounded them. These wars partook more of the nature of raids upon the weaker nations for the purpose of robbery than of great sporting contests, as were on the whole the wars of the northern tribes. Throughout South America warfare seems to have been a regular feature of inter-tribal relation. It was usually very sanguinary. According to Wallace the Mandrucos fight with their neighbours every year.[602] Much the same is reported by Church of the Araras, Mogos, Masas, and other tribes of the Amazon basin,[603] and also by White of the north-western regions of the southern half of the Continent.[604] The peoples of the Chaco were formerly at continual war with the Guaranis.[605]

10. There are frequent references to blood feuds in the accounts of these races. Blood feuds are only to be with difficulty distinguished from warfare; feuds between man and man and between family and family merge into those feuds between tribes that are called warfare. It will be sufficient here to note that a considerable amount of elimination must among certain tribes arise from that peculiar form of blood feud which is connected with the belief that natural death is caused by some enemy. In Guiana ‘a person dies and it is supposed that an enemy has secured the agency of an evil spirit to compass his death. Some sorcerer, employed by the friends of the deceased for that purpose, pretends by his incantations to discover the guilty individual or family, or at any rate to indicate the quarter where they dwell. A near relative of the deceased is then charged with the work of vengeance.... If the supposed offender cannot be slain, some innocent member of his family—man, woman, or little child—must suffer instead.’[606] The Uaupes of the upper waters of the Rio Negro ‘scarcely seem to think that death can occur naturally, always imputing it either to direct poisoning or to the charms of some enemy, and on this supposition will proceed to revenge it. This they generally do by poison.’[607] It is difficult to ascertain how far these beliefs are acted upon; it seems nevertheless clear that among certain tribes a considerable amount of elimination must be attributed to this source.

11. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said in the former chapter with regard to disease. Our conclusion was that in all probability most diseases did not evolve until at or about the beginning of the third period. We therefore regard this source of elimination as of relatively small importance among the races of this group whether in America or elsewhere. We may note a few examples of the evidence to the effect that these races were formerly on the whole remarkably healthy and long-lived. Catlin says that the Mandans were ‘undoubtedly a longer lived and healthier race’ than most civilized peoples.[608] According to Le Beau the Iroquois were ‘practically never ill’; in spite of a climate that he himself found trying, ‘they were’ he says, ‘nearly all strong and robust’, and had few diseases.[609] ‘On the whole, the Yuchi, men, women, and children, are a remarkably healthy set of people.’[610] The Shawnees are ‘very healthy and are exempt from many diseases’.[611] Spix and Martius, with their extensive knowledge of the Indians of Brazil, say in general that ‘the Indians are seldom sick and generally live to an advanced age’.[612]

12. There is among the agricultural races of America as among the hunting races, and, as we shall see, among all primitive races, a very high rate of child mortality. As before we find the chief causes to be lack of knowledge, lack of care, lack of suitable food and surroundings, and certain peculiar customs.[613] It is not necessary to review the evidence in detail. Of the Sioux we are told that ‘many die in infancy caused by exposure’.[614] Another observer uses the same phrase, and adds that ‘their mothers, to inure them to suffering and to strengthen their constitution, do not take all the necessary care of them’.[615] Lumholtz attributes child mortality in part to the eating of unsuitable food.[616] Not only in North America but also in Brazil are new-born children regularly dipped in cold water.[617]

_Africa_

13. Pre-puberty intercourse is common throughout Africa both in the form of recognized early marriage and of irregular but tolerated early sexual relations. Among the Cross River natives ‘until she reach the age of puberty, a girl is permitted by her parents and by her betrothed to go about freely and have as many lovers as she pleases’.[618] A considerable proportion of marriages among the Ibo-speaking people of Nigeria take place before puberty.[619] In the Congo districts the habit is specially common.[620] Sexual relations commence early among the Bushongo; after reaching the age of puberty ‘a girl is not supposed to have further sexual relations before marriage’.[621] It is also recorded by van Overbergh of the Mangbetu,[622] by Delhaise of the Warego,[623] by de Rochebrune of the Onolove.[624] Speaking of the Bangala, Weeks says that ‘above the age of five years it would be impossible to find a girl who was a virgin’.[625] ‘The sexual morality of the Bahuana is conspicuous by its absence; the unmarried indulge as they please from a very early age, and the girls before puberty.’[626] Torday and Joyce, who are responsible for this statement, speak very similarly of the Bambala,[627] and du Chaillu of the Mpongwe.[628] The Masai and the Nandi in East Africa have a regularized system of intercourse before puberty.[629] It also occurs among the tribes inhabiting the Baringo district[630] and among the Swaheli.[631] Children of the Wapagoro, in what was German East Africa, are brought together by their parents when about seven years of age, and are separated for a period when menstruation begins—that is to say, about three years later.[632] Pre-puberty marriage was formerly very prevalent among the Makonde[633] and the Wanjamuesi[634] of the same district. ‘As regards the little girls over nearly the whole of British Central Africa, chastity before puberty is an unknown condition. Before a girl is become a woman it is a matter of absolute indifference what she does, and scarcely any girl remains a virgin after about five years of age.’[635] Similar testimony is given by Stannus[636] and by Maugham[637] for the same district.

14. The suckling period would appear to last nearer three than two years on the average. A few examples may be given. Ewe-speaking people, two or three years;[638] Yoruba-speaking people, three years;[639] the Tenda, two and a half to three years;[640] in Liberia, three or four years;[641] the Kagero, two to three and sometimes five years;[642] the Hausa, two years;[643] the Bushongo, two years;[644] in the Congo Basin, at least two years on the average;[645] the Mangbetu, a year and a half or longer;[646] in West Africa, on the average two to three years;[647] the Mayombe, two years or longer;[648] in Uganda, at least two years;[649] the Nandi, two years;[650] the Kuku, three years;[651] the Wamakonde, Wakaua, and Wamuera, three years;[652] the Baganda, three years;[653] the Wadschagga, two years[654] the Wanjamuesi, two to three years;[655] the Wazaramo, two to three years;[656] the Baronga, three years;[657] in the Madi district of Central Africa, three years;[658] in South Africa, two years, according to Lichtenstein,[659] frequently until three years, according to Kidd.[660]

15. There is little or no evidence of any postponement of marriage among girls. The facts with regard to men will be given later. According to Denham and Clapperton, girls in Bornu ‘rarely marry until they are fourteen or fifteen; often not so young’.[661] Among the Bangala, girls marry at the age of sixteen to eighteen.[662] ‘In the primitive Bantu tribe every girl gets married, some, however, sooner than others.’[663] The average age at marriage among girls south of Lake Nyassa is fifteen.[664] ‘For the whole of the Bantu tribes south of the Limpopo the average [age at marriage for girls] would probably be between fifteen and sixteen.’[665]

16. Throughout the negroid and Bantu races of Africa sexual intercourse is almost invariably prohibited for some time after child-birth. As a rule the prohibition holds good so long as suckling lasts, and this we have seen to mean more nearly three than two years. In some cases the period is shorter, and there are instances where it only endures for a few months. There are also very rare examples of the exact opposite—namely, of a prohibition against breaking off intercourse. As the evidence given below shows, to this custom we must attribute very great importance.

A Ewe-speaking woman ‘may not admit the male ... while suckling’.[666] Among the Yoruba-speaking people ‘during the period of lactation the wife must not cohabit with her husband’.[667] Intercourse during the suckling period is prohibited by the Kagero,[668] the Hausa,[669] and in Benin.[670] In the Warri district of the Niger Protectorate it is ‘customary for a woman to avoid cohabitation with her husband for nearly three years after pregnancy’.[671] Mungo Park, who travelled through this district, observed that ‘three years’ nursing is not uncommon, and during this period the husband devotes his whole attention to his other wives’.[672] Other authors record similar facts for other West African races. The Moioa abstain for four years,[673] the Gallinas until the child can talk and walk,[674] the Hobbés during lactation;[675] Nassau, speaking generally of the Cameroon district, mentions three years,[676] and Reade, speaking of Ashanti, mentions the period of lactation.[677] With regard to the Congo district, Cureau,[678] Johnston,[679] and Ward[680] mention prohibition during the suckling period. Among the Bangala ‘during the suckling period the husband has no sexual relations with his wife, or the child will become thin and weak and probably die’.[681] Another account of the same people mentions two years as the length of the period.[682] Prohibition during lactation is also recorded of the Mayombe,[683] the Ababua,[684] and the Bayaka.[685] Intercourse is only resumed among the Mandja[686] and the Warega[687] when the child can walk. The Adio of the Upper Congo region form a curious exception; soon after birth intercourse again takes place; if it did not, the child would die, since the father would thereby show no affection for the mother.[688] The Kuku only interrupt intercourse for three or four months,[689] although suckling lasts three years,[690] and among the Nandi prohibition only extends over a period of three months,[691] while lactation lasts two years.[692] Similarly ‘among the Awa-Wanga many believe that within five or six days of the birth of a child the parents must cohabit or the child will die’.[693]

The last-mentioned cases are rare exceptions; the customs that we saw to be normal in the west of Africa are also normal elsewhere in Africa. In Uganda ‘a woman must live apart from her husband for two years, at which time the children are weaned’.[694] A Baganda woman ‘lived apart from her husband for three years while nursing her child’.[695] When a woman in the region of the Rovuma river ‘bears a child she lives completely apart from her husband till the child is able to speak, as otherwise it is believed that harm, if not death, would come to the infant’.[696] A year is mentioned as the length of the prohibited period among the Swaheli,[697] and the duration of lactation as the period among the tribes of the Baringo district[698] and among the Wanjamuesi.[699] On the other hand the prohibited period is short among some of the tribes of what was German East Africa; it is two months in Konde-land,[700] three months among the Wapagoro,[701] and ‘a few months’ among the Wagogo.[702] In British Central Africa the wife does not resume sexual intercourse with her husband for two years, unless she is the only wife, when six months to one year is allowed to elapse.[703] In the Miri district the period is six months, although suckling lasts for two years,[704] and the same is recorded of the Atonga.[705] Speaking of Baronga, Junod says that there is no cohabitation until the child is weaned, and mentions that this is so among all the Bantu races of South Africa,[706] Kidd confirms Junod’s statement, and says that most Kaffir women live in strict seclusion from their husbands while they are suckling their children, which frequently lasts for three years.[707] In Loango the suckling period is the prohibited period.[708]

17. Among the races hitherto surveyed there is no evidence of the existence of any practice that renders sexual intercourse fruitless. There are numerous instances of magical practices that are supposed to have this result, but we have no reason to think that any of them are effective. In Africa we again meet with similar magical practices, and we must similarly account them to be without effect. In this area, however, we also meet with for the first time practices of quite a different nature. Many races in different parts of the Continent are acquainted with means of preventing fertilization. It is not necessary to describe how this end is achieved.[709] Any one who is interested in the subject can turn to Junod’s account. The methods employed in other parts of Africa are apparently similar to those there described. Knowledge of these methods extends throughout South Africa,[710] the Congo,[711] what was formerly German East Africa,[712] and probably elsewhere. Generally speaking this practice is employed under two different circumstances; measures may be taken to prevent conception by those who are not married and who do not wish to be married for some time; they may also be used by married people under certain circumstances, as for example by parents in the Thonga tribe who may have intercourse when the child begins to crawl, but who must avoid conception until the child is weaned.[713] Again, young married couples in the neighbourhood of Port Herald live in a special house so long as they are unable to build a house for themselves, and during this time no children must be conceived.[714]

18. Almost without exception the average number of children is everywhere recorded as small. Mungo Park, referring apparently to the Mandingoes, says that ‘few women have more than five or six children’.[715] In Northern Nigeria, four to five is given as the maximum number.[716] Talbot collected some statistics for the Ekoi people; the average number born to sixty-one married women was 4·3.[717] ‘The marriages’, says Burton of the Egbas, ‘are not very prolific’.[718] Assinien women very exceptionally have more than six children, according to Mondière:[719] in Liberia families are said to be small.[720] Among the Bangala ‘it is rare for a woman to have more than two or three children’;[721] another observer, speaking of the same people, remarks that ‘there was much sterility’.[722] Cureau, speaking generally of the tribes of the Congo Basin, says that families are small.[723] Kuku women bear three children on the average.[724] The number of children is given as three to five for the Baholoholo,[725] three to four for the Bambala,[726] and the same for the Warega;[727] among the Mangbetu families are not large,[728] while ‘on an average a Bayaka woman bears three children; families of more than four are rare’.[729] Turning to the races of the eastern side of the Continent we find that the average Swaheli family is given as consisting of two children.[730] Figures have been collected concerning forty-nine families of the Akikuyu, from which it appears that the average number of children is between three and five.[731] The Bakene women ‘are, as a rule, strong and healthy and have children, though few of them ever have so many as six, three being the average number for each wife’.[732] Two or three—at the most five—children are born to the Wanjamuesi mother.[733] Among the tribes south of Lake Nyassa ‘the average number of children in a family is three to five’.[734] The Makalaka ‘race is not prolific, and the women ... seldom bear more than an average of three children.’[735] Lastly, the Hottentots have ‘seldom more than two or three children’, and ‘many of the women are barren’,[736] while similarly in Madagascar the natives ‘do not, as a rule, have large families, and a considerable portion is childless’.[737]

19. Abortion is practised by many races in various parts of Africa. Among the Tenda people married women rarely practise abortion, unmarried women more frequently;[738] Tremearne mentions it in speaking of some of the Nigerian tribes.[739] It appears to be on the whole more common in the Congo district than elsewhere in Africa. ‘The practice of provoking abortion is a very common one throughout Congoland (though ignored, for example, by the Bayaka), but most of all in the North and Centre.’[740] With regard to particular races in this district, we find abortion mentioned as common among the Bangala,[741] Bahuana,[742] Warega,[743] Ababua,[744] and Onolove[745]; it exists but is less common among the Mangbetu,[746] and the Bushongo.[747] In what was German South-west Africa abortion is very frequently employed.[748] It would appear to be less frequently practised in the eastern half of the Continent. It is known among the Akamba[749] and the Swaheli.[750] In what was formerly the German Nyassa district[751] and in British Central Africa it is said to be not uncommon[752]; the same is said of the Zambezi Valley.[753] Abortion is ‘almost universally practised by all classes of female in Kaffir society’.[754] It is mentioned in connexion with Madagascar.[755]

20. Almost every tribe throughout Africa kills children under certain circumstances which they believe to be unpropitious. Examples of such circumstances are peculiarities in the process of birth, the birth of twins, or the cutting of the upper teeth before the lower. Motherless children are also sometimes killed. The cumulative effect of these habits cannot be considerable, and we may disregard them. It is an almost invariable rule that infanticide—in the sense in which we use the term when speaking of the Australians—is unknown in Africa. The only exceptions are to be found among the Hottentots and in Madagascar—in both cases the races practising infanticide not being of Negroid or Bantu stock. The former are said to have killed their female children fairly frequently;[756] in Madagascar infanticide was very common.[757] Among the various unpropitious circumstances mentioned above, there is one which is widely recognized in Africa, and which is of interest to us. Children who are abnormal or deformed are nearly always killed. Among other instances this practice is recorded of the Hausa,[758] Kagero,[759] the Congo tribes generally—the Fangs being especially mentioned in this respect[760]—the Mandja,[761] the Basonge,[762] the Ababua,[763] the Bushongo,[764] the Wanika,[765] the Wakamba,[766] in the Lenda district,[767] in the Lind Hinterland,[768] in British Central Africa,[769] in Portuguese East Africa,[770] among the Kaffirs[771] and the Hottentots.[772]

21. The nature and frequency of warfare varies very greatly in different parts of the Continent. Although among some few tribes and in some districts war is as murderous as in America, it is on the whole far less effective as an agent of elimination than in that country. The position is somewhat complicated by the fact that the more northern Negroid races have long been in contact with Hamitic and Semitic tribes; the latter have made war on the former and greatly influenced the history of the Negroid races. Movements have been set on foot and passed like waves over the whole Continent.

War is not a very serious matter among the Gallinas of Sierra Leone[773] or the Ewe-speaking people of Togoland.[774] It was very different in Dahomey[775] and Benin;[776] the Amazons of the former region have often been described.[777] Tremearne gives an account of the head hunters of Nigeria, whose habits must have been the cause of a great deal of elimination.[778] Throughout the whole of this region, especially in Ashanti[779] and Benin, human sacrifice is practised on a large scale, and results in a considerable loss of life.[780] Passing farther south towards the Congo region, we find that warfare is a moderately important factor of elimination.[781] Weeks describes family, town, and district fights—the last two developing out of the former; considerable loss of life and material damage appears to follow.[782] Du Chaillu describes what he calls ‘blood feuds’ in the Shekiani tribe; ‘frequently a dozen villages are involved, ... the killing and robbing goes on for months and even for years’.[783] Again, ‘when war has rarely broken out in the country [of the Bakalai] there is no rest or safety. No man or woman in any village can take a step in any direction, day or night, without fear of death.... At last whole districts are depopulated; those who are not killed desert their villages.’[784] Burrows, describing the tribes of the Upper Welle district, says that they all live ‘in a perpetual state of internecine warfare’.[785] War and human sacrifice have a perceptible effect upon the numbers of the Banyala;[786] fighting is frequent among the Bambala, but is not very sanguinary.[787] Of the Bahuana we hear that ‘wars are frequent, and in some cases last for years’,[788] of the Bayaka that, though ‘frequent’, wars ‘do not seem to have any appreciable effect upon the population’.[789] The Baganda are a warlike people, and fighting occurs yearly with the neighbouring tribes. Though a regular cause of the loss of life, such wars are not so serious as the intermittent civil wars ‘which also broke out from time to time in Uganda between rival princes who laid claim to the throne. These latter wars were by far the most disastrous that could happen to the country; and during the few weeks they lasted, untold damage was done and a great loss of life took place.’[790] In this district the presence of the Masai tribe was a continuous source of murderous war.[791] Among the Akanda ‘no warriors but those who had killed a Masai were supposed to be able to marry’;[792] between the Akikuyu and the Masai perpetual war was waged.[793] Of the tribes of the Baringo district it is said that they are all good fighters, and that war is a sanguinary affair.[794] The pastoral Bahima are, on the other hand, a peaceable people.[795] ‘It is doubtful whether (in Central Africa) great loss of life occurs in any of the wars among the natives.’[796] In South Africa the military qualities of the Zulus are well known; all through this region in former days warfare was regularly waged, and was a constant source of elimination.[797] Of the Hottentots we hear that the tribes ‘were constantly at war with each other’;[798] from another account it would seem that the fighting was neither very prolonged nor sanguinary.[799]

22. Belief in witchcraft as the cause of death is common throughout Africa; furthermore as a result of this belief the supposed offender is often slain. There seems to be no doubt that among many tribes this factor of elimination is of some importance. Speaking of Kalabar, Hutchinson says: ‘They cannot believe, or at least they will not try to understand, how natural causes create diseases, but attribute them and subsequent death to “ifod” or witchcraft. Hence a plan is adopted to find out the perpetrator by fixing on a number of persons, and compelling them as the alternative of the Egbo law of decapitation, to take a quantity of a poisonous nut, which is supposed to be innocuous if the accused be innocent, and to be fatal if guilty.’[800] Even among the relatively advanced Baganda, ‘death from natural causes rarely presented itself to the native mind as a feasible explanation for the end of life; illness was much more likely to be the result of malice finding vent in magical art’.[801] Torday mentions the Bayaka as an exception to the general rule in that they accept illness as a cause of death, though ‘trials for witchcraft are not unknown’.[802] Though the belief is widespread that the cause of death is to be sought in magic, the amount of elimination varies considerably from place to place. Formerly in British Central Africa ‘it was so general that deaths due to it were in the larger villages matters of daily occurrence’.[803] Among the South African tribes ‘the number of persons who perished on charges of dealing with witchcraft was very great’.[804] In West Africa it was undoubtedly common.[805] For the Congo district, Burrows[806] and Du Chaillu,[807] for Central Africa, Werner[808] and Macdonald,[809] for South Africa, Junod,[810] and for Madagascar, Parker,[811] bring similar evidence. Speaking of the Congo region, Weeks says that three forms of death are recognized; (1) by act of God; (2) by another’s witchcraft; (3) by one’s own witchcraft. Thus to die by the swamping of a canoe is a case of the first, to die by being swamped and eaten by a crocodile is an example of the second, because ‘no crocodile will upset a canoe unless told to do so by a witch’. Deaths from the second cause and executions following upon them appear to be frequent.[812]

23. With respect to disease the African races are in a somewhat different position when compared with the other races of this group. Owing to the fact that they have never been wholly cut off from Eur-Asiatic civilization, some diseases have penetrated among them which are not found, for instance, among the American agricultural races who were cut off from the rest of mankind long before the origin of the third period. It is a very difficult matter to decide what diseases are African in origin and what diseases have found their way into Africa from the north. It is possible that sleeping sickness and black-water fever are African in origin. It is certain, however, that most of the diseases which cause a large amount of elimination among the African races at the present time have been imported from Asia. Among the latter are dengue fever, small-pox, bubonic plague, cholera, Asiatic relapsing fever, dysentery, typhus, and syphilis.[813] Nevertheless in spite of the fact that disease is of more importance in Africa than in America, there is a considerable amount of evidence to the effect that upon the whole before the advent of the white man the African races were healthy and long-lived. Thus Theal says that the Bantu races of South Africa were formerly ‘subject to few diseases’,[814] and Roscoe, that the Baganda ‘were happy and healthy before the introduction of European civilization’.[815] In earlier days the Basuto were remarkable for their healthiness;[816] they lived to a great age. We are also told that the Hottentots suffered from few diseases.[817]

24. We find many records of a high death-rate among children. Undoubtedly this is largely due nowadays to diseases that have been introduced into Africa within the last few hundred years. The evidence seems to show, however, that, when we discount this factor, child mortality is still high, and is due to ignorance and want of care on the part of the mother. Both Harris[818] and Talbot,[819] speaking of West Africa, remark upon the high rate of infant mortality, and connect it with want of care. ‘As soon as an infant is able to walk, it is permitted to run about with great freedom,’ says Mungo Park.[820] According to Du Chaillu, ‘they know nothing scarcely of the care of children, and lose a great proportion through mistake in treatment in infancy’.[821] In the Congo region, ‘that a great portion of the children die—once they are born—is evident from the Baptist Mission records, extending over more than twenty years. This is chiefly due to unsuitable, indigestable, or insufficient food. Grenfell has some notes on the preposterous attempts to feed infants a few weeks old with manioc paste.’[822] Among the Mangbetu many children die, ‘as they are left to look after themselves at about two or three years of age’.[823] Weeks[824] and van Overbergh[825] also record high infant mortality for other tribes of this region. It is interesting to observe that Delhaise, speaking of the Warega—an isolated and primitive people—says that disease is rare among the children, though the death-rate is high.[826] According to Gutmann, many children die in infancy among the Wadschagga, owing to the very unsuitable methods of feeding. A mother takes food from her mouth and presses it into that of her child.[827] Similarly a high infant death-rate and want of care is recorded of the Zulus,[828] Basutos,[829] and Kaffir[830] races generally.

_Oceania_

25. Intercourse before the age of puberty is not very common among the races of Oceania. In New Zealand, however, it was frequent. ‘It often happened that a girl would have intercourse with a youth before she arrived at puberty. At times marriage took place and was consummated at this early age.’[831] This state of things is confirmed by several other authors.[832] Dumas says it formerly occurred in Hawaii,[833] and from an account given by Kubary it seems to have been practised in the Pelew Islands.[834] Although Brainne does not actually say so, his account seems clearly to indicate that intercourse occurs before puberty in New Caledonia,[835] and the same may be deduced from Codrington’s account of Banks’s Island[836] and from Danks’s description of the marriage customs of the New Britain group.[837] Krieger mentions pre-puberty intercourse in British New Guinea,[838] while Murray says that among the Baru and other tribes girls are married when between seven and ten years old, adding that marriage is consummated immediately.[839] According to Seligman among the Sinaugolo ‘connection often takes place before menstruation is established’.[840] The same is reported as occurring among the Javanese[841] and very occasionally among the Topebatos of Celebes.[842]

26. The average length of the suckling period would seem to be at least two years and is probably longer. A few facts may be given. In Samoa it lasts two years,[843] in the Solomon Islands two years or more,[844] in New Caledonia more than three years,[845] in Fiji two or three years,[846] in the Bismarck Archipelago often up to three years,[847] in what was German New Guinea about three years,[848] in Sarawak three to five years,[849] among the Bontoc Igorot slightly less than two years,[850] and among the Ainu four or five years.[851]

27. Of postponement of marriage among girls there is again practically no evidence. In the Society Islands girls were married when between twelve and sixteen years of age.[852] In the Western Islands of the Torres Straits girls marry a few years younger than the men, of whom the age of marriage is given as between twenty and twenty-five.[853] Very occasionally, as in the above cases, there would seem to be some insignificant postponement of marriage. In general, however, it is clear that practically all women are married from the beginning of and throughout the mature period.

28. The important taboo upon sexual intercourse for a period after child-birth is common. The Maori cease to cohabit ‘after child-birth till the child is weaned’.[854] ‘Throughout the Western Islands (of the Torres Straits) cohabitation ceases early in pregnancy and is not resumed for some time, the baby sleeping between the husband and wife. This restriction is in force in Maburag until the child spontaneously endeavours to move about. As a matter of fact another child is seldom born until the previous one is some three or four years old.’[855] In Savage Island ‘the child was usually suckled about twelve months, during which period there was strict sexual abstention between the parents’.[856] According to Kubary the prohibited period lasted ten months in the Pelew Islands,[857] and according to Krämer, six months in Samoa.[858] A married woman among the Sinaugola ‘is supposed to forego cohabitation during the period of suckling’.[859] In the neighbourhood of Finschafen in New Guinea, intercourse is not resumed until the child can walk and speak.[860] With regard to the Solomon Islands, Ribbe speaks of a ‘long period’ of prohibition;[861] with reference to New Caledonia, Glaumont speaks of several months[862] and another observer of a considerable time in this connexion.[863] ‘After the birth of a child (in the Bismarck Archipelago) the husband was not supposed to cohabit with his wife until the child could walk.’[864] ‘During the whole of this time [two or three years], unless he had more than one wife, a Fijian was obliged to lead a life of celibacy.’[865] The same author says that ‘in Tonga and the Gilbert Islands the separation is rigidly enforced’.[866] Another account places the length of the period of separation in Fiji at three or ‘even four years’.[867]

29. Here, as elsewhere, we find numerous references to practices intended to render conception impossible. A good example is found in Seligman’s account of the Sinaugolo. ‘There is generally a woman in the village or one of the surrounding villages who is supposed to be gifted with a power inherited from her mother of causing women to become “hageabani”, literally incapable of having more children. Suppose that a woman considers that she has had enough children, she will by stealth seize an opportunity of consulting such a woman and will pay for services. The woman gifted with the power sits down behind and as close as possible to her patient, over whose abdomen she makes passes while muttering incomprehensible charms. At the same time herbs or roots are burnt, the smoke of which the patient inhales.’[868] Such practices are obviously purely magical, and are quite ineffective. There are many definite statements with regard to particular races that no effective practices are known. In a few cases it is asserted that conception can be and is prevented. Krieger, for instance, says that in what was German New Guinea methods of preventing conception are known.[869] Pfeil gives a circumstantial account of a method said to be employed in New Ireland.[870] It seems clear, nevertheless, that the prevention of conception can be of but little importance in this region.

30. There is the same remarkable unanimity of evidence with regard to the small average size of families in Oceania as elsewhere. In New Zealand ‘families are usually small in number’.[871] According to Dieffenbach, ‘families are not large; there are rarely more than two or three children’,[872] while Brown says ‘they have very few children. Large families are never seen among them; perhaps two would be a high average compared with the number of marriages.’[873] There are rarely more than three children in a family in the Western Islands of the Torres Straits;[874] in the Eastern Islands the number varies from two to six, leaving childless marriages out of account.[875] In the Sandwich Islands the average is said to be three.[876] ‘There were few instances of large families’ in Samoa; ‘four or five would be the average.’[877] Three is said to be the average among the Aru Islanders,[878] while in the Pelew Islands marriages are reported to be often childless.[879] ‘I have never known’, says Melville of the Marquesas, ‘of more than two youngsters living together in the same home, and but seldom even that number.’[880] Tautain, who collected some figures for these islands, found the birth-rate to be very low.[881] In the Kingsmill Islands ‘a woman seldom has more than two children, and never more than three’.[882] Dr. Seligman is under the impression that ‘childless marriages are not very uncommon’ among the Koitu and Motu of New Guinea;[883] and Stone says of the latter that ‘as a rule their progeny is not numerous’.[884] Krieger remarks upon the small families in New Guinea, attributing the fact to abortion and infanticide.[885] In the Bismarck Archipelago ‘families as a rule are not very large.... A large number of the women have no children.’[886] Three is the average number in New Ireland; a family of four or five is considered large.[887] In New Caledonia there are seldom more than three in a family.[888] Fijian women are not prolific.[889] Ling Roth, surveying the literature of Sarawak, notes that the small size of the families has often been remarked upon, and quotes the statements of Houghton and Whitehead.[890] According to the former, ‘in general there are more than two children in a family; on an average three or four, very seldom only one child’. ‘The families of the natives’, says Whitehead, ‘are very small; in one or two instances I have known them to contain eight or more by one mother, but many women have only three or four, most one or two children; and it is by no means uncommon to find them childless.’ Brooke estimated ‘four or five births to every married woman’.[891] Wallace was impressed by the same fact, and took some pains to investigate the matter. ‘From inquiries at almost every Dyak tribe I visited, I ascertained that the women had rarely more than three or four children, and an old chief assured me that he had never known a woman have more than seven.’[892] So, too, according to Bock, ‘a Dyak family seldom consists of more than three or four children’.[893] Hagen estimates four children born per fertile married woman as the average among the Orang Kubu of Sumatra;[894] while Marsden, writing in the eighteenth century, was struck by the small average fertility; ‘women are by nature unprolific’ in Sumatra, was his opinion.[895] Two or three is the average in Nias;[896] ‘the average number of persons in one family in Java, where it is perhaps as large, if not larger than elsewhere, is estimated at only four or four and a half’.[897] Kreutz has compiled some figures for Celebes. He makes two and a half children to be the average per married woman among the Tolage and four among the Topebatos.[898] The Ainus ‘are not at all prolific’;[899] while according to another author, ‘not many children are born, usually three or four’.[900]

31. Abortion and infanticide are common, and there are many places where both practices are employed. Abortion is often spoken of among the Maoris; it would appear to be fairly common.[901] In the Murray Islands of the Torres Straits ‘abortion was very common’;[902] and in the Western Islands it is very frequent according to Haddon,[903] and similar facts are recorded of the Eastern Islands.[904] Abortion was known in Hawaii;[905] in the Kingsmill or Gilbert Islands it was extremely prevalent,[906] and also in Samoa.[907] It was practised at times in Rotuma[908] and in Savage Island.[909] Abortion seems to be fairly common in Fiji.[910] It is said to be ‘fairly frequent’ in the New Hebrides;[911] according to Jamieson, ‘a certain proportion of women die in endeavouring to procure abortion’.[912] There is very similar evidence from New Caledonia[913] and the Solomon Islands; it was probably more prevalent in the latter than in the former, especially among the south-eastern islands of the group.[914] In the Bismarck Archipelago it is reported to be frequently practised,[915] and so also in the Aru Islands[916] and the island of Flores.[917] Similar evidence comes from all parts of New Guinea.[918] It is specially mentioned for the Gulf of Geelink,[919] among the Baru tribe,[920] near Dorej,[921] among the Mafulu people,[922] among the Koitu and the Motu,[923] and the Southern Massim.[924] It is also practised in Nias,[925] Central Celebes,[926] among the Bontoc Igorot,[927] and in the Mitchell group.[928]

32. Infanticide was very prevalent in New Zealand—far more so than abortion. ‘Infanticide is frequent among the New Zealanders’;[929] according to another observer ‘it was formerly very common’;[930] or again, ‘it was formerly very prevalent’.[931] We hear of the ‘wholesale destruction of human life through infanticide’.[932] There is evidence that girls were more often killed than boys.[933] Infanticide occurred in the Western Islands of the Torres Straits;[934] among the Eastern Islanders ‘after a certain number had been born, all succeeding children were destroyed’.[935] In the Gilbert Islands it is very prevalent;[936] in Samoa and Tonga,[937] on the other hand, it is either absent[938] or very rare.[939] It appears to have been fairly common in Savage Island,[940] in Tikopia (Barwell Islands),[941] and in Nissau.[942] ‘Infanticide was committed on a large scale’ in Rarotonga[943] and in Funafuti,[944] but it probably reached its greatest extent in Tahiti. The famous secret society known as the Areoi is said to have enjoined the killing of all children upon its members. In any case it was very prevalent in the island, and not confined to the Areoi.[945] ‘The first missionaries have published it as their opinion that not less than two-thirds of the children were murdered by their own parents.’[946] Infanticide was not known in the Caroline Islands[947] (with the exception of Pelew). It was apparently as common in the Sandwich Islands as in Tahiti.[948] It was also practised in Fiji, but girls were destroyed in preference to boys.[949] Glaumond states that it is ‘very common’ in New Caledonia,[950] and this is confirmed by Bernard[951] and Moncelin.[952] The last named mentions that girls are killed in preference to boys. It is moderately common in the New Hebrides, and again more girls are killed than boys;[953] according to Meinecke it is not so frequent in Tala as in Fate.[954] Infanticide is ‘very common’ in Banks’s Island,[955] in Radack,[956] in Vaitapu,[957] and in the Marquesas.[958] It would not seem to be very prevalent in the Solomon Islands, except in Ugi, where both Elton[959] and Guppy[960] report it to be common. Otherwise, in the rest of the group it seems to be rare,[961] and is absent in San Christoval.[962] It was formerly common in the Bismarck Archipelago.[963] There is evidence of the existence of the habit in various parts of New Guinea; according to Seligman it is ‘common’ among the Southern Massim;[964] among the Northern Massim it is practised if there is a large family of girls.[965] The same is said of the Mafulu people.[966] Otherwise it would seem, generally speaking, that infanticide is somewhat rare in New Guinea. Murray suspects its existence among the Baru tribe,[967] and Erdweg among the inhabitants of Tumleo.[968] Newton says that he only knows one district in British New Guinea where it is frequently practised.[969] So, too, among the Dyaks it is decidedly uncommon.[970] Lastly, it may be noticed that there exists ‘in some parts of the Solomons and New Hebrides a most remarkable state of things, all the children are killed, chiefly by infanticide, it would appear, and substitutes purchased’.[971]

33. Warfare occurs everywhere in Oceania;[972] apparently there is not a single case in which it is definitely recorded to be absent. In some islands it is as murderous as anywhere in America, though on the whole it cannot be regarded as anything like such an important cause of elimination as in that Continent. The Maories were especially skilled in the art of war which ‘carries off a large number of their strongest men, and has often proved so destructive to a tribe, that it has been broken up entirely and has disappeared’.[973] In the Murray Islands there is frequent fighting and raiding of the neighbouring islands and coasts;[974] and the same is true of all the islands of the Torres Straits, though it is commoner in the western than in the eastern islands.[975] ‘A life for a life’ is, we are told, the principle underlying warfare among these people;[976] in the Sandwich Islands elimination from this cause must have been very considerable; we hear, for example, of ‘the sanguinary character of their frequent wars’.[977] It is much the same in Tahiti; ‘their wars were merciless and destructive’;[978] ‘occasions of hostility were also at times remarkably trivial, though not so their consequences.’[979] War seems to be equally frequent in Samoa, though possibly less murderous.[980] Brown believes that ‘the wars of the Samoans tended for a long time to check the natural increase of the population’.[981] ‘There was never any difficulty in finding a reason, if a fight was desired (in Rotuma), as any pretext could be seized.’[982] Such fights were sometimes followed by very considerable slaughter.[983] ‘War, either offensive or defensive, was their continual delight [in Rarotonga]. A state of peace was rarely known to continue long between the tribes.... These quarrels invariably led to fighting, in which the warriors of each tribe engaged with the utmost desperation and cruelty.’[984] War was the favourite occupation of the Kingsmill Islanders,[985] and in the Pelew Islands it was their ‘daily concern’.[986] Warfare is said to have been especially developed in the Marshall Islands.[987] According to Williams, ‘Fiji is rarely free from war and its attendant evils’;[988] ‘natural deaths are reduced to a small number among the heathen Fijians, by the prevalence of war and various systems of murder which custom demands.’[989] On the other hand, it is interesting to note that Thomson thinks that the destructive nature of warfare in Fiji is exaggerated as elsewhere in Oceania. He gives the following account of his own experiences in another island as an example of what he found warfare really to mean. ‘As we travelled along the coast we found that every village had its frontier; a stream mouth, or a sapling stuck upright in the sand, beyond which none would venture. The natives did their best to dissuade us from crossing these boundaries by representing their neighbours as thirsting for the blood of strangers. But on the other side of the frontier we found a meek folk, lost in wonder that we had come through the last stage of our journey unscathed, so cruel and ferocious were its inhabitants. Every man lived in active terror of his neighbours, and went armed to his plantation, but this did not prevent him from being a most skilful and industrious husbandman, or from living to a good old age. The fear being mutual, there was scarcely any war; an occasional attack upon a woman or upon an unarmed man served to keep the hereditary feud alive.’[990] It may very well be that the murderous nature of warfare has often been exaggerated, and that as a matter of fact the true state of affairs often approximates more closely to the picture given by this author.

In the New Hebrides fighting is said to be fairly frequent;[991] in New Caledonia it is certainly common, though perhaps not very serious.[992] So too in the Solomon Islands there is ‘unceasing war’.[993] According to Romilly, ‘in a battle the victorious party, if they can surprise their enemies sufficiently to admit of a wholesale massacre, kill not only the men, but also all the women and children’.[994] A very similar general impression is gained from descriptions of New Guinea. ‘The Western section of the Koita, especially the Arauwa and the Rokurokuna, were formerly involved in almost continual warfare with Kabadi; apart from this long continual struggle the Koita appear to have carried on little inter-tribal fighting.... A considerable number of people fell in these encounters.’[995] Other accounts of New Guinea give the impression that, however frequent the fighting, the losses were not large.[996] Among the Dyaks, on the other hand, warfare is not only frequent but also sanguinary;[997] women and children are killed at times.[998] Fighting occurs between the Ainu clans, and is the cause of much loss of life.[999]

34. It is not necessary to discuss the prevalence of feuds in general, as they are not to be distinguished from warfare. But in addition to the special case of murder following upon natural death, one form of homicide deserves mention as it is of considerable importance in this region, though not uncommon elsewhere—especially in Nigeria. Head hunting is popularly connected with Borneo, but it is also practised in New Guinea and the neighbouring islands. The taking of a head is counted a proof of manliness; in Kiwai Island, Fly River, it enables a young man to secure a wife more easily.[1000] Thomson saw thirteen skulls over the door of a house in an inland village in Normanby Island.[1001] Woodford found whole villages devastated owing to the prevalence of this habit.[1002] Speaking of the New Hebrides, Hickson says that ‘in the olden times a fresh human head was an indispensable preliminary to any marriage negotiations’.[1003] Among the Sea Dyaks (Ibans) it is certainly a form of sport; the other inhabitants of Borneo are said only to practise it as a part of warfare.[1004] It is not true to say that in Borneo the taking of a head is indispensable for a youth who wishes to marry,[1005] though considerable prestige clearly attaches to it.[1006] Without doubt the practice is responsible for a large number of deaths,[1007] and the head of a woman or child is equally valuable as that of a man.[1008] The habit is also very prevalent among the Bontoc Igorot. ‘For unknown generations these people have been fierce head hunters. Nine-tenths of the men in the pueblos of Bontoc and Samoki wear on the breast the indelible tatoo emblem which proclaims them takers of human heads.’[1009] Women and children over five years of age are killed.[1010]

The failure to recognize natural death as such is as prevalent in this region as in the others which we have surveyed. Speaking of New Guinea, Romilly says ‘in the native opinion there is no such thing as a “natural death”. If a man escapes a violent death and dies of fever or pneumonia, it is said that he has been bewitched and that a devil has killed him.’[1011] So, too, von der Sande in his description of Humboldt Bay records that ‘the opinion is generally held that death is always caused by the evil desire of other persons’;[1012] in consequence numerous murders follow.

35. With regard to the prevalence of disease it is sufficient to say that disease was certainly less common than in Africa. It is probably true that disease was of as little importance as a factor of elimination as in America.[1013]

The evidence with regard to infant mortality shows that it is again considerable, and due to ignorance and want of care. Speaking of New Guinea, Newton says that ‘the rate of infant mortality is high, but it is often due, so we suspect, to the absolute belief that a child must have some taro to eat—where taro is the staple food—if it is to thrive.... Infants not twenty-four hours old have had taro given them.’[1014] Kreutz found that many more children died in the second than in the first year; this he attributed to the fact that, whereas while in the first year they are well looked after, in the second year, when they begin to crawl about, they often die from want of attention.[1015] Turner states that not less than two-thirds of the children in Samoa died in childhood from carelessness and mismanagement,[1016] and of the Bontoc Igorot we are told that children are brought up without any sign of knowledge as to how they should be treated from the point of view of health.[1017]

_Asia_

36. It is not worth while to deal at length with the remaining peoples who are to be classed with this group. For the most part they are herders of reindeer; the more western races have long been in contact with Eur-Asiatic civilization; even the Chuckee were discovered in the first half of the seventeenth century,[1018] while the Yukaghis were converted to Christianity two hundred years ago.[1019] It is interesting to note, however, that generally speaking the conditions among them are similar to what we have found elsewhere.

Suckling lasts three years among the Koryak[1020] and the Tunguses,[1021] while Yakut mothers sometimes suckle their children until the latter are five years of age.[1022] There is no evidence of postponement of marriage; the early age at which it takes place has been remarked on for most of these races.[1023] As regards the number of children, Krasheninicoff says of the inhabitants of Kamtchatka that ‘in general these people are not fruitful’.[1024] Sograff comments on the small number of Samoyed children.[1025] Jochelson found an average of over five to married women above forty years old.[1026] Abortion and infanticide are common in Kamtchatka;[1027] Stellers comments especially on the prevalence of abortion which is very frequently employed.[1028] The Samoyeds destroyed deformed children.[1029] There are the usual comments on the general good health of these people. Both Ostyaks and Samoyeds ‘enjoy the best of health and attain a very old age’.[1030] Infant mortality is large.[1031]

IX THE REGULATION OF NUMBERS AMONG PRIMITIVE RACES

1. We have now to ask what light these facts throw upon the quantitative aspect of the problem. Remembering that among all the races concerning which facts have been given there exists that form of primitive social organization the nature of which has been referred to, we may first examine briefly the theory of population as it applies to society in which there is co-operation; for the existence of this primitive form of social organization implies co-operation. We may then go on to apply what we learn from this review of the theory of population to the facts, so far as they concern the races of the first and second groups. We may next ask how far we can apply what we learn from primitive races to prehistoric races up to the opening of the third period, and finally we may inquire how it is to be supposed that the transition took place from the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor, lived to those under which the earliest societies, of which we can indirectly gain any knowledge, must be supposed to have lived.

Malthus was the first writer to set out a theory in detail and to support it with evidence.[1032] Of the origin of his book some account has been given in the first chapter. In this book Malthus, according to his own account, attempted to show three things—that population was limited by the means of subsistence, that it almost always increases when the means of subsistence increase, and that there are three checks upon increase—vice, misery, and moral restraint. By ‘vice’ and ‘misery’ he meant disease, war, poverty, and so on. By ‘moral restraint’ he meant restraint from sexual intercourse. This last check was not mentioned in the first edition of the Essay; it was introduced for the first time in the second edition.

It is important to observe the nature of the argument put forth by Malthus. (The whole theory is one of the comparative rapidity of the increase of population and of the increase of food.) Population, he said, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio, food only in an arithmetical ratio. Therefore there must always be checks at work limiting population. He made a survey of the social conditions in different countries, and pointed to the evidence of the existence of various forms of vice and misery; where moral restraint was practised, there was less vice and misery; where no moral restraint was practised, vice and misery reached their greatest prevalence. Furthermore the checks taken together must always be effective; it was, according to Malthus, merely a question of what kind of checks should be in operation. It was desirable in his view to increase ‘moral restraint’ in order to decrease ‘vice’ and ‘misery’. It also follows that, if the checks were always effective, there could be no such thing as over-population. The conception of over-population, properly speaking, did not enter into the theory at all. It belongs to the later theory, which is based upon the productiveness of industry—an idea which finds no place in his book.

In the later editions Malthus made certain reservations about the impossibility of subsistence increasing faster than in an arithmetical ratio. Facts incompatible with the theory regarding the increase of population in America had come to light, and he admitted the possibility of the increase of subsistence in a geometrical ratio in new countries under certain conditions. He maintained, however, that in general subsistence could not increase faster than in an arithmetical ratio, and that his theory was therefore in essential features still correct. The ratios were at the basis of his theory, and sum up the whole essence of the argument. It has frequently been said, however, that Malthus did not attach much importance to the ratios. Professor Nicholson, for example, says that he used them ‘not strictly—but as the basis for a simile’.[1033] But Professor Cannan has shown that there is no foundation whatever for this view, and quotes a passage from Malthus exhibiting the importance which the latter attributed to this part of his theory.[1034]

That subsistence can only increase in an arithmetical ratio, or in other words that the periodical additions to the average annual produce cannot be increased, has long ago been disproved by statistics. Such figures as caused Malthus to make his reservations about new countries have been forthcoming for old countries also. In his own lifetime the census showed the falsity of the arithmetical ratio for so ‘old’ a country as England. It is not necessary to go into the facts, which are well known and beyond dispute. It is only the result of the proof of the fallacy contained in the arithmetical ratio part of the theory that concerns us. The result was that the whole argument collapsed, founded as it was on the comparative rapidity of the increase of population and of food. As Professor Cannan says: ‘The _Essay on the Principle of Population_ falls to the ground as an argument, and remains only a chaos of facts collected to illustrate the effect of laws which do not exist. Beyond the arithmetical ratio theory, there is nothing whatever in the _Essay_ to show why subsistence for man should not increase as fast as an “unchecked population”. “With every mouth God sends a pair of hands,” so why should not the larger population be able to maintain itself as well as the former?’[1035]

2. The answer to this question was in process of being discovered during the lifetime of Malthus. In the early years of the century attention was drawn to the high price of corn, to the position of agriculture, and especially to the fact that less rich land was being brought under cultivation. From the discussion which ensued, and to which Malthus contributed, there arose the idea of decreasing returns to agriculture. It has been pointed out that it must always have been recognized in practice that it did not ‘pay’ to employ more than a certain amount of labour on a given area of land. In these years, however, for the first time the principle which underlay this fact was made clear. West and Ricardo were chiefly responsible for bringing the matter to light. The development of the theory need not occupy us. It may be formulated shortly here. ‘Whether we consider an acre of land or a whole country, after a certain point is reached, the return to a given amount of labour and capital will diminish. It will do so, however, only under the supposition that the arts of agriculture, using the phrase in the broadest sense, remain stationary.’[1036] The law is not limited to agriculture. It is applicable to all industry. Whenever some agent in production, upon which an industry is absolutely dependent, is strictly limited, after a time equal increments of capital and labour will not produce equal returns. In other words the returns to the same doses of capital and labour will diminish. This, however, will only occur when, as stated above, the supply of some agent in production is restricted; otherwise when an industry enlarges there will, as a rule, be an increasing return. The more labour, apart from diminishing returns, the better.

When speaking of agriculture it was said that diminishing returns only supervene when there are no improvements in the arts of agriculture. This is true in general of all other industries. Any increase in the arts of production will in general admit of more labour and capital being profitably employed; if there are no further improvements, there will after a time come a point when diminishing returns will again supervene. The following out of the working of these laws in detail would call for a long and intricate discussion. Since the problem of quantity is only touched upon in its broadest outlines, such a discussion is not necessary here. The broad fact which emerges, and which alone is relevant here, is that, since the laws in general are applicable to all industry, there will be, taking into account on the one hand the known arts of production and on the other hand the habits and so on of any people at any one time in any given area, a certain density of population which will be the most desirable from the point of view of return per head of population. There will, in fact, under any given circumstances always be an optimum number; if the population fails to reach that number or if it exceeds it, the return per head will not be so large as it would be if it attained that number. This conception is of such importance that its formulation in other words by a modern economist may be quoted. ‘At any given time, or, which comes to the same thing, knowledge and circumstances remaining the same, there is what may be called a point of maximum return, when the amount of labour is such that both an increase and a decrease in it would diminish proportionate returns.... If we suppose all the difficulties about the measurements of the returns to all industries taken together to be somehow overcome, we can see that at any given time, or knowledge and circumstances remaining the same, just as there is a point of maximum return in each industry, so there must be in all industries taken together. If the population is not large enough to bring all returns up to this point, returns will be less than they might be, and the remedy is increase of population; if, on the other hand, population is so great that the point has been passed, returns are again less than they might be, and the remedy is decrease of population.’[1037]

This idea of an optimum number is one which can be developed in great detail. It is only necessary here to notice that when, as in the higher economic stages, the arts of production on the one hand are improving and the habits and so on of any people are on the other hand constantly altering, the most desirable density is in consequence frequently changing. In the lower stages, when progress in skill is slow and social conditions more or less stationary, the optimum number may remain about the same over long periods of time. Further, with regard to progress in skill, inasmuch as the productivity of labour is enhanced by every improvement in the arts of production, the result of such progress will be that the return per head will, as a rule, increase. Such progress will thus, as a rule, allow of a larger population which will have a larger income per head.

This idea of an optimum density of population is wholly different to that put forward by Malthus. To him the problem was one of the relative increase of population and of food; with us it is one of the density of population and of the productiveness of industry. To Malthus the position was much the same in all ages; in his view population, except under unusual circumstances, had in any country at any given time always increased up to the limit of subsistence, and was in process of being checked—chiefly by vice and misery. In the modern view increase in skill has brought to an increasingly dense population a larger income per head. The chief cause of the largest possible income not on all occasions being reached is that at times the density of population increases beyond the optimum number for the given conditions, though at other times the failure of population to reach the desirable level may produce the same result.

Though the problem of diminishing returns was being discussed as the successive editions of the _Essay_ appeared, the idea was not applied by Malthus to the population question. This was undertaken by later writers. The development of the modern theory need not detain us; it is of interest, however, to observe that J. S. Mill, whose influence over contemporary thought was so great, never shook off the deep impression made upon him early in life by the Malthusian theory. He exhibited a remarkable dread of over-population, and in his _Principles of Political Economy_ seems to have regarded diminishing returns as so often arising that only rarely could an increase in population be advantageous. He appears in fact to have thought that after a certain stage all further increase in population was harmful, and to have looked upon ‘the degree of industry which is required for the maximum productiveness of industry as something fixed once and for all’.[1038] Mill’s view, therefore, though founded upon the productiveness of industry, differs from the modern view to which it has given place. It has since been clearly established that there is no maximum density desirable from the point of view of productiveness; so long as skill increases, other things being equal, so long will the desirable density increase. The influence of Mill’s writings has had the effect of keeping alive in England longer than elsewhere the pessimistic view of the problem which the teaching of Malthus had originally given rise to.[1039] So strong were Mill’s opinions that he regarded the limitation of the family by virtuous restraint as one of the most desirable of social reforms. He was led in the following passage to express views that are strongly in contrast with those of the many who now deplore the decline of the birth-rate among the upper social classes of to-day. ‘Little improvement’, he said, ‘can be expected in morality until the producing of large families is regarded with the same feelings as drunkenness or any other physical excess. But while the aristocracy and clergy are foremost to give the example of this kind of incontinence, what can be expected of the poor?’[1040]

3. This conception of an optimum number holds good wherever there is social co-operation between groups of men living within definite areas. As we have seen a primitive form of social organization exists among all these races. This implies in itself a certain degree of co-operation. It remains to show that these races are all, without exception, divided into groups which are strictly limited to definite areas—contrary to the still common notion that they wander where they please—and we may further note that the inhabitants of these areas co-operate to a greater or less degree in the search for food, and that there is a social obligation upon each man to do his share. We may review the evidence, beginning with the first point, which is of such importance that it may be treated at some length.

It is both misleading and dangerous to apply terms carrying modern legal conceptions to these races; unfortunately, any terms that may be used are to some extent biased. We have, however, somehow to describe the results of investigation into the customs of these races, and it has been found that among all these races, without exception, groups of men are recognized as, if not owning, then as enjoying the usufruct of certain very clearly defined areas. According to Ling Roth it is not clear whether the Tasmanian tribes had any definite hunting grounds or not.[1041] Bonwick confidently asserts that it was so,[1042] and Wheeler thinks that the conditions in Tasmania were probably the same as in Australia.[1043] From Australia we have abundant evidence; the facts recorded from different parts of the continent vary considerably, and we must either believe that customs differed from place to place, which is not at all unlikely, or that many observers are mistaken, which, considering the positive nature of their assertions, is not very probable. Wheeler has reviewed the evidence and sums up his conclusions as follows: ‘Our information shows the existence in some, at any rate, of the areas of Australia of what must be held to be private ownership in land, but it does not follow that the whole of the tribal territory was so allotted. The unit would generally be the individual family, but there are a few indications that the ownership might even be vested in single persons within the family, other than the head. The clearest mentions of individual or of family ownership seem to come from the south-eastern area, where the physiographic conditions are most varied, and where, in consequence, fishing rights become important. But it seems likewise that the rights of families or of individuals, as also those of local groups, were, in general, subject to tribal over-rights, though we have no clear information on this point.’[1044]

There is no doubt, in the first place, that the tribes were everywhere restricted to clearly defined territories.[1045] Doubt only arises with regard to the smaller groups. The usual mode of living is in small groups of one to three families, which usually form a portion of a local group, but which may exceptionally be actual local groups. Only in the more fertile districts is the number of families living in contact greater.[1046] These local groups, into which the tribes are divided, seem generally to have their clearly defined areas within the tribal territory. Thus Brown, speaking of the Kariera tribe of Western Australia, says that ‘the country of a local group, with all its products, animal, vegetable, and mineral, belongs to the members of the group in common. Any member of the group has the right to hunt over the country of his group at all times. He may not, however, hunt over the country of any other local group without the permission of its owners.’[1047]

In some parts no further subdivision of the land was recognized. ‘I could not find’, says Brown of Western Australia, ‘any evidence of the individual ownership of any part of the soil or of any of its products. The whole of the territory of the group and everything in it seem to belong equally to all the members of the group.’[1048] In other parts we hear of family ownership; Stanbridge says of Victoria that the tribal land ‘has been from time immemorable parcelled out among its families and transmitted by direct descent to the present generation’.[1049] Further, some accounts speak of individual ownership. The natives of King George’s Sound ‘who live together have the exclusive right of fishing and hunting upon the neighbouring grounds, which are, in fact, divided into individual properties, the quantity of land owned by each individual being very considerable’.[1050] Eyre speaks of the parcelling out of territory among the individual members of the tribe. ‘Every male has some portion of land, of which he can always point out the exact boundaries. These properties are subdivided by a father among his sons during his own lifetime, and descend in almost hereditary succession.’[1051] As further examples of the ideas held by the Australians on the subject of property, it may be noticed that Smyth describes individual property in trees which passes by inheritance,[1052] while Lumholtz says that ‘if a native finds a hive of honey in a tree, but has not an immediate opportunity of chopping it out, he can safely leave it till some other day; the discoverer owns it, and nobody else will touch it, if he has either given an account of it or marked the tree, as is the custom in some parts of Western Queensland’.[1053]

Wherever we turn we find similar evidence of the recognition of distinct areas over which groups have more or less exclusive rights.[1054] Every tribe certainly has its own clearly defined territory; it seems further very probable that in most places the tribal territory is divided among local groups, if indeed the subdivision does not go farther. The Bushmen were formerly divided into tribes occupying ‘well defined tracts of country, which they looked upon as their own ancestral hunting ground’.[1055] Their respect for property is shown by the fact that, when a man found a bees’ nest, he put his mark upon it, and thenceforward it became ‘the sacred property of the finder’.[1056] Klutschak describes distinct territories for the Eskimo tribes, who confine their seasonal migrations to these definite areas.[1057] Subdivision of land does not seem to go farther than subdivision among the villages; the inhabitants of a village had the right to refuse to allow any strangers to settle permanently in the neighbourhood. ‘If a new family wished to settle at an inhabited place, the newcomers had to await the consent of the people already settled there, which was given by certain signs of civility or welcome, the strangers having meanwhile put their boat ashore, but not yet begun bringing up their goods. If these signs were not given they pushed the boat off again and went on to look for another place.’[1058] It is so well known that the American Indians recognized clearly defined tribal boundaries that we need not attempt to illustrate the fact by means of references.[1059] It is perhaps not so well known that there are also many indications of family and even of individual property in land. In the first place we often hear of the right of the inhabitants of a village to clearly defined tracts. ‘Each tribe had its village sites and contiguous hunting and fishing grounds; as long as the people lived on these sites and regularly went to their hunting grounds, they could claim them against all intruders.’[1060] Of the Carrier Tribes, Harmon says that ‘the people of every village have a certain extent of country, which they consider their own, and in which they may hunt and fish; but they may not transcend these bounds, without purchasing the privilege from those who claim the land’.[1061] Of the Western Tinneh, Hill Tout records that the heads of the clan own the hunting grounds, ‘the limits of which were always very clearly defined’.[1062] Among the more nomadic Eastern Tinneh we hear that bands used the same hunting grounds; these areas, however, were not regarded as belonging exclusively to them.[1063] Among the Salish of the Interior, ‘all hunting, fishing, root and berry grounds were common property and shared in by all alike’; whereas among those of the coast the food grounds were the property of the septs and local groups.[1064] From other accounts it appears that family and individual ownership were recognized in some places. This applies especially with regard to the fishing stations of the Pacific Coast tribes, where ‘varying lengths of shore were held as private fishing rights by heads of families, and these rights were passed from father to son and were always respected’.[1065] Swanton gives an especially interesting account of the practices of the Haidahs of Queen Charlotte Islands. ‘Each Haidah family had its own creek or creeks, or portion of a creek, where its smoke houses stood. Some of the smaller creeks are said to have no owners; and, on the other hand, some families are said to have had no land. In the latter cases they were obliged to wait until another family was through before picking berries, and had to pay for the privilege. Any family might pick berries on the land belonging to another after the owners had finished picking, if it obtained the consent of the latter and paid a certain price.’[1066] Referring to the Sitkin Indians, Elliot says that ‘the coastline, and especially the margins of streams and rivers, are duly divided up among the different families. These tracts are regarded as strictly private property.’[1067] Krause further gives an account of what can only be called individual private property in land among the Thlinkeets.[1068] The remarkable system in vogue among the Veddahs deserves notice. ‘The whole Veddah country was divided into small hunting regions, of which each family possessed one. The arrangements were most elaborate; the size of the tracts varied in accordance with the goodness of the land, and each included a portion of hill country to which each family thus had access during the rainy season without trespassing upon the ground of other families.’[1069] Cooper has very fully reviewed the evidence for the Fuegians. It has been stated that communism existed among them. This is not correct. ‘While all Fuegians are nomads,’ he says, ‘yet a Yaghan, for instance, is chary of poaching on Alacalufan or Onan territory. Even within recognized tribal territory the existence of more or less definitely marked off family hunting grounds is explicitly attested for the Onas by Professor Furlong and Dr. Dabbene and implicitly by Dr. Gallardo.’[1070]

4. Passing now to the races of the second group it is everywhere found that tribal territories are recognized, and it has been shown that, compared with hunting and fishing races, there is an increase in the number of cases in which land is held by smaller groups, if not by individuals, and a corresponding decrease in the number of cases in which communal ownership is recognized.[1071] The details of the variation in land tenure are not relevant, and a few descriptions of the conditions among different tribes will serve as examples of the manner in which groups of men among these races drew their means of subsistence from clearly defined areas. ‘Among the Navahos a section of territory was parcelled out and held as clan land and, as descent in the tribe was traced through the mother, was spoken of by members of the clan as “my mother’s land”. Upon such tracts the woman worked raising maize, &c., and the product was recognized as their property.’[1072] Of the North American Indians generally we are told that ‘occupancy gradually established a claim or right to possess the tract from which a tribe or individual derived food. This occupancy was the only land tenure recognized by the Indian; he never of himself reached the conception of the land as merchantable.... As long as a person planted a certain tract the claim was not disputed, but if its cultivation were neglected, any one who chose might take it. Among the Zuni, according to Cushing, if a man, either before or after marriage, takes up a field of unappropriated land, it belongs strictly to him, but is spoken of as the property of his clan, or on his death it may be cultivated by any member of that clan, though preferably by near relatives, but not by his wife or children, who must be of another clan.’[1073] So, too, among the Omahas maize was cultivated in patches of one-half to three acres in size; property in these patches was recognized so long as cultivation was continued. Afterwards any one could take them.[1074] In Mexico there was an elaborate system of land tenure.[1075] Conditions in South America were very similar to those in North America. Spix and Martius speaking of Brazil say: ‘The savages consider the lands they have put under cultivation to be in some measure the property of their tribe.... One or several families unite to clear a part of the virgin forest and plant maize, manioc, cotton, or bananas.... The same ground is cultivated every year, because it would be too difficult every year to clear new portions of the forest.... A field cultivated for several years is considered to belong to a family, and the neighbours recognize these rights.’[1076]

The rights over land are very similar in Africa. Bartle Frere says that ‘it is clear, from the accounts of early Dutch and other travellers in South Africa, that every Hottentot tribe had its territory, into which strangers might not intrude for pasture or hunting, without the leave of the whole tribe; each kraal had its pasture lands distinct, over which the people of that section of the tribe moved their mat huts, as the need of their herds, for grass or water, rendered advisable. As each kraal had more or less of a family constitution, it is difficult to say how far the pasture lands were held in common, or as the property of the individual occupant.’[1077] Of the Ewe-speaking people, Ellis says that among most tribes there is no private property in land but that the family in occupation of any tract cannot be disturbed.[1078] Of the Yoruba-speaking people the same author says that land, belonging to the community collectively, is vested in the chief, who distributes among households and families as required. No man can be depossessed of land once allotted to him, and the usufruct descends to his children, but the land cannot be sold.[1079] ‘It is doubtful’, says Talbot, ‘whether any part of the Ekoi country remains at present unowned.’[1080] According to Scott Elliot the rights of property in land of the different families in Sierra Leone are carefully maintained, especially in times of famine.[1081] In Northern Nigeria a ‘man is free to mark out a farm on any unoccupied land’, and has a claim to it as long as he cultivates it.[1082] Among the Bangala of the Upper Congo ‘the boundaries of a town are well defined, and the lands belonging to a town are well known to all other towns in the neighbourhood. If an animal is killed on ground owned by a town other than that to which the huntsman belongs, he has to send a portion—generally the head—to the chief of the town which claims the ground.’[1083] Further, ‘every woman had her farm, which was her exclusive property, and not even a fellow wife had any rights over it’.[1084] The hunting grounds of the Bushongo are well defined; the usufruct of the soil belongs to individuals, and trees are private property.[1085] Among the Mangbetu ‘every tribe has an accurate knowledge of the boundary of the territory over which it can hunt, move about, and establish its villages’.[1086] Hobley states that among the Akamba there is individual property in land which passes on the death of the father to the sons.[1087] The limits of the properties are very well defined and well known among the Ababua; cultivation renders the title good.[1088] The Baganda ‘lived in their gardens or plantations. These gardens were often joined one to the other, and a number of people lived in a community, often forming four or five miles of continuous garden with families living each on their own plot.’[1089] Even the fallow land among the Akikuyu was ‘all in private ownership’, and could not be brought into cultivation without the owner’s consent.[1090] In British Central Africa a man making a garden is ‘perfectly free to choose so long as the ground is not in cultivation, or has not been bespoken by some one else; and, once marked, no one can interfere with it’.[1091] Of the same region we are told that ‘these negroes have clear ideas of property. The waste land is usually considered to belong to the chief, but plantations and enclosures belong personally to the individual who originally made them.... Natives have clear ideas of large or small estates, or of their kingdom; and in the case of the former they are marked by the planting of certain trees of thick growth, while of course streams and mountains are recognized as boundaries and natural limits of territories.’[1092] Of the Thonga tribe in Portuguese East Africa we hear that ‘each man has his own field which he tills’.[1093] Speaking of the Bantu races south of the Zambezi, Theal says that ‘the chief apportioned to each head of a family sufficient ground for a garden according to his needs, and it remained in that individual’s possession as long as it was cultivated’.[1094] So Conder says of Bechuanaland, ‘the land belongs to the chief. He divides it among his head men and they in turn among their people. There is no division of grazing land. The mealie fields are practically the property of the cultivator so long as they are tilled. I found each patch to belong to an individual, and to be divided generally by untilled land from the next patch.’[1095] Among the Ovaherero the whole land is common property, but the rights of tribes and also of individuals to particular spots are recognized so long as they are occupied. Whoever first appropriates a spring and the surrounding pastures can maintain his right.[1096]

The conditions in Oceania are in their main elements, which alone are relevant, similar to those in America and Africa. In the Pelew Islands every family had its plot of land, which was considered as private property so long as it was occupied and cultivated.[1097] In New Zealand ‘land was held primarily by tribal rights; and within this tribal right each free warrior of the tribe had particular rights over some portion’.[1098] In Sarawak ‘each tribe had its limits, which have been handed down from father to son for ages, so that every old man of a tribe knows the exact extent of its district’.[1099] In British New Guinea we hear of ‘properly regulated and well-defined property rights, certainly not bounded by surveyed lines commonly used to indicate European land claims, but marked and known by natural features such as surface conditions afford’.[1100] It may also be noticed that rights over certain areas are recognized by the peoples of Northern Asia, such as the Tunguses and the Yakuts.[1101]

5. Passing to the second and third points we find that within these areas there is evidence even among the most primitive hunters of co-operation in the search for food and of strict rules for the division of the available food. Coupled with this we find that there is a social obligation which is strongly enforced for every man to do his share. Thus, where hunting and fishing can only be carried out by joint parties, strict rules exist for the division of the catch among those who have taken part and among their dependents. This may be illustrated by a few examples. Howitt gives many details of the rules in force in Australia with regard to the division of food. These rules not only differ from place to place but also for the various forms of game. Thus among the Kurnai ‘a wombat is cooked, then cut open and skinned. The skin is cut into strips and divided with parts of the animal thus. The head to the person who killed the animal. His father the right rib; mother the left ribs and backbone, which, with some of the skin, she gives to her parents. Her husband’s parents receive some of the skin. The elder brother gets the right shoulder, the younger the left. The elder sister gets the right hind leg, the younger the left hind leg, and the rump and the liver are sent to the young men in the camp.’[1102] ‘If a man only killed enough game or procured enough food for himself, his wife and his children, then he need not divide with others; but if he found that his father had no food, he would give them what he had and go out and look for more.’[1103] ‘All the males in the Chepara tribe are expected to provide food, if not sick. If a man is lazy and stays in camp, he is jeered at and insulted by the others.’[1104]

The principal features of the Australian customs as described above are to be found among all hunting and fishing races, though such elaborate rules as are usual in Australia are somewhat uncommon elsewhere. The Bushmen may have had their rules for the division of game; all we are told is to the effect that they shared food. ‘When one feasted they all partook; and when one hungered they all equally suffered.’[1105] We have evidence both of the sharing of food and of the dividing up of game among the Eskimos. Details of the latter are given by Nansen;[1106] with regard to the former we have frequent references to the division of food within the villages among all who need it.[1107] Of the Eskimos we are also told that ‘it might be considered a law that every man, as far as he was able to do it, should practise the trade of a hunter on the sea, until he was either disabled by old age or had a son to succeed him. This duty neglected, he brought upon himself the reprehension not only of the other members of his own family, but also of the wider community.’[1108] Rules for the division of food were almost universal among the Indians; when a hunter of the Hare tribe kills an animal, he is only allowed the tongue and ribs; the rest is distributed according to a system.[1109] So, too, among the Lillooet a regular partition of the game took place, of which one of the features was ‘that the persons who had the game had no preference over others’.[1110] Such phrases as ‘studied equity in the distribution of necessaries’,[1111] which is applied to the Seri Indians, indicate the existence of similar rules.[1112]

Conditions are similar among the races of the second group. In Fiji ‘public opinion took care that no man in the community shirked his work’.[1113] In New Ireland, ‘should a man neglect his family, a mode of punishment very similar to one practised by schoolboys among civilized races is adopted. A double row of men, women, and children—the whole population of the village—armed with stiff birches is formed; and at a signal from the chief the delinquent is obliged to run a certain number of times through the lines and receive a general castigation from the rods of the villagers’.[1114] Of the Pawumwa Haseman says ‘all work together.... If any one refuses to assist in planting, the chief forces him to work. I saw one Indian with a long scar on the side of his head and neck, the result of punishment for laziness.’[1115]

6. It is thus clear that within any group in any primitive race, the members of which co-operate together to obtain their food from a definite area to which they are confined, the principle of the optimum number holds good. There is, that is to say, taking into account the abundance of game, the fertility of the land, the skilled methods in use, and all other factors, a density of population which, if attained, will enable the greatest possible average income per head to be earned; if the density is greater or if it is less than this desirable density, the average income will be less than it might have been. Obviously it must be a very great advantage for any group to approximate to this desirable density. There are three possibilities open to any group. The desirable number may be approached, it may be exceeded up to the point where men can only just exist, or it may not be reached. Extreme departures from the optimum number must be very disadvantageous; if numbers increase until they are limited by starvation only, then no benefit arises from the use of any skilled methods that may be known. Under such circumstances all inventions in the methods of hunting, fishing, and cultivating the ground profit nothing. Social conditions must also inevitably be unstable where starvation alone limits numbers.

This being so, how are numbers regulated? We may observe to begin with that there is a number of factors at work among all these races which incidentally limit increase. This they may do either by decreasing fertility or by increasing elimination. To the former class belong pre-puberty intercourse and prolonged lactation, to the latter war and lack of care of children. Two characteristics of these factors are noteworthy. The effect they have upon the limitation of increase is incidental; it is the chance accompaniment of the practice of certain customs or of certain habits. In the second place the working of any single factor, so far as it reduces fertility or increases elimination, is fairly regular; in any primitive race at any given time such habits as prolonged lactation and early intercourse, when they occur, cause a certain definite reduction of fertility; and such customs as those of war and those connected with the upbringing of children cause a certain definite amount of elimination. The nature of the factors present and the degree of their incidence varies considerably from race to race, but it follows from what has been said above that in any primitive race over a considerable length of time the amount by which fertility is decreased and the amount of elimination which is caused remain fairly constant.

There is another class of factors the primary and not the incidental function of which it is either to reduce fertility or to cause elimination. These factors are prolonged abstention from intercourse, abortion, and infanticide. The view put forward here is that normally in every primitive race one or more of these customs are in use, and that the degree to which they are practised is such that there is an approach to the optimum number. With regard to this view we may first deal with the question as to the prevalence of these customs. We may then refer to the evidence as to the nature and origin of these practices. We shall then be in a position to ask how it may be supposed that they are so practised as to bring about that amount of restriction of increase which will result in an approach to the optimum number being made.

7. The evidence regarding the practice of these customs—prolonged abstention from intercourse, abortion, and infanticide—has already been given in the last two chapters. This evidence is also summed up in the Appendix to which the reader is invited to turn. No attempt has been made to conduct an exhaustive inquiry; but it is claimed that there is ample evidence of the widespread prevalence of one or more of these practices. There is no indication of the correlation of any one practice with any one economic stage. As far as the evidence goes, any practice may be in use in any economic stage. To the meaning of this we shall refer later. It is further claimed that, when the influence of contact with Europeans is taken into account, the evidence of the existence of these customs is still more impressive; for the observations upon which we have to rely have for the greater part been made after these races had been in contact with Europeans, and such contact is followed by a diminution of these practices.

One of the first changes brought about by this contact is connected with the introduction of diseases previously unknown. These diseases are often peculiarly fatal, causing a very high death-rate, and it is clear that, unless the practices of abstention from intercourse, abortion, and infanticide were largely abandoned, the race would perish. There is no difficulty in understanding how these practices would actually be abandoned soon after the introduction of disease. The proximate causes of these practices are largely, as we shall see, the difficulty of transporting many young children and the undesirability of having more than one child during the period of lactation. If disease began to carry off many children, the immediate causes for these practices would largely or entirely disappear and so would the customs themselves.[1116]

Apart from the introduction of disease, the effect of contact is in other ways to reduce the extent of these practices. Contact has often resulted in warfare between aboriginal races and European settlers—as in Tasmania, Australia, and America, or as between the Bushmen and the Boers. The largely increased death-rate would, as in the case of disease, be followed by a diminution of the extent of these practices. Further, under other conditions, as for instance in Polynesia, the efforts of missionaries have long been directed to putting a stop to these customs.[1117] We may also note that there is often a bias on the part of observers to under-estimate the extent of the employment of infanticide and abortion. Many observers are attracted by the races who come under their notice and seem to think that these practices are incompatible with the kindly nature or pleasant disposition of the people they describe—that in fact the attribution to them of such customs as a normal feature of existence is a kind of libel—and if they report them at all, they persuade themselves into thinking that they are infrequent and abnormal. We have only to remember the objection taken to the interpretation of the finds in neolithic graves in England as evidences of infanticide—an objection based on the dislike of believing that our ancestors could have been guilty of such a habit. Or, again, we may remember that Tacitus, when desirous of holding up the Germanic tribes as an example to the Romans of his day, declared that they never committed infanticide—the implication being again that infanticide is to be regarded as a degenerate and unworthy custom.[1118]

Nevertheless, in spite of all such tendencies working for the rapid disappearance of these customs, and in spite of the bias against believing in their existence, there is, as the Appendix shows, ample evidence that one or more of these practices are recorded for almost every people.

8. We may now consider the evidence regarding the origin and nature of these practices. We shall find that abortion and infanticide arise owing to the difficulty of providing for more than one child at a time. We shall also find that these customs are practised as normal features of social life and in such a manner as to keep the number of children at a fairly constant average figure. There is frequently a belief that a particular number of children is the right number of children. Further, it will be seen that the number of children to be preserved is a matter for consideration in which the wishes of not only the parents but also of the relations and of the community in general have to be taken into account, and that the practices are enforced by social pressure.

A large amount of evidence has been given to the effect that the number of children is always small—the number, that is to say, after these practices have taken effect. This is in itself evidence, it may be noticed, that these practices do result in reducing the number of children to a small constant average. Some additional evidence may now be noted.

According to Curr infanticide in Australia ‘resulted principally from the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of transporting several children of tender age from place to place on their frequent marches’,[1119] and later he observes that ‘infanticide was common among the Bangerang.... They themselves gave as their reason for it the impossibility of the woman carrying more than one infant in their constant wanderings.’[1120] ‘Every child which was born before the one which preceded it could walk was destroyed, because the mother was regarded as incapable of carrying two,’[1121] says another observer of the Narrinyeri tribe. Considerable information is given by Howitt for various Australian tribes. ‘Infanticide is practised by the Mining to some extent, the mode of killing being by starvation. After a few days of short commons the child becomes peevish and troublesome, and in consequence more neglected, being placed by itself away from the camp and fires, and it is said to be afflicted with Mupurn (magic). When death ends its sufferings Mupurn is the cause. The reason they give for this practice is that if their numbers increase too rapidly there would not be enough food for everybody. Yet they are very fond of their offspring, and very indulgent to those they keep, rarely striking them, and a mother would give all the food she had to her children, going hungry herself.’[1122] ‘In the Tongaranka tribe the practice of infanticide was common, because a baby was frequently too much trouble to look after, and it was often the mother who killed it. But it was not done until the family consisted of three or four; but after that too much work in hunting had to be done to keep the family in food.... In the Mukjarawaint tribe the children belonged to the grandparents, though the parents had care of them. If, for instance, a boy was born and then a girl, the father’s parents might take them, or the mother’s parents, and so also with another couple of children. If, then, another child was born and one of the grandparents took it, it would be kept. If not, it was killed, there being too many children. The grandparents had to decide whether a child was to be kept alive or not. If not, then either the grandfather or father killed it, by striking it against the mother’s knee, and then knocking it on the head.... According to Buckley, if a family increased too rapidly in the Wadthawing tribe, as, for instance, when a woman had a child within twelve months of the previous one, there was a consultation in the tribe as to whether it should live or not.... Infanticide in the Kurnai tribe arose through the difficulty of carrying a baby when there were other children, especially when the next youngest was not able to walk.’[1123] Of the aborigines of the River Darling we are told that ‘it seems to have been the custom to kill many of the children directly after birth, to save trouble and privation in time of drought, when long distances must be travelled in the search for food and water’,[1124] and the same proximate cause of infanticide is mentioned by Beveridge.[1125] Of the women in the Port Lincoln district it is said that they put forward as the cause of infanticide the fact that they ‘cannot suckle and carry two children together’;[1126] similar reasons are said to be given by the women of Central Australia.[1127] Speaking of the natives of Port Darwin Foelsche says that the reason for infanticide is that ‘too many children encumber the parents in travelling about for food’.[1128] It is also worthy of note in connexion with Howitt’s statement about there being at times a dread of over-population that, according to Spencer and Gillen, this is not the case at any rate in Central Australia;[1129] according to Curr, however, ‘in many tribes there is a great fear of a want of food arising from over-population’.[1130] Among the tribes of Port Lincoln ‘the number of children reared by each family is ... very limited, rarely exceeding four’, and ‘if a mother has children in rapid succession ... the young infant is killed’.[1131] In the Dieyerie tribe about 30 per cent. of the children are destroyed at birth.[1132] In the neighbourhood of Port Darwin children are killed ‘where a woman has more than three or four’.[1133] In Central Australia ‘each mother only rears, upon an average, two children’.[1134] Among the Northern tribes of Central Australia the number of children is kept down by infanticide to two or three.[1135]

Similar evidence is forthcoming for other races of this group. Thus of the Puelches Guinnard says that ‘among these almost primitive creatures, children are not nearly so numerous as might be imagined, for the existence of the new born infant is submitted to the judgment of the father and mother, who decide on its life or death’.[1136] Charlevoix says of the Abipones that ‘they seldom rear but one of each sex, murdering the rest as fast as they come into the world, till the eldest are strong enough to walk alone. They think to justify this cruelty by saying that, as they are almost constantly travelling from one place to another, it is impossible for them to take care of more infants than two at a time; one to be carried by the father, the other by the mother.’[1137]

Turning to races of the second group in Funafuti every mother was allowed to keep alternate children, but the second, fourth, and so on had to be destroyed.[1138] ‘A Tikopian family is usually limited to four children, any excess of this number being killed by burying them alive in the house or just outside it; occasionally five or six may be kept alive but never more. If the first four children are girls one or more of these may be killed in the hope that the succeeding children may be boys, in which case the lives of the boys would be spared.’[1139] In New Guinea, in the later years of marriage, abortion is used in order to lessen the number of children, since a large family would mean too much work for the parents.[1140] In the Kingsmill Islands ‘a woman seldom has more than two children, and never more than three; when she discovers herself to be enceinte for the third or fourth time, the foetus is discharged by a midwife’.[1141] In the Sandwich Islands, ‘however numerous the children among the lower orders, parents seldom rear more than two or three, and many spare only one; all the others are destroyed, sometimes shortly after birth, generally during the first year of their age’.[1142] ‘They consider three children a burden,’ says the same author in another passage, ‘and are unwilling to cultivate a little more ground, or undertake the small additional labour necessary to the support of their offspring during the helpless period of infancy and childhood.’[1143] ‘No married pair (among the Gilbert Islanders) are allowed by their law to have nor bear more than four children, that is only four children get the chance of life. The woman has the right to rear or to endeavour to rear one child. It rests with the husband to decide how many children shall live, and this depends on how much land there is to divide.’[1144] In Fiji ‘infanticide is more prevalent among the poor classes than the rich’.[1145] Speaking of the Murray Islands Hunt says that ‘after a certain number had been born, all succeeding children were destroyed, lest the food-supply should become deficient’.[1146] Codrington says of the Melanesians that ‘abortion and infanticide were very common. If a woman did not want the trouble of bringing up a child, desired to appear young, was afraid the husband might think the birth before its time, or wished to spite her husband, she would find some one to procure abortion.... Infanticide was more prevalent in some islands than others.... The old women of the village generally determined whether a new-born child should live; if not promising in appearance or likely to be troublesome, it was made away with.’[1147] Among the Mafulu of British New Guinea a woman must not give birth to a child unless she can give a pig to a village feast, and consequently children are often destroyed either by abortion or infanticide, both of which are common.[1148] Of the Western Islands in the Torres Straits we hear that ‘few women rear more than three children, and besides most of those born before marriage are doomed to be killed immediately after birth, unless the father—which is seldom the case—is desirous of saving the child.... Even of other infants some, especially females, are made away with in a similar manner when the mother is disinclined to support it.’[1149] Of the Eastern Islands it is said that ‘after a certain number had been born, all succeeding children were destroyed, lest the food-supply should become insufficient’.[1150]

Rengger, who remarks upon the small number of children among the Guaranis, traces it to the regular practice of abortion after a certain number had been born.[1151] ‘Infanticide is quite common among the Lenguas, an interval of seven or eight years being always observable between children of the same family. Not only are babies, which are born in the interval, immediately killed, but abortion is also practised.’[1152] Among the Creek Indians ‘to destroy a new-born infant is not uncommon in families that are grown so numerous as to be supported with difficulty’.[1153] Of the Cheyennes it is said that ‘it has been the custom that a woman should not have a second child until her first is ten years old. When that age is reached, the man is likely to go with his wife and child to some large dance or public gathering, and there ... to announce publicly that now this child is going to have a little brother or sister.’[1154] There is sometimes evidence, for instance among the Sioux[1155] and the Brazilian tribes,[1156] that abortion is committed after consultation with the husband. Among the Pima Indians ‘sometimes a mother nursed a child until it was six or seven years old, and if she became pregnant in the meantime she induced abortion’.[1157] In Fiji there was no cohabitation until the child was two years old. ‘This separation ... was in bygone times invariably enforced’ and abortion was practised when there had been enough children.[1158] Speaking also of Fiji Seeman says that ‘relatives of a woman take it as a public insult if a child should be born before the customary three or four years have elapsed, and they consider themselves in duty bound to avenge it in an equally public manner’.[1159] Similarly Gutmann says of the Wadschagga that it is considered most disgraceful if a woman, who is still suckling a two years child, again becomes a mother, and that in consequence abortion is frequent.[1160] In German New Guinea, according to Krieger, only three children are as a rule brought up owing to a fear of scarcity of food.[1161] In Radeck ‘every mother is allowed to bring up only three children; every fourth and succeeding one she is obliged to bury alive herself’.[1162] Infanticide was ordered by law in Vaitapu and not more than two children were allowed in a family.[1163] Of the Roro-speaking tribes of New Guinea we are told that ‘formerly it was not customary for a woman to have children until her garden was bearing well’.[1164] In the New Hebrides ‘infanticide was sadly prevalent. As the burden of plantation and other work devolved on the woman, she thought she could not attend to more than two or three children, and that the rest must be buried as soon as born.’[1165] In the New Britain group ‘after marriage children are not borne by the woman for a period of from two to four years. I am informed that this is the result of a popular dislike to speedily becoming a mother on the part of the women, who use various means to procure abortion and use them successfully.... A considerable period elapses between the birth of one child and the birth of another. The general term is about three years. One child is always well out of hand before another appears.’[1166] We may also note that, according to Rivers, infanticide is frequent among the Todas and is practised not when food runs short but as a regular custom.[1167]

It will be remembered that, when setting out in the last two chapters the evidence for the extent of abortion and of infanticide, these practices were in many cases stated to be committed when there was a certain number of children thus corroborating the evidence given to this effect above.

9. We are now in a position to discuss the manner in which numbers are regulated among these races, leaving until later the discussion as to how the position among these races was derived from that among species in a state of nature. Everywhere groups of men are, as we have seen, confined to definite areas. Among the few things which the men composing these groups do know with accuracy are the limits within which their food must be obtained. Further they co-operate in the search for food. It follows, therefore, that within any such area there is—taking all the relevant facts into account—an optimum number. The advantages to any group of approaching this number are immense; a wide departure from this number can only be socially disastrous. We found that within any group there is a number of factors—some of which reduce fertility and others of which increase elimination—and that the average amount of restriction of increase resulting from the action of these factors was fairly constant. We also found that there were certain other factors—prolonged abstention from intercourse, abortion, and infanticide—which are everywhere present and considerably restrict increase. If, as we shall see later, there is reason to think that some approach to the optimum is everywhere attained, it is clear that the former factors cannot of themselves alone sufficiently restrict increase. It is therefore to the latter factors, the primary function of which it is to restrict increase, that we must look when we seek for the mechanism by which numbers are brought near the desirable level.

It is clear how these factors originate. Among more or less nomadic peoples abortion and infanticide are practised because of the difficulty of transporting and of suckling more than one child at a time. Abstention from intercourse arises as a taboo. The problem we have to face is how these practices could come to be of the necessary intensity. Now men and groups of men are naturally selected on account of the customs they practise just as they are selected on account of their mental and physical characters. Those groups practising the most advantageous customs will have an advantage in the constant struggle between adjacent groups over those that practise less advantageous customs. Few customs can be more advantageous than those which limit the number of a group to the desirable number, and there is no difficulty in understanding how—once any of these three customs had originated—it would by a process of natural selection come to be so practised that it would produce an approximation to the desirable number. There would grow up an idea that it was the right thing to bring up a certain limited number of children, and the limitation of the family would be enforced by convention.

Though, however, adjustment is understandable as the result of a natural selection of customs, the evidence shows that there is even among the most primitive races at times at least some deliberation as to whether a child shall be allowed to live. In the more advanced races there is increasing evidence of deliberation. It cannot be supposed that in deliberation of this kind there is any grasp of the true position regarding the importance of the optimum number, but it may be supposed that under these circumstances the actual position at the moment as to whether there are too many or too few in the group does weigh when taking the decision. To all members of such a group, confined as they are within the knowledge of them all to a limited area, the disadvantages of too many mouths must be obvious. Therefore even among the more primitive races there may be some semi-conscious adjustment of numbers by means of one of these methods. However this may be, it is clear that, even if there is no semi-conscious deliberation among the lower groups, there is to some extent an automatic adjustment to the needs of the moment. Suppose disease or severe weather, for instance, to produce a higher rate of infant mortality, then abortion and infanticide, inasmuch as they are practised because of the difficulty of transporting more than one child, will be less practised.

10. Leaving aside for the moment the evidence that an approximation to the desirable number is in this manner attained, we may note that in order that the system should be effective, something more is necessary. The conception of an optimum number involves the idea of a standard of living. The attainment of the optimum number indicates that the highest standard, which is possible taking all the circumstances into account, has been reached. In order that the standard of living may be maintained, it is not merely enough that numbers should be restricted; the younger generation must become proficient in the skilled methods which make this standard possible of attainment, and in particular it is important that the young men should not marry unless they are both energetic and skilful—unless, that is to say, they are both willing to keep up and are capable of keeping up the standard of living previously attained. There is abundant evidence to the effect that pressure is exerted upon the younger generation. It is commonly recognized that among primitive races the girls marry at or soon after puberty. It is not so often recognized that the young men not infrequently do not marry until some years later. The inefficient and the physically incapable sometimes do not marry at all. In such facts we may see evidence of the pressure exerted by social conditions and conventions. We find also that not only are young men carefully instructed in the skilled methods, but that the parents of the bride anxiously inquire as to the bridegroom’s energy and capability of supporting a family. The conditions regarding marriage have been much studied, and in marriage by service and marriage by purchase we can observe the pressure which forces a young man to show himself proficient in the skilled methods which are in use among his people. Obligations on the would-be bridegroom to work and save up the purchase money or to serve his future parents-in-law make it necessary for the young man to learn skilled methods and to exhibit energy and competence before marriage, whereby it is in any case rendered unlikely that new families will be set up which will adopt a lower standard of living than that of the previous generation. At the evidence for these facts we may now glance.

In Australia betrothals generally take place in infancy and marriage follows later; these betrothals are usually arranged as exchanges, but the system shows some features of marriage by purchase.[1168] Considerable postponement of marriage is often observed, especially among the less skilled members of the community; thirty is mentioned as a not uncommon age for marriage.[1169] Among the Eskimos there is a very strong feeling that a boy must show himself proficient in the difficult arts of hunting and fishing as practised by them. A young man seldom marries until he is over twenty, though often betrothed when an infant.[1170] Before that age he cannot learn all the methods of hunting game, managing a kayak, and so on. Marriage is considered impossible because he would not be in a position to maintain his family, and it is the necessity of showing that he is in this position before marriage is allowed which is remarked upon by all observers of Eskimo life.[1171] The usual form of marriage in America is by purchase.[1172] As a rule, the amount to be paid is relatively large, and the boy must either spend some time in getting it together or else obtain it from his father. At other times marriage is by service. Thus among the Kenai the bridegroom performs a year’s service,[1173] and among the Haidahs boys were often betrothed at an early age and went to live with the girl’s family and worked for them until marriage.[1174] A Seri bridegroom leaves his own family and enters that of the bride for a year; ‘he must display and exercise skill in turtle fishing, strength in the chase, subtlety in warfare and all other physical qualities of competent manhood’.[1175] Among the Jakun a husband ‘is expected to provide a hut, cooking pots and other necessary articles such as will suffice to enable house-keeping to be started with reasonable comfort’.[1176] Among the Fuegians ‘as soon as a youth is able to maintain a wife by his exertions in fishing and bird catching, he obtains the consent of her relations, and does some piece of work, such as helping to make a canoe, or preparing sealskins’.[1177]

In this connexion it may be noticed that we often hear of the scorn poured upon the weak and unsuccessful; it appears to be the case that such men sometimes never marry.[1178] Among the Kutchins ‘poor men, whose abilities as hunters are small, and who have been unable to accumulate herds, remain bachelors’.[1179] One of the most difficult things an Eskimo has to learn is how to catch seals. ‘The poor wretch’ that cannot do so ‘is despised to the last degree, and is obliged to subsist on women’s diet, such as scolpings, which he can fish for on the ice, mussels, periwinkles, dried herrings, &c.’[1180] With regard to postponement of marriage, from twenty-three to twenty-five is the usual age of marriage for men among the Thompson Indians,[1181] from twenty-one to twenty-five for men among the Lillooets,[1182] and twenty-five among the Abipones.[1183]

With regard to the races of the second group, among the Topebatos men marry when about eighteen. They have both to present gifts to, and to do work for, their future parents-in-law.[1184] The bridegroom also works for his future parents-in-law among the Bontoc Igorot.[1185] In Fiji ‘young men of the lower orders married rather late in life for a primitive people, rarely, it appears, before the age of twenty-five’.[1186] Later the same author says that ‘marriages were often delayed for years when the bridegroom’s family were too poor to acquire property commensurate with their pride’.[1187] In the Maldive Islands ‘although a man is allowed four wives at a time, it is only on condition of his being able to support them’.[1188] In the Caroline Islands ‘a suitor serves for his wife in the house of his father-in-law elect as Jacob did with Laban and frequently has his pains for nothing’.[1189] Marriage by purchase is common in New Guinea and often results in a postponement of marriage while the purchase money is being collected.[1190] Speaking of the New Britain Group, Danks says ‘some I have met who have never married, but the cause lay in their inability to raise the shell money with which to purchase a wife’.[1191] In Sumatra marriage by purchase is said to constitute a certain hindrance to marriage, in spite of which, however, there are few celibates.[1192] Among the Negritos of Zambala the amount of the purchase money is large and ‘there is no doubt that the gifts made represent almost all the wealth of which a young man and family can boast’.[1193] In the Western Islands of the Torres Straits men marry when between twenty and twenty-five years old,[1194] marriage being by purchase.[1195] In certain cases where head hunting is practised prowess in this art must be shown before marriage.[1196] In certain parts of Borneo ‘it is a rule among all the tribes that no youth can regularly wear a mandan, or be married or associate with the opposite sex, till he has been on one or more head hunting expeditions’.[1197]

Marriage by purchase is often found in Africa. The necessity of collecting the purchase money frequently involves some postponement of marriage. Formerly among the Thonga a man generally married when about twenty-five years old,[1198] but there was some variation in the age owing to the varying difficulty experienced in getting together the necessary cattle.[1199] Sooner or later nearly all the men among this tribe get married;[1200] and this is true of all Bantu peoples. ‘The kind of individual called a bachelor does not abound among the Bantu. The wretched, the invalids, the weak-minded only, are deprived of the legal marriage which for the black man is and remains the one object in life.’[1201] Sometimes in South Africa ‘a young man too poor to acquire a wife by the transfer of cattle would make an arrangement with the father of the girl to live with her and serve him’.[1202] Among the Baronga young men do not marry for several years after puberty.[1203] Werner’s description of marriage among the Zulus is of particular interest. ‘The price paid by the Zulus (under the name of Lobola) and others cannot properly be called purchase, being rather in the nature of a settlement or guarantee that the suitor is able to support a wife; it is held by her family in trust for her and her children.’[1204] The same author, speaking generally of British Central Africa, says that ‘young men may have to wait for some years, owing to lack of means or other reasons. In the country under the Angoni chiefs they are called on ... to “serve their time”, herding the chief’s cattle, and later, perhaps, going to war.’[1205] The men of the Akikuyu are described as ‘not marrying very young’.[1206] Roscoe enumerates the various articles required to make up a bride’s price among the Baganda, and adds that ‘they were difficult to obtain and represented a large sum to a poor person, so that it took him a long time to collect them; a man frequently spent twelve months begging among his relatives and friends the amount asked; for though as a rule he had secured some of the things before he went to ask for the lady, there would still be a balance to find’.[1207] Among the Wapagoro regular sexual intercourse is practised by children. At puberty they are separated and the boy must then begin to collect the purchase money, and not until he has finished may intercourse be resumed.[1208] Plas notes postponement of marriage among the Kuku owing to the amount of the purchase money.[1209] An interesting account of the Akamba is given by Dundas. ‘During his lifetime a man so divides his stock that he allots a portion to each of his wives. On his death the portion of each wife goes to her son or sons.... If the cattle left are not numerous enough to buy a wife for each son they are left with the eldest son until the increase suffices for the purchase of a wife for him. When the increase is again large enough it is given to the second son to buy a wife, and so on until each has a wife.’[1210] According to Johnston, ‘the Masai warrior is not allowed by the elders of his tribe to marry until he has reached about thirty years of age and has accumulated a fair amount of property or else so distinguished himself by his bravery as to merit an early retirement’.[1211] Among the Bangala, if a man is accepted by a girl he has to pay the ‘bespoke’ money, after which ‘the girl is reserved for him until such time as he can pay the whole or larger part of the marriage money’, and, while he is collecting this money, he will build a house if he does not already own one.[1212] Further, ‘a man can marry as many women as he can afford to pay marriage money for, but to each he must give a house’,[1213] and as a result of the high marriage price, if his family cannot help him, a man ‘cannot save enough to procure a wife until he is thirty or even older’.[1214] Cureau states that in the Congo basin a bride’s relatives are much interested in estimating a suitor’s capabilities of supporting a family and of, in general, doing well.[1215] Among the Ekoi people, ‘by a native custom if a man wishes to marry an Ekoi maiden he must serve her people for some considerable time, usually from two to three years. His work mostly consists in helping to clear bush for next season’s farms, but other services may be required of him. During this time he is expected to make presents to the relations of his future wife.’[1216]

Very similar institutions are found in America. Among the Nandowensis, ‘when one of their young men has fixed upon a young woman he approves of, he discovers his passion to her parents, who give him an invitation to come and live with them in their tent. He assiduously accepts the offer, and by so doing engages to reside in it for a whole year, in the character of a married servant. During this time he hunts, and brings all the game he kills to the family, by which means the father has an opportunity of seeing whether he is able to provide for the support of his daughter and the children that might be the consequence of their union.’[1217] Among the Ojebway Indians marriage is also by service and the future father-in-law is described as being anxious that the suitor should be a good hunter.[1218] Of the Natchez it is said to be ‘rare for young men to marry before they be five-and-twenty. Till they arrive at that age they are looked upon as too weak, without understanding and experience.’[1219] According to Dorsey, men of the Omaha tribe did not marry formerly until between twenty-five and thirty.[1220] Among the Attakapas, ‘if a savage desires to marry a girl whose father is still living, he approaches the latter; the latter then inquires if he is a brave warrior, a good hunter’, if he can make weapons, and so on.[1221] In Mexico men married about twenty.[1222] In British Guiana marriage is by service, and the bridegroom must show that he is capable of taking a man’s part; within a certain time he must clear a piece of land of a given area.[1223] Another author gives further details: ‘Before he is allowed to choose at all he must prove that he is a man and can do a man’s work.’ There are various tests. Among others ‘he clears a space in the forest to be planted with cassaba, and brings in as much game and fish as possible, to show that he is able to support himself and others’.[1224] In Peru a man had to be twenty-four years old before he could marry.[1225] Von Martius states that the system of marriage by purchase in Brazil is to be regarded as a symbol that the bridegroom can support a family.[1226] Men among the Guanas marry when over twenty.[1227]

11. The evidence so far adduced shows that the mechanism whereby numbers may be kept near to the desirable level is everywhere present. When inquiring into the nature of the mechanism, we found certain indications that it was effective. The regularity with which certain customs are practised, the small average number of children, and other facts afford strong but not conclusive evidence that an approach is normally made to the optimum number. We may now ask what further evidence there is as to the position in this respect.

Conclusive evidence is not available. It is only when we are able, as among some of the races in the third group, accurately to measure the average income over a period of years during which numbers are changing that we can arrive at a definite result. With regard to other races we have to adopt methods which, though less precise, nevertheless afford important evidence. We may inquire into the general conditions of life and ask whether there are indications of the approach to the highest standard of living within reach, or whether living is more usually reduced to the bare level of subsistence. We may ask whether famine and starvation frequently occur, what the average physical condition of the people is, whether old age is often reached, whether, in short, the conditions are such as we should expect to find them when the optimum number was approached, or as we should expect to find them when the numbers reached the maximum which could just be kept alive.

The conception of savage life which formerly prevailed was that primitive races were always in a condition of semi-starvation.[1228] In this connexion it has to be remembered that the conception of the optimum number has regard to all the conditions, and that among these races, taking the degree of skill, social customs, and so on into account, there would be, even if the optimum number was attained, times of scarcity, if not of famine. The existence of times of scarcity, therefore, is no evidence that, so far as numbers are concerned, these races have not attained the best conditions possible for them. It is undoubtedly the fact that they are physiologically adapted to withstand periods of scarcity in a manner that civilized men are not adapted, and it is interesting to observe that, according to the results of certain experiments, occasional periods of semi-starvation are far less harmful than is continual under-feeding.[1229]

Descriptions of the Australians suggest the picture of anything but an emaciated people in a condition of semi-starvation. In one place Spencer and Gillen speak of them as well nourished;[1230] in another place they describe a typical Arunta as ‘by no means poor in physique; in fact he might often serve a sculptor for a model, and, when walking behind a native, you are continually struck with his proportions and beautiful carriage’.[1231] These authors go on to say, however, that ‘there are times when he is hard pressed and during a long continuance of drought his life is not a happy one’.[1232] So, too, Schürmann says of the tribes of Port Lincoln: ‘the male sex exhibits a great deal of unstudied natural grace in their deportment, their walk is perfectly erect and free, motions of the body easy and gestures natural under all circumstances.’[1233] Further, we are told that ‘their food, if of indifferent quality, was at least wholesome and readily procurable, six hours a day abundantly sufficing for that purpose, so that hunger was little known’,[1234] and that ‘in most of the districts with an indigenous population game is so abundant compared to the number of inhabitants, as to enable every one to procure for himself and his family as many pounds of meat a day as his heart desired’.[1235] Perhaps this is too optimistic a view; there are certainly many references to lean times when food is difficult to procure. ‘In few parts of Australia’, says Thomas, ‘can the native count on anything like regular supplies of food’,[1236] and we hear of those powers of enduring hunger and thirst so common among these races and so incomprehensible to Europeans.[1237]

Burchell is enthusiastic about the Bushmen; ‘as we rode onwards, I could not cease admiring the beautiful symmetrical form of our Bushman guide, who walked and sometimes ran before us, with a gait the most easy and free that I ever beheld. All the limbs, unshackled by clothing, moved with a grace never perhaps seen in Europe. The contemplation of his well-proportioned, although small and delicate figure, his upright manly port, his firm and bold step, and the consciousness of liberty which beamed in his countenance afforded us indescribable pleasure.’[1238] Nevertheless the Bushmen had ‘periods of fasting’[1239] and were ‘often destitute of food for several successive days during seasons when both roots and game were scarce’.[1240] They were also ‘capable of remaining a long time without food, and could then devour immense quantities of meat without any ill effect’.[1241]

In most countries a lean season occurs periodically once or more every year. Such lean seasons are more exacting in some regions than others. The Australians manage to subsist for the most part without storing up food;[1242] in other countries the storing of food becomes a necessity.[1243] We often find that where food has to be stored up the stock runs low towards the end of the lean season. The Eskimos have to depend for many months upon the food they have preserved, and if for any reason, as for instance the late formation of the floe, their calculations are upset, they may be placed in a very trying situation.[1244] Of them we hear stories, as of other races, regarding their powers of withstanding hunger; ‘a man who has eaten nothing for three days, at least nothing but sea grass, can manage his little kayak or canoe in the most furious waves’.[1245]

Of the Kutchins of the Peel River we are told that they are ‘an athletic and fine-looking race, considerably above the average stature, most of them being upwards of six feet in height and remarkably well proportioned’.[1246] ‘The Indians north of the Columbia are, for the most part, good-looking, robust men, some of them having fine, symmetrical forms. They have been represented as diminutive; with crooked legs and uncouth features. This is not correct; but, as a general rule, the direct reverse is the truth.’[1247] The Montagnais are described as ‘tall, strong, erect, well-proportioned and agile’;[1248] on the other hand, we hear that they are liable to shortages of food, are able to go without food for three days together at a time, and are guilty of great excesses of eating and drinking when food is plentiful.[1249] Hardisty says that the Loucheux can always obtain food except under very unfavourable circumstances.[1250] ‘It sometimes happens that the Ahts are in straits for want of food, when the fish do not appear until late in the spring,’[1251] but ‘they can bear the want of food a long time without becoming exhausted’.[1252] The account of the Californians given by the acute Jesuit missionary Baegert is of particular interest. ‘Notwithstanding the barrenness of the country, a Californian hardly ever dies of hunger, except perhaps now and then an individual that falls sick in the wilderness and a great distance from the mission, for those who are in good health trouble themselves very little about such patients, even if these should happen to be their husbands, wives or other relations, and a little child that has lost its mother or both parents is also occasionally in danger of starving to death.... The food of the Californians is certainly of a mean quality, yet it keeps them in a healthy condition, and they become strong and grow old in spite of their poor diet.’[1253] ‘Californians can endure hunger easier and much longer than other people; whereas they will eat enormously if a chance is given.’[1254] Three days without food appeals differently to an observer in a mission station on the one hand and to a prisoner among the Indians on the other. ‘So protracted was the hunger we experienced,’ says Cabeça de Vaca, ‘that many times I was three days without eating anything. The natives also endured as much, and it appeared to me a thing impossible that life could be so prolonged.’ The same author goes on to say, however, that ‘they are a merry people considering the hunger that they suffer; notwithstanding they never cease to dance nor to observe their festivities and ceremonies. To them the happiest part of the year is the season of eating prickly pears; for then they have hunger no longer, and pass all the time in dancing and they eat day and night.... It occurred to us many times while we were among this people, and there was no food, to be three or four days without eating, when they, to revive our spirits, would say to us not to be sad, that soon there would be pears and we should enjoy plenty, and drink of the juice, and that our bellies would be very big, and we should be content and joyful, having no hunger.’[1255]

It is submitted that the conditions indicated by the type of evidence of which examples have been given above are not compatible with the state of existence on the bare means of subsistence.[1256] With this evidence there should be considered the facts given in the sixth chapter regarding the good health and advanced age to which these races generally attain.

Turning to races of the second group, in the Eastern Islands of the Torres Straits ‘nutritious food is generally very scarce at the end of the dry season’.[1257] The Dyaks usually experience a season when it is difficult to procure food.[1258] We are told that famine was unknown in Fiji,[1259] but that from November to February there was sometimes a scarcity when the last yam crop had been consumed and the next crop had not ripened.[1260] So too among the Baganda ‘no one ever went hungry while the old customs were observed’,[1261] but there are at times lean seasons. ‘When food is abundant they have their three meals daily; when it is scarce they content themselves with two, and hope for the rain and a plentiful supply of fruit.’[1262] Cureau, describing the races of the Congo Basin, gives a general description of the conditions which corresponds very closely with that just quoted for the Baganda.[1263] In British Central Africa “the time of hunger” comes after the rains, when the last year’s corn is eaten, and the new is not yet ripe—about March’.[1264] Of the Kagero of Northern Nigeria we are told that the ‘people are naturally more healthy and better conditioned in December, say, than in August’, because towards the end of the year there is plenty of food from the harvest whereas later in the wet season there is usually a scarcity.[1265] So of the Mandja of the Northern Congo we are told that ‘generally by the month of October, the Mandja family has consumed its reserves of food; thereupon follows want for two months’.[1266] In North America Catlin describes times of scarcity among the Mandans[1267] and im Thurm describes similar conditions in Guiana.[1268]

Of the fine development of physical form there is abundant evidence. The inhabitants of Timor Laut are ‘handsome-featured fellows, tall, erect, and with splendidly formed bodies’.[1269] One of the earlier travellers, Kotzebue, was very much struck with the physical features of the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands[1270] and of Radeck.[1271] So, too, in Africa the Akikuyu are ‘exceedingly strong, muscular, healthy and well set up’.[1272] ‘The Damaras, generally speaking, are an exceedingly fine race of men. Indeed it is by no means unusual to meet with individuals six feet and some inches in height, and symmetrically well proportioned withal. Their features are, besides, good and regular; and many might serve as perfect models of the human figure.’[1273] As in the case of the races of the first group, we are told that formerly these people lived to a great age. ‘Under natural conditions the Bantu were a longer lived people than the Europeans.’[1274] Catlin was greatly impressed with the physical fitness of the North American Indians. He never saw ‘a more hardy and healthy race of men’, while the women were ‘exceedingly healthy and robust’.[1275] According to Heriot, ‘the North Americans are in general robust, and of a healthful temperament, calculated to live to an advanced age’.[1276] Du Pratz speaks highly of the physical characteristics of the Natchez and much similar evidence could be quoted.[1277] Azara, for instance, says that the Payaguas lived to an advanced age[1278] and also mentions especially the fine physical features of the Mbayas[1279] and of the Charruas.[1280] Of the Mandrucos Wallace says that ‘their figures are generally superb; and I have never felt so much pleasure in gazing at the finest statue, as at the living illustrations of the beauty of the human form. The development of the chest is such as I believe never exists in the best formed Europeans, exhibiting a splendid series of convex undulations, without a hollow in any part of it.’[1281] Humboldt remarks of the Chaymas that both men and women ‘are very muscular, but fleshy and plump’.[1282] So, too, Spix and Martius, speaking of Brazilian tribes, say that ‘the Indians are seldom sick and generally live to an advanced age’.[1283]

Lastly it may be observed as evidence of some weight that, as between different races, the higher the skill and the greater the natural richness of the surroundings, the higher, so far as we can judge, is the return per head. Though the return cannot be measured, all that we know of the conditions of life point to this conclusion, whether we contrast the agricultural races in general with the hunting and fishing races, or whether we contrast such hunting and fishing races as those of the north-west coast of America with the Fuegians.

12. The conclusions derived from a study of the first two groups are therefore to the effect that an approximation to the desirable number is normally attained by the practice of one or more of the three customs mentioned. As a result, the small average size of the family is arrived at—the size being just about that which allows for the average mortality from various causes later in life, so that in the next generation there will be as nearly as possible the same number of adults as in the former generation. It may be that, as an occasional coincidence, just that amount of reduction of fertility and just that amount of elimination necessary to bring about approximation are effected by means of those factors which were described as having incidentally these results. But such a coincidence must be very rare and the evidence shows that the practice of one or more of the other class of factors is widespread, if not universal. Further, it has been shown that a more or less automatic adjustment is attained by means of variations in the intensity of the operation of these latter factors, whereas it is difficult to see how it could come about by variations in the former factors only, and, however unprogressive social organization and general conditions may be, some adjustment must be necessary from time to time.

It has been observed that there is no apparent connexion between the practice of any of these customs and the different economic stages, and it may be stated that an investigation undertaken to see if any connexion could be detected was without result. This conclusion is not surprising. The problem of how to control numbers is one which is presented to all races at all times. We have grouped races according to their economic status; but there is no reason to expect that under any one economic system a particular method of controlling population would be adopted more than any other method—no reason, for instance, why infanticide rather than abortion should be practised under one system rather than under another. As has been said, the problem is always present, and the method adopted must originally have depended upon some factor quite independent of the economic stage; abortion, for instance, might have been practised in one country because of the presence of some herb which experience showed to be effective, while in another country a taboo upon sexual intercourse for magical reasons might have been developed into a taboo during lactation.

This survey of primitive races is limited to the elucidation as to what is normally the position as regards the regulation of numbers. The evidence is not sufficiently detailed to allow us to judge whether in any one particular instance there was or was not a close approximation to the desirable number before contact with Europeans had changed their conditions. It is merely suggested that there was in general a tendency for such an approximation to occur and it may further be deduced that, since the desirable number remained the same over a great length of time, rendering the approximation, so to speak, easy of attainment, the adjustment to the optimum number normally came about. And in this connexion the limitation to clearly defined areas may be borne in mind. The very fact of the universal recognition and careful maintenance of these areas is an indication that such was the normal condition. Migration is abnormal, and this fact is apt to be forgotten for two reasons. First, when reviewing the course of history, migrations stand out as the chief, if not the only, known facts and the huge intervals of time between one movement and another are forgotten. Secondly, our knowledge of primitive races is largely derived from observations made when migration had been set on foot owing to contact with Europeans, as, for instance, in America. Migration may be a disturbing factor, upsetting the adjustment of numbers; but it is an abnormal condition and hence it is disregarded here.

And here, in answer to the objections that a greater prevalence of infanticide and so on is assumed than there is evidence for, we may, bearing in mind the many reasons why the evidence is deficient, reply that this assumption is not unreasonable. If such an assumption is not made, the position among these races is not comprehensible. It may be granted, for instance, that there is evidence of the practice of infanticide on a large scale among certain Australian tribes; but it may be pointed out that similar evidence is lacking in the case of other tribes. Allowing that a far more detailed examination of the evidence is desirable than there is space for here, especially with regard to the nature of the evidence and the date to which it refers, we may ask what it is supposed was going on among those tribes who did not, as it may be alleged, practise infanticide—abortion and abstention from intercourse being uncommon or unknown in Australia. The fecundity of all Australians is presumably very similar; it would be very remarkable indeed if it were not. The factors tending to lessen fertility and to produce elimination do not differ so very much from one tribe to another. It must follow that, if one tribe practised infanticide on a large scale and maintained its numbers nevertheless, another tribe which did not do so must have been rapidly increasing. This rapid increase is not compatible with the strict maintenance of well-defined territories and with all that we know of normal inter-tribal relations, and it is submitted that the assumption made here, namely that infanticide or some other custom was almost always practised, provides the only explanation of the position.[1284]

Lastly it may be recalled that there are many indications that fecundity is somewhat less among these races than among modern races. However this may be, it has always to be remembered that the power of increase is nevertheless huge. It has been, for instance, calculated that between the years 1906 and 1911 the population of the world was increasing at such a rate that it would double itself in about sixty years. At this rate of increase the estimated population of the world in 1914—namely, 1,694,000,000—would be produced by the progeny of a single pair in 1,782 years.[1285] Furthermore, this is occurring under conditions in which the increase is everywhere obviously and severely checked in very many ways; therefore, even if the fecundity among these races is less than among civilized races, it must not be thought that there is thereby brought about any considerable alleviation of the problem as to how numbers should be controlled.

13. We have now to ask how far the conclusions to which we have come regarding primitive races are applicable to prehistoric races. In the first place, they are clearly only applicable to races among whom social organization has become established; for it is only when men begin to reap the advantages of co-operation that the conception of the optimum number arises. As we have seen, it is not possible to say when primitive social organization arose. It must certainly have been present in the Upper Palaeolithic; the evidence of the presence of a large body of tradition is otherwise incomprehensible. As suggested, it may very well be that we should look for the origin of social organization in the Lower Palaeolithic. Among the Tasmanians, whose skill was not much in advance of that of Acheulean man, there was a primitive form of social organization. Nevertheless, wherever the beginnings of social organization are to be placed, we must suppose that a long period of time elapsed before it assumed that rigid form characteristic of primitive races. Giving all due weight to this consideration, we must assume that in, and perhaps before, the Upper Palaeolithic era the position with regard to numbers was in all essentials similar to that among primitive races. It is not uncommon to meet with statements to the effect that man was a wanderer until he began to practise agriculture. This is a mistake if it implies that after social organization had arisen definite areas for different groups of men were not recognized. There can be no direct proof of this; but the fact that, wherever we look, absolutely without exception we find among all primitive races the recognition and careful maintenance of such areas, just as much among hunting and fishing as among agricultural races, must lead us to suppose that among the more skilled hunters of pre-history similar conditions normally obtained. It is altogether unreasonable and without foundation to suppose that the recognition of areas is a development subsequent to the separation of primitive races from the main line of social evolution. If then the recognition of areas, which probably arose with the development of social organization, was a characteristic of the later prehistoric races, we are led to conclude that the desirability of attaining to and maintaining the optimum number must have had the same consequences as among primitive races. It must, in other words, have resulted in the practice of infanticide, of abortion, or of abstention from intercourse. For there is no reason to assume that the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination reached a considerably greater intensity than among primitive races. We have, however, no reason to assume that any one of these habits was practised rather than another, for there is, as we have seen, no correlation between these factors and stages in economic development. All that we assume is that in one way or another adjustment was brought about, and in corroboration of this we may note, as will be pointed out in the next chapter, that as prehistoric races emerge into the light of history there is abundant evidence of the practice by them of one or other of these customs.

14. Lastly we may ask how we are to view the change from the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor must have lived to the conditions which we have found reason to attribute to prehistoric races. The conditions to which species in a state of nature are subjected, and to which therefore we assume the pre-human ancestor to have been subject, were described in the second chapter. We found that the fecundity of any species was connected with the sum of all the unavoidable dangers as we called them to which the young of the species are exposed. A limit is set to the development of the strength of fecundity beyond a certain point by the fact that it cannot be to the advantage of any species that its “fecundity should increase considerably beyond the point which ensures the survival of the species, as such an increase would intensify the struggle between the members of the species—this intensification of the struggle not bringing any corresponding advantages.”

We are ignorant with regard not only to the form of the pre-human ancestor, but also with regard to the conditions under which he lived. We must suppose, however, that his fecundity, like that of any other species in a state of nature, was of a strength that enabled a sufficient proportion of his offspring to survive the unavoidable dangers. As we have seen, that which marks the setting out of man on the path which led to the dominion over all other species was the growth of his intellect. The most obvious consequence of this increase in intellectual power must have been to enable man to protect himself against many of these dangers. We do not know to what dangers he was subject, but they must in all probability have been many and serious in view of his relatively poor equipment with means of defence. Yet we have only to look at the Tasmanians to find that, when a degree of skill had been reached not far superior to that of Lower Palaeolithic man, he had freed himself from most of these dangers. Parasites were not then, so far as we can tell, a serious menace, and against the attacks of other species he could defend himself with almost complete success. Whether his fecundity had come to differ from that of the pre-human ancestor by that time we cannot tell; in any case the fecundity of prehistoric man was evidently in the main a legacy of the pre-human ancestor—a degree of fecundity that had been evolved in the face of quite other conditions. Since the time of prehistoric man fecundity has increased—this increase being apparently in the main in the nature of a modification due to changed conditions of life.

It appears that we must regard the growth of intellect as having enabled man to avoid the serious consequences which a fecundity in excess of that necessary to ensure survival would otherwise have brought about. Excessive fecundity, not therefore being a disadvantage, was not reduced by selection. It must be remembered that human fecundity is only relatively excessive; actually man is a slow-breeding animal, and when we speak of this relatively excessive fecundity, we are not to think of such a degree of fecundity as would occupy so prominent a place among the bodily functions as to render man less adaptive than he would have been had it been less. Fecundity, in other words, could only have become disadvantageous had it led to greatly increased competition among the members of the species without any corresponding advantage. This might perhaps have happened, had not the growth of the intellect indirectly produced new causes of elimination and intensified some of the formerly existing factors. Thus the change in food and in the mode of life was evidently productive of a higher infant mortality; such changes were due to the growth of the intellect, and the higher mortality consequent upon them, if not, as is possible, an actual advantage, was at least countenanced by natural selection.[1286] Such changes therefore were, other things being equal, tolerated, as were also abstention from intercourse due to taboos, pre-puberty intercourse, prolonged lactation, and so on. The practices of abortion and infanticide together with prolonged abstention from intercourse—also due to the intellect—enabled man completely to escape any disadvantages which might have arisen from his relatively excessive fecundity—the reserve, so to speak, of fecundity being possibly an advantage.

In some such manner as this it seems that we have to regard the present position of man with reference to fecundity. The strength of fecundity is in the main a legacy from ancestors who were subject to wholly different conditions. It is excessive relatively to his present needs; this excess has, however, not been a disadvantage; for the consequences which might have been deleterious have been avoided owing indirectly to the modifications of the conditions of life and directly to the rise of certain customs all ultimately traceable to the growth of the intellect.

X HISTORICAL RACES

1. In this chapter we deal with the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination in the third of the three groups described in Chapter V. In one important respect this and the following chapter are contrasted with the preceding chapters. In the latter we were dealing, not with the facts derived from the peoples whom it was our object directly to investigate, but with the facts derived from primitive races with the object of throwing light upon prehistoric races. Here we are dealing with the facts relating to the peoples whose position it is our object to consider. The setting out of the facts relating to these races presents great difficulties. The amount of information is huge, but for the most part it is far from being of a satisfactory nature, and the rapid changes which have occurred within the historical period increase the difficulties. Only a brief review of the subject, designed to illustrate the more important features, is attempted.

The races under consideration are divided into four sub-groups. Sub-group 1 includes the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome up to the fall of the Western Empire. In these countries we have some knowledge of the progress from Neolithic culture to a culture exhibiting a far greater command over nature. From this culture is derived the later civilization of Europe, which we consider under sub-groups 3 and 4—the former beginning with Europe after the fall of the Western Empire and ending roughly about A. D. 1760, the date given by Marshall as marking the beginning of the industrial system, the latter beginning about 1760, and including all European races and their derivatives in America, Australia, and so on. Generally speaking, therefore, sub-group 1 includes the ancient empires, sub-group 3 Europe from the Roman Empire to the rise of the industrial system, and sub-group 4 the epoch of the industrial system.

There remain those races which have passed beyond the culture of the races included in the second group, but which have been out of the main stream of the evolution which led to the industrial evolution. In sub-group 2 are included India, China, Persia, Japan, and also the partly nomadic Arabs and certain other Asiatic peoples. In late years the customs of the races in this sub-group have been influenced by contact with Europeans; changes due to this contact will be disregarded, as were similar changes in the races belonging to the first and second groups.

In one very important respect the conditions with regard to all races in the third group differ from those in the preceding groups. Disease is a factor of the greatest importance, and we may consider in the first place the facts regarding the prevalence of disease in all groups. What little there is to be said regarding war, famine, and child mortality in all the races of this group may also be considered together. With regard to the other factors we find that in many respects the conditions in the first two sub-groups are similar and are contrasted with those in the latter two sub-groups. Therefore, after considering disease and the other factors mentioned for all groups taken together, it will be convenient to deal with the sub-groups separately, taking the ancient empires and the Asiatic peoples first, and mediaeval and modern Europe afterwards.

2. Something was said in Chapter VI with regard to the evolution of disease. It was there shown that in all probability most diseases evolved relatively late in history. The more settled conditions of the Neolithic Age may have provided the first suitable surroundings for the evolution and spread of disease. The taking of metals into use was followed by an increase in the density of population when conditions became yet more favourable. The use of metals was followed by the rise of the first civilizations. It was then that men first came to dwell in towns and cities, and it is interesting to observe that the earliest cities were very compact. Mr. Hall, speaking of Minoan civilization, says that the towns were very cramped, ‘more so than the most confined of European mediaeval cities’.[1287] On the rise therefore of these early civilizations the conditions were strongly contrasted with those which, we imagine, must have been prevalent before, and favoured the spread of disease as it had never been favoured before. From the rise of the early civilizations until within the last hundred years, conditions have remained favourable. They may perhaps have been most favourable in European towns in mediaeval and later times. According to Rogers, ‘the habits of the people were favourable to pestilence. Every writer during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries who makes his comment on the customs and practices of English life, adverts to the profuseness of their diet and the extraordinarily uncleanliness of their habits and persons. The floor of an ordinary Englishman’s house, as Erasmus describes it, was inconceivably filthy, in London filthier than elsewhere, for centuries after these events. The streets and open ditches of the towns were polluted and noisome beyond measure. The Englishman disdained all the conditions of health.’[1288]

Turning to the evidence, we find that facts are very scanty for the earliest times of this period. Such evidence as we have points to the prevalence of disease during the early civilizations. We know that pestilence swept over Egypt—the references to the subject in the Bible being familiar. But precisely what diseases were prevalent are not known; the descriptions of the symptoms are seldom sufficiently accurate even in mediaeval times to make it possible to identify the diseases.[1289] From other evidence it appears that in any case tuberculosis, leprosy, plague, and bilharzia were common in Egypt. There is much evidence to show that most diseases only reached Europe in relatively late times. Plague, for instance, probably first reached Europe in A. D. 542. It is possible, however, that the pestilence which ravaged most of Europe between A. D. 164 and 188 was plague.[1290] Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that many diseases came from the East, where they in all probability originated. Plague, cholera, and small-pox all seem to have had their origin in India. This conclusion is in harmony with what we know of the origin of civilization, for it is where men first came to dwell in close proximity that we should expect to find that disease originated.

With regard to mortality from disease very little accurate information is available until modern times. It is quite impossible to say, for instance, whether disease was the cause of a higher mortality in the Middle Ages than in the times of the Early Empires. All we know is that it was in both cases an important factor of elimination. Within the last century disease has come to be in an increasing degree under the control of scientific methods. Some diseases such as small-pox have been almost banished from this country; others, such as diphtheria, have been rendered less lethal. Of the Early Empires there are of course no exact facts. Macdonell, working on figures from the _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_ of the Berlin Academy, found that there was a very low expectation of life in ancient Rome as compared with the present day. Whereas in England at the age of fifteen the expectation of life for boys is forty-five years and for girls forty-eight years, in Rome it was twenty and fifteen years respectively; and again, whereas in England at the age of thirty the expectation of life for men is thirty-three, and for women thirty-six years, in Rome it was nineteen and fourteen respectively. He also found that, though the death-rate was less high, the position was much the same in the provinces of Hispania and Lusitania as in Rome. In Africa, however, the expectation of life was higher, but this may perhaps be due to the presence of a large number of colonists.[1291] There is abundant evidence of a high rate of mortality in Europe up to the opening of the last century. We must remember, says Rogers, that ‘in the Middle Ages the risks of death from disease were far greater than they are at present, that medical skill was almost non-existent, that the conditions of life were eminently unwholesome, that the diet of the people, during fully one-half of the year, though abundant, was insalubrious’;[1292] and in another place he says that ‘in the large towns the deaths, to judge from the return up to the eighteenth century, greatly exceeded the births’.[1293] Theilhaber, quoting Goldstein, gives figures which corroborate this view for Basel and Frankfort.[1294] Halley constructed one of the earliest tables of mortality for the city of Breslau for the years 1687 to 1691, and they show that the mortality was ‘considerably higher than that shown by modern statistics’.[1295] Price constructed a table for Northampton for the years 1735 to 1780, and it shows a death-rate of 249·31 per thousand for the ages 0–2, which is far higher than at the present day.[1296]

Finally, though disease has nowadays very largely come under scientific control, by far the greater number of deaths is due to disease. Thus in 1917 there were 498,922 deaths among the civilian population of England and Wales. Of these, 20,480 were due to violence (not suicide), 2,495 to suicide, 2,485 to ill-defined or unknown causes, and 2,598 took place during pregnancy. Of the remainder all were due to defined diseases. Enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid) accounted for 977, measles for 10,538; whooping cough, 4,509; tuberculosis for 59,934; syphilis for 2,127; cancer for 41,158; pneumonia for 39,832; diphtheria and croup for 4,498; meningitis for 4,761; organic heart disease for 52,692; bronchitis for 38,907; other respiratory diseases for 7,031; diarrhoea for 13,311; nephritis and Bright’s disease for 14,298; and congenital debility for 23,850.[1297]

3. Warfare is the second factor—disease being the first—which among these races is remarkable in that its effects are not regular. It is wholly impossible to estimate the loss of life in war until modern times. Contemporary statements nearly always hugely exaggerate the numbers engaged in battle and the number slain. ‘In the first Battle of St. Albans we have been told that five thousand persons were slain. It is almost certain that not much more than half that number were in action.’[1298] This is probably equally true of nearly all such statements. With regard to elimination through warfare there are two facts to be borne in mind. The first is that, even if the contemporary statements were correct, war is by no means so important a factor as it seems at first sight. A practice which resulted in the conscious limitation of each family by one child would have greater results over a period of years than there is ever claimed as the direct result of warfare in reducing numbers over a similar period. The second is that the indirect elimination following upon warfare is of far greater importance than the direct elimination. Famine and disease following warfare were until recent times responsible for many more deaths than warfare itself. When we are told that during the Thirty Years’ War the population of Würtemberg was reduced from 500,000 to 46,000,[1299] it has to be remembered that disease and famine played a greater part than loss of life in battle. Further, when the direct effects of warfare as a whole are contrasted with those of disease, it is apparent that they are relatively insignificant. Elimination from disease, though irregular, is always in progress within this period; there are lengthy epochs when there is little or no loss through war. Again, the great epidemics are far more destructive of life than the great wars; Hecker, for instance, after a lengthy examination of the various accounts, came to the conclusion that about a quarter of the inhabitants of Europe perished during the Black Death.[1300]

The nature which warfare assumed in this period is obviously connected with the rise and consolidation of large states. Warfare becomes a matter of policy; it is no longer a cause of a regular degree of elimination. There is among the races under review in this chapter every degree between the kind of warfare typical of the races previously reviewed and that typical of this period. The nomadic races of Asia have at least until recent times maintained a form of regular warfare. Vambéry states that there is ‘inveterate and irreconcilable enmity’ between two tribes of Turkomans.[1301] We are told that among such a primitive people as the Nagas the tribes were formerly in a state of constant hostility.[1302] Among these people also head hunting was formerly common and the victims sometimes included women.[1303] ‘One individual showed Mr. Carnegie his apron which recorded the deaths of twenty-five individuals—men, women and children—slain by his own hand.’[1304] Generally speaking, however, we have in this period to think of warfare as typically of a different nature to that which we have noticed before, but whether it on the whole accounts directly for a higher degree of elimination, it is not possible to say.

The features of warfare which are of importance here are its relatively slight effect in producing elimination, its irregular action, and its important consequences in bringing about disease and famine. With disease we have already dealt. Famine appears here for the first time among the more important factors of elimination, and its appearance is obviously connected with the higher organization of society which, if broken down, as by warfare, may give rise to famine.[1305] Social organization may be broken down by other causes than war, as by some failure in government. Famine may also result from exceptionally bad weather in any period; but it would seem that when a certain stage of organization has been reached the danger is greater than before or afterwards. There were great famines in England in the years 1194 to 1196, 1257 to 1259, and 1315 to 1316, since when famines have been unknown. These famines were all connected with bad weather, but the fact that they have not occurred since is to be attributed rather to superior social organization and increasing knowledge than to better climatic conditions. The sudden and prolonged changes of climate which occur in certain places, as for instance in Peninsular India, tax the resources even of modern knowledge and skill. In the case of famine, more so even than in the case of warfare, the loss of life is apt to be overestimated. Famine somehow strikes the imagination and gives it a prominence in history which it does not deserve. It is in reality a minor factor.

Before leaving the subject of warfare, it is interesting to note, in view of what will be said later regarding the influence of Christian teaching in assisting to put a stop to abortion and infanticide, that the early Church was also opposed to warfare. According to Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, all warfare was unlawful for the converted. Under Domitian a Christian soldier who refused to fight was executed. There was a controversy between Celsus and Origen on this matter. The view of the latter was that the prayers of Christians were more effective than their swords. This attitude, however, was soon abandoned, and by the time of Constantine the army was largely Christian.[1306]

4. In the groups already discussed we have found child mortality to be an important factor. We traced it to certain factors such as carelessness, ignorance, and practices such as bathing new-born babies in cold water. Within the historical period child mortality also plays an important part. Though there is little or no evidence of the practice of such customs as those referred to, ignorance and carelessness are familiar enough among the less educated classes at the present day, and in addition disease exacts a very heavy toll of infant life. In fact, whereas among primitive races the actual cause of the death of children appears generally to be exposure or debility following on the results of ignorant and careless treatment, among the races of this group the actual cause of death is usually disease to which children have been more or less predisposed by the treatment they have received.

There is little exact evidence as to the conditions among the historical races, but the general impression gained from the literary evidence is that infant mortality was high. The high rate of child mortality among Asiatic races is well known. In the period 1902 to 1911 the average deaths of children for one thousand births was in the United Provinces 352, in Bombay 320, in Burma 332, and in the Punjab 306.[1307] Referring to these figures, Wattal comments on the ‘extremely unsanitary conditions of child-birth and the appalling ignorance prevalent on the subject’.[1308] With regard to ignorance it is everywhere the same story. Of the modern Egyptians we are told that ‘the children are foul in the eyes, and are allowed to munch such indigestible dainties as beans and bread as soon as they have teeth with which to bite, while the mother protests to the lady doctor that nothing but milk has ever passed the child’s lips, though its little hand may actually be holding a hunch of raw potato’.[1309]

Of the Middle Ages again there is no exact evidence, but all we know points to a very high child mortality. Some figures for the eighteenth century from the country have been quoted and doubtless there was a considerably higher death-rate in the towns.[1310] From the general conditions and from the prevalence of disease it is obvious that it could not have been otherwise.

Within the last century there has been in most European countries a considerable decrease in child mortality. The degree of mortality varies greatly from country to country. For the same period as that for which the Indian figures were given the figures are for England and Wales 127·3, France 132·4, Germany 186·6, Hungary 207·6. New Zealand 64·4, Sweden 84·4, Australia 87·5, and Scotland 116·1.[1311] Some further reference to this subject and particularly to the differences between the various countries will be made in Chapter XI.

5. With this reference to the importance of disease, war, famine, and child mortality throughout the historical period we may pass to the consideration of the remaining factors, dealing first with the ancient empires and Asiatic peoples and afterwards with Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire. We shall find that considerable differences exist regarding the importance of the various factors as between these two divisions. Roughly speaking, with the exception of the importance of disease, conditions in the ancient empires and in Asiatic countries are similar to those in previous groups. In Europe after the introduction of Christianity we shall find that certain factors become of little or no importance, whereas others appear for the first time, and finally in the modern period we shall discover further changes. It is therefore convenient to consider the conditions in the first two sub-groups taken together and afterwards those in the latter two sub-groups.

All the evidence goes to show that celibacy and postponement of marriage were very rare in the ancient empires and are very rare among Asiatic peoples. The only instances to the contrary are such cases as those of the later days of the Roman Empire; such cases are wholly exceptional and what there is to be said about them will be deferred to the next chapter. Generally speaking, every one married at or soon after the age of puberty. In Greece ‘in various places criminal proceedings might be taken against celibates’.[1312] Though the figures on which he worked were small, Macdonell found that marriages in Rome took place between the ages of ten and twenty.[1313] In all these countries we find examples of religious celibacy. In Egypt[1314] and Chaldea[1315] there were celibates of both sexes for religious reasons, in Rome there were vestal virgins, in Persia Sun Priestesses who did not marry, and in India and Tibet there are similar examples.[1316] But unlike Christian celibacy, these instances of celibacy were of no importance whatever as regards the question of numbers. The religious celibates never formed more than an insignificant fraction of the whole population. In general, as we shall see later, marriage was strongly encouraged by religions other than Christianity for the mass of mankind. The one other important exception would seem to be Buddhism, which not only forbade marriage to the sacerdotal caste, but discouraged marriage among all those who would attain to wisdom. It would appear, however, that celibacy, though possibly widespread in the earlier days of Buddhism, soon ceased to be practised except by a small proportion of the adherents of Buddha. ‘It is said that in Nepal, under the modern Gurkha rule, the celibate occupies a lower position than the married monk, to whom the services in the temples are committed. It is said, too, that the Lamas of Sikkim and other northern countries constantly have children living with them, though they do not admit them to be their own. Yet for all that celibacy is the rule, and, nominally at any rate, the great majority of Lamistic monks in Western Asia are unmarried coenobites, who live together in monasteries.’[1317]

Much evidence could be given as to the view taken of celibacy and of the duty of marrying early. ‘The Oriental’, says Polak, ‘does not understand how any one can remain a celibate who has the chance to marry.’[1318] ‘Le célibat’, says Fustel de Coulanges, ‘devait être à la fois une impiété grave et un malheur; une impiété, parce que le célibataire mettait en péril le bonheur des mânes de sa famille; un malheur, parce qu’il ne devait reçevoir lui-même aucun culte après sa mort et ne devait pas connaître ce qui réjouit les mânes. C’était à la fois pour lui et pour ces ancêtres une sorte de damnation.’[1319] Doughty describes the reasons for the absence of celibacy among the Arabs.[1320] The same conditions are found in China.[1321] Of Corea, Ross says ‘the male human being who is never married is never called a “man”, whatever his age, but goes by the name of “yataw”, a name given by the Chinese to unmarriageable young girls, and the man of thirteen or fourteen has a perfect right to strike, abuse, order about the “yatow” of thirty who dares not so much as open his lips to complain’.[1322] ‘Among natives of India’, says Kerr, ‘it is considered an indispensable duty to enter into the marriage state.’[1323] ‘A Hindoo male’, according to Wattal, ‘must marry and beget children—son, if you please—to perform his funeral rites lest his spirit wander uneasily in the waste places of the earth. The very name of son, “Putra”, means one who saves his father’s soul from the hell called “Puta”. A Hindoo maiden unmarried at puberty is a source of social obloquy to her family and of damnation to her ancestors. Among the Mohammedans, who are not handicapped by such penalties, the marriage state is equally common, partly owing to Hindoo example, and partly to the general conditions of life in primitive society where a wife is almost a necessity both as a domestic drudge and as a helpmate in field work.’[1324]

Early marriage is considered to be a duty for all. Westermarck quotes Mohammed as saying: ‘whenever a servant of God marries verily he perfects half his religion’.[1325] According to the Laws of Manu it is a religious duty incumbent upon all.[1326] In the Vedic Age marriage was much encouraged and offspring greatly desired.[1327] Confucianism and Zoroastrianism similarly encouraged marriage. ‘A youth’, says Dubois, speaking of India, ‘who was not married before he was eighteen was considered by them to be sinning against the command of the Creator, which says “Increase and Multiply”.’[1328] ‘Almost all Chinese,’ says Gray, ‘robust or infirm, well formed or deformed, are called upon by their parents to marry so soon as they have attained the age of puberty.’[1329] ‘Marriage and the upbringing of offspring became a duty incumbent upon every Chinese who is normally fit for marriage’,[1330] say two modern Chinese authors. Similar statements are to be found regarding Burma,[1331] Upper Siam,[1332] Persia,[1333] the Mongols,[1334] and the Kalmucks.[1335]

6. Marriage before the age of puberty is not uncommon and is very prevalent in India. It is doubtful how far intercourse takes place before maturity. In the North-West Provinces of India it is stated that in most cases there is no cohabitation before puberty.[1336] This statement is confirmed by Risley; he further states that in Bengal cohabitation begins at once.[1337] In India in 1901, 243,500 girls were married under the age of five, 2,030,000 between the ages of five and ten, and 6,585,000 between the ages of ten and fifteen.[1338] Eram, speaking generally of the East, states that pre-puberty marriages are not rare.[1339] We hear that 10 per cent. of the Kirghiz marry before the beginning of menstruation.[1340] Among the Annamites[1341] and the Todas[1342] intercourse sometimes occurs before puberty. Macdonell’s figures for Rome, already referred to, show that marriage must sometimes have taken place before puberty.

7. The ancient Egyptians suckled their children for two or three years.[1343] The suckling period is prolonged in Arabia.[1344] In the Koran mothers are recommended to suckle for two years.[1345] Among Asiatic races lactation is usually extended for a considerable length of time. The Japanese sometimes do not wean their children until the fourth year.[1346] The poorer classes in Persia suckle until the third year.[1347] In Upper Siam ‘infants are generally suckled three years’.[1348] In Turkey lactation is also prolonged.[1349] Generally speaking, the evidence is to the effect that the suckling period is always prolonged—the average being perhaps somewhere about two to three years.

8. In sub-group 1 many examples are found of restraint from sexual intercourse being imposed upon married persons at certain seasons. Examples from Egypt are given by Müller.[1350] According to the Laws of Manu separation from the wife was obligatory at certain periods—for instance, at new and full moon and on certain days of the month.[1351] Similar conditions existed in Persia.[1352] Such restrictions, however, are not of much importance. Of prolonged abstention from intercourse there is little evidence. In China, according to Gray, ‘a husband is not expected to cohabit with his wife after she has conceived, nor after the child is born, during the whole period that it is being nourished at the mother’s breast. Any violation of this rule is supposed not only to cause the child to become sickly but to provoke the displeasure of the ancestors and to bring misfortune upon all members of the family. Wealthy Chinese are generally very careful in the practice of such abstention.’[1353] It is quite clear, however, from what we know of Chinese fertility that this custom is not widely practised among the people as a whole. Smith speaks of ‘the objection of the Arabs to intercourse with a nursing mother which was supposed to hurt the suckling’.[1354] In Turkey also there is said to be no intercourse during lactation.[1355] There are thus indications of the practice of this important custom, and it may be that it existed in such a degree as to have exerted considerable influence.[1356]

9. There is a general impression that the knowledge of contraceptive methods has only been acquired in modern times. This, however, is not correct. We have already seen that there is evidence of their use in the second group. In the third group there is evidence of the knowledge of certain methods in early times. Theilhaber gives some particulars regarding their employment among the Jews, German tribes, Arabs, the Franks before their conversion to Christianity, the Greeks, and the Romans.[1357] Methods are employed at the present day in China[1358] and in India,[1359] though there is some doubt as to how far they are effective. According to Wattal there is some statistical evidence from India which may be interpreted either as a result of such practices or as a result of abstention from intercourse.[1360] There is not sufficient evidence to allow of any exact estimate being made of the extent of these practices. Generally speaking, however, it would appear that it is not until we arrive at the latest period of human history that we find these practices to be of considerable importance.

10. With regard to the size of families in early times there is little exact evidence. Among Asiatic peoples at the present day we have some evidence of the degree of fertility, whereas hitherto the evidence has been only that of the number of children surviving after infanticide and infant mortality had taken their toll. This evidence from the Asiatic races we may now turn to discuss, but we may note before doing so that the evidence for the remaining races of the first sub-group gives a rather different impression than that which we obtain when studying primitive races; upon the whole we get the impression that families were at least not so markedly small as among primitive races.[1361]

Fertility is often said to be higher in the East than in Europe. So far as India is concerned this is not so. The error has arisen because attention has been paid to the crude birth-rate. When the crude birth-rate is corrected for the number of married females of reproductive age, then the true birth-rate is found to be lower than in Europe. ‘The total number of births registered in England and Wales during the year 1911 was 881,138, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 24·4 per thousand. The total number of births registered in India during the same year was 9,209,703, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 38·59 per thousand. It would seem therefore that the fertility in India is higher than in England. But this is not so. The total number of females of reproductive age (15 to 45) in England and Wales at the census of 1911 was 8,988,745 and if we calculate the births per thousand of such females the figure stands at 98. The total number of females of those ages in India in 1911 was 71,535,861 and the corresponding Indian figure is 128. If, however, we calculate the births on the number of married females of reproductive ages the Indian figure stands at 160 while the English figure is 196.’[1362]

The fertility in other Asiatic countries is often said to be very high; it is asserted to approach 50 per 1,000 in China. Exact figures are, however, lacking. There is no doubt that the corrected birth-rate would be much less. Among nomadic people the evidence is to the effect that the number of children is small, and this is probably connected with the practice of abortion, which is common for instance among the Arabs.

11. We have now to give some account of the factors which have a bearing upon elimination in the third group. Of these the first is abortion. Classical literature is full of references to the subject. Plato and Aristotle both permitted abortion. ‘No law in Greece or in the Roman republic or during the greater part of the Empire condemned it.’[1363] ‘A long chain of writers both pagan and Christian represent the practice as avowed and almost universal. They describe it as resulting, not simply from licentiousness or from poverty, but even from so slight a motive as vanity which made mothers shrink from the disfigurement of child-birth. They speak of a mother who had never destroyed her offspring as deserving of signal praise and they assure us that the frequency of the crime was such that it gave rise to a regular profession.’[1364] The practice was more common in Rome than in Greece.[1365] It was deplored, nevertheless, by many authors including Ovid, Juvenal, and Seneca. Some details of the methods employed are given by Theilhaber.[1366]

In sub-group 2 we find the practice to be widespread. Eram comments upon its frequency throughout the East.[1367] Wilkins says that ‘the crime of procuring abortion is one of the commonest in India’, and quotes Dr. Chevers as saying that abortion is ‘an act of almost daily commission’ and has become ‘a trade among certain of the lower midwives’. It is especially common in Bengal—perhaps 10,000 being destroyed monthly.[1368] According to Matignon, in China abortion is legal and usual during the three-year suckling period.[1369] It is also common in Annam,[1370] in Japan,[1371] Persia,[1372] and Turkey.[1373] Infanticide was condemned by Mohammed but not abortion, which is frequent among the Arabs.[1374] In Turkey it is very common;[1375] it is said to be brought about after the second birth if the husband consents.[1376] The fact that in later times we hear of enactments against abortion among the Burgundians, Ripuarians, Visigoths, Bavarians, Saxons, Frisians, and Lombards seems to point to the conclusion that the practice was common before their conversion to Christianity.[1377]

12. There is some reason for believing that infanticide was common among the Egyptians at the time of Moses.[1378] ‘The ancient Jews seem to have themselves practised infanticide, for as late as the time of Isaiah they are reproached with the habit of “slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks”. In 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 and xxxiii. 6 the same statement is made. It is true that these cases may have partaken of the nature of human sacrifices rather than of ordinary infanticide, but the two generally prevailed together, and we have express testimony that both of them existed at that time among all the surrounding nations, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Syrians, and Babylonians as well as among their kindred the Carthaginians.’[1379]

Glotz has an interesting chapter on the subject of infanticide in Greece. In prehistoric times in Greece the head of the family could, as among all people of ‘Aryan origin’, dispose of his children as he wished.[1380] After examining the myths it is clear, according to Glotz, that infanticide was a daily occurrence during the period at which myths were being formed.[1381] In historical times it was universal. Most often infanticide was ordered by the father, who generally on the fifth, sometimes on the seventh or tenth, day after the birth publicly proclaimed whether he would keep the child or not.[1382] If he decided not to keep the child, it was exposed, and there is reason to think that most of the exposed children died.[1383] Infanticide was enjoined by the ideal legislation of Plato and Aristotle and by the actual legislation of Lycurgus and Solon. Summing up his examination of this subject Glotz says: ‘L’opinion de la Grèce ancienne est donc à peu près unanime. Reçue dans la vie privée, cette pratique a été admise en droit par les législatures et fondées en raison par les maîtres de la pensée.’[1384]

In very early times infanticide was general in Rome. Later the right of the father to destroy his children was somewhat restricted. ‘The power of life and death, which in Rome was originally conceded to the father over his children, would appear to involve an unlimited permission of infanticide; but a very old law, popularly ascribed to Romulus, in this respect restricted the parental rights, enjoining the father to bring up all his male children, and at least his eldest female child, forbidding him to destroy any well-formed child till it had completed its third year, when the affections of the parents might be supposed to be developed, but permitting the exposition of deformed or maimed children with the consent of their five nearest relations.’[1385] There is evidence to show that this permission was frequently utilized. The plots of Plautus and Terence sometimes turn upon the reappearance of children supposed to have been destroyed. ‘Pliny says that infanticide is really a lamentable necessity “seeing that the fertility of some women is so over-abundant in children that it needs some such practice to counterbalance it” while ... Seneca saw nothing reprehensible in it.’[1386] Suetonius has several allusions to the matter which prove that infanticide was accepted by the Romans in a very matter-of-fact spirit. For instance, in describing the public grief for the death of Germanicus, he mentions that many women exposed their infants. The opening of the fourteenth episode of the _Golden Ass_ of Apuleius describes how a husband before going forth on a journey directed his young wife that the coming babe if a girl was to be destroyed; the whole being related as a perfectly natural and common occurrence.[1387]

Among the Arabs it was very prevalent before the time of Mohammed, by whom it was forbidden. Instances are given by Smith to show the extent of the practice.[1388] Discussing the matter in another place Smith says that Wilken ‘doubts whether among the Arabs the practice was carried to such an extent as to do more than keep the sexes balanced—men being more exposed than women to violent deaths; but there is evidence that, at any rate in some places and at some times, there was a strong pressure of public opinion against bearing any daughter, even though she were the only child of her parents. If we take along with this the fact that wealthy and powerful men had often several wives, there can, I think, be no question that, at least in some parts of the country, wives must have been so scarce that the mass of the tribesmen must have been driven to practise polyandry.’[1389] The evidence from China is somewhat conflicting; this is probably to be accounted for by the variations in habits in different parts of the country. Norman has collected evidence to show its wide extent. ‘The testimony’, he says, ‘of a Chinese teacher is as follows: “Infanticide is very common among the poor, and even people in pretty easy circumstances. There is hardly a family in which at least one child has not been destroyed, and in some families four or five are disposed of.”... Another man, who is now a member of the Christian Church, says that in his village there is hardly a family that has not destroyed two or three children.... A lady contributor to the _North China Daily News_ furnished the following statistics: “I find that 160 Chinese women, all over 50 years of age, had borne 631 sons and 538 daughters. Of the sons 366 or nearly 60 per cent. had lived more than 10 years; while of the daughters only 205 or 38 per cent. had lived 10 years. The 160 women had, according to their own statement, destroyed 158 of their daughters; but none had ever destroyed a boy. As only four women reared more than three girls, the probability is that the infanticides confessed to are considerably below the truth. I have occasionally been told by a woman that she had forgotten just how many girls she had had more than she wanted. The greatest number of infanticides confessed to by any one woman is eleven.”’[1390] Gray states that infanticide prevails to a huge extent and gives an example of a young husband who had had three sons and four daughters. Of the latter three had been killed.[1391] According to Douglas the practice prevails among the poorer classes ‘to an alarming extent’.[1392] Abeel speaks of infanticide in China as ‘very common’.[1393] ‘In Pekin,’ he says, ‘after deducting more than one-half for the natural deaths the number of exposed children is, according to Barrow, about 4,000 a year.... In some Provinces not one in three is suffered to live.’[1394] The practice is said to be specially prevalent in South China.[1395] Milne says that in Canton ‘infanticide was rare. Dr. Williams, however, states that though the practice is rare in Canton it is common in Amoy. He thinks that in general the proportion of children killed is not great, but mentions two provinces wherein the practice prevails to an atrocious extent, twenty to thirty per cent. of the female children, therefore, ten to fifteen per cent. of the total number of infants born, being put to death.’[1396] The important fact, upon which we shall comment in the next chapter, seems to be that in China infanticide is practised not so much as a regular habit as in times of distress. Moule thinks that infanticide is connected with times of want, and Douglas that it is in general only committed by the poorer classes in times of distress. Norman emphasizes the fact that it is chiefly committed by the poorer classes. Giles denies its existence altogether.[1397] It is therefore of particular interest to find two modern Chinese authors speaking as follows. ‘One must not assume that such a custom is prevalent; flagrant and sometimes dramatic accounts, of which we have heard so much, only hold true in certain districts and at times of famine.’[1398] According to Faulds infanticide was formerly common in Japan.[1399]

It is said that infanticide was formerly characteristic of five-sixths of British India.[1400] Recently it was common in Central India, Rajputana, Cutch Bhooj, Agra Province, Khondistan, among the Jats, and in the Punjab generally.[1401] The Mysore census for 1852 showed that in a population of 3,410,382 there was a 10 per cent. excess of males in the adult population in spite of a 16 per cent. excess of female births.[1402] It is stated to exist among the Nagas[1403] though the evidence is conflicting.[1404] It was formerly ‘very common all over the Jeypore country’.[1405] It was especially prevalent among the Khond people,[1406] where ‘it was expressly sanctioned and promoted by their religious doctrine’.[1407] It was also common among the Todas.[1408] ‘Lieut.-General Walker estimated that about 33,000 female children were annually put to death in Cutch and Gujerat, a rate amounting to about one-fourth of the total births and therefore to about half of the girls born. Watson and Kaye assert that “no criminality either by law or usage was ever attached among the Rajputs to infanticide. The child was smothered in milk or else opium was smeared upon the mother’s breasts in quantities sufficient to cause immediate death.” The _Encyclopaedia of India_ asserts that in one of the districts of this Province, while there were 82,400 boys, there were only 35,137 girls at the 1874 enumeration, a discrepancy which clearly showed that more than one-half of the girls had been destroyed.’[1409]

It is worthy of note that in addition to infanticide ‘the wilful neglect of female children operates destructively in every town and village throughout the length and breadth of India’.[1410] This is especially noticeable where in recent days infanticide has much diminished. Thus in Rajputana girls are allowed to die when in the case of a boy medical aid would be summoned.[1411]

Infanticide was extensively practised among the Teutonic tribes before their conversion to Christianity.[1412] The well-known statement of Tacitus that the Germans did not practise infanticide is certainly erroneous. Lecky suggests that the whole passage is to be taken rather as an indirect way of scolding his own people than as a sober statement of fact about another. ‘Guizot regards the picture which Tacitus draws as being analogous to the portrait Fenimore Cooper gives of the Red Indians.’[1413] There is ample evidence that the practice was common. ‘Grimm declares that “all the Teutonic Sagas are full of the exposure of children, and there can be no doubt that in the early days of heathenism it was lawful”. Müller says that all the Teutonic races in early times had the right of exposing their children, but in the course of centuries it came to be exercised only by the parent.... It is related that, when in A. D. 1000 the Norsemen of Iceland were converted to Christianity, they stipulated that the right of slaying their infants should not be removed.’[1414] There is evidence from graves that infanticide was practised in Neolithic times in England.[1415] It is thus of particular interest to notice that, where we can catch sight of peoples emerging out of the prehistoric period, we find infanticide established as a practice; the conclusions derived from the direct evidence of the peoples of this group are thus linked on to the conclusion to which in the last chapter we came from indirect evidence.[1416]

13. Turning to sub-groups three and four, disease, war, famine, and child mortality have already been dealt with. The remaining factors are those in respect of which there is a contrast between these sub-groups and those just considered. Furthermore, as regards these factors there are certain important differences as between what we may call mediaeval and modern races.

Of pre-puberty intercourse there is no evidence. Among modern races it is certainly negligible. If it occurred at all in the mediaeval period it was very uncommon, and we may therefore regard this factor as of no account. Hitherto we have found that, though far from being universal, it is a fairly common practice. Its disappearance thus makes one distinction between these races and those which we have previously studied.

The length of the suckling period marks a similar distinction. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast distinction; even at the present day in certain country districts it is prolonged, as, for instance, in Hungary for several years according to Gönezi.[1417] Generally speaking, however, the tendency has been for a reduction to the conditions which now rule in Western Europe.

14. A far more remarkable difference between these races and those hitherto considered is provided by the conditions regarding celibacy and the postponement of marriage. Hitherto we have found that, with the exception of a very few individuals who chiefly for religious reasons did not marry, all women, if indeed not married before puberty, got married soon after. Such postponement of marriage as occurred was confined to men, and therefore neither celibacy nor postponement had any effect upon numbers. At this point we come upon wholly new conditions.

The views of St. Paul with regard to marriage are well known and the attitude of all early Christians authors is similar though usually more pronounced. If marriage was tolerable, virginity was in any case preferable. ‘For why’, says Tertullian, ‘should we long to bear children, whom, when we have them, we desire to send before us ... ourselves also longing to be removed from this most wicked world.... Therefore whether marriage be for the sake of the flesh, or of the world or of having descendants, not one of these necessities belongeth to the servants of God.’[1418] Such a passage as this can be paralleled in the works of almost any of the Fathers. They return to the subject over and over again. St. Augustine did not avoid the practical difficulty. ‘But I am aware’, he says, ‘of some that murmur. What, say they, if all men should abstain from sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would thus; ... much more speedily would the City of God be filled and the end of the world hastened.’[1419] There are many decrees of the early Council regarding celibacy. It was first enjoined by the Popes in 385.[1420] Gregory VII was very zealous on behalf of celibacy, and owing to his efforts it became very general in Europe in the eleventh century though it was not rigidly enforced until the thirteenth century among the clergy.[1421] Much earlier, however, in certain countries celibacy had come, under the influence of Christian teaching, to be of importance. It was initiated by Paul the Theban and St. Antony after the Decian persecution[1422] and according to Schönberg there were at one time in a single diocese in Egypt 20,000 men and 10,000 women celibates.[1423] It was felt to be necessary to take steps to limit the extent of the practice, and in 381 the Council of Saragossa forbade virgins to take the veil unless over forty years of age.[1424] Thus under the influence of Christianity celibacy became for the first time in human history a factor of importance. That the celibate is to be preferred to the married state is emphasized by the Council of Trent.[1425]

Also in this period for the first time in the history of the world postponement of marriage became of importance. The evidence as to the age at marriage is unfortunately far from exact. There is, however, a very large amount of evidence which shows that, at least in the society typical of most European countries from the tenth century onwards, marriage was, except among the privileged classes, always somewhat, and often very long, postponed both for men and women, though more for the former than the latter. This postponement was brought about by the pressure of social conditions, customs, and laws. To these conditions and customs it will be necessary to refer in the next chapter, and it will suffice to say here that, generally speaking, in the country there was a limited number of households and that, until death made vacancies, there was no house for those wishing to marry, who in consequence had to wait, and that in the towns guild restrictions bound apprentices for a large number of years during which they might not marry, and that at many times in many places the poor were prohibited from marrying.

There is very little statistical evidence. The matter has been investigated by Rubin, who worked with the Danish figures for the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. ‘It was the universal rule’, he says, ‘that as soon as the obstacles ... were surmounted, every one proceeded to get married.’[1426] Apart, therefore, from religious celibacy, there was no voluntary celibacy such as we find at the present day. But these obstacles in the case of the dependent class were serious, and marriage was long postponed by men in this class, though postponed for a shorter time by women than by men. ‘Even though the social and economic structure of the community of old restrained one section of the population—the dependent section—from marriage, the other part of the population, the independent section, married far earlier than nowadays. There was perhaps ... some holding back in certain circles of the best society. But for ordinary independent people marriage at an early age was a matter of course. Those who could marry early, then, did so. But those who were unable to marry till late in life—when they no longer held the position of journeymen, labourer, &c.—yet married.’[1427] With regard to women there was ‘a state of affairs resembling that found in the case of men, a compulsory condition of celibacy for certain sections of the population.... In certain classes of the population there were a good many more unmarried women at something over twenty years of age than there are now.’[1428] Summing up his conclusions the same author says ‘in spite of the fact that in the independent section of the community marriage took place, as a rule, at an earlier age in the eighteenth century than it does now, the average age of marriage was yet higher at that time, because the more numerous dependent class married later’, and adds that ‘there must have been a difference between the age of the bride and bridegroom considerably greater than in the marriages of our time’.[1429]

The state of things indicated above is that typical of mediaeval Europe and lasted up to the industrial revolution. It is not to be supposed that there was any abrupt change from the conditions prevalent before; on the contrary the conditions described developed slowly as European mediaeval society assumed its typical aspect. The growth of these conditions is connected with the disappearance of abortion and infanticide, and, as we shall see; there is evidence that there was a lengthy period during which these customs continued to be practised after the introduction of Christianity.

The transition from the conditions of what we have called the mediaeval period to those of the modern period was relatively sudden. The economic changes connected with the rise of the industrial system in the latter half of the eighteenth century did away with the obstacles to marriage which have been mentioned. As a result the average age at marriage was lowered. In England between 1867 and 1888 it was for men twenty-six and for women twenty-four. The question of the age at marriage in the modern period need not detain us because it was not the variations in that factor which have controlled numbers. There have been variations, but these variations have been compensated for by other factors.

Celibacy for religious reasons, which at certain times and places was of great importance in the mediaeval period, has ceased to be of any importance in the modern period. On the other hand, for the first time in history voluntary celibacy on grounds other than religious has come to be of importance. ‘In the course of this century [nineteenth century] Wappaus found that in Saxony 14·6 of the unmarried adult population died single; in Sweden 14·9 per cent., in the Netherlands 14·2 per cent., and in France 20·6 per cent.’[1430] The returns of the thirteenth United States[1431] Census showed that of the females 35–44 years of age 10 per cent. were single.

In this connexion there is another matter which may be mentioned here. It will be referred to in detail later on. Whereas in the mediaeval period the independent class married early and the dependent class considerably later, in the modern period this has been reversed. It is now the wage-earning class which marries earlier than the independent class.

15. Contraceptive methods were known in the mediaeval period,[1432] but there is no evidence that either these practices or restraint from intercourse between married persons were of any importance. According to Rubin, ‘so far as the eighteenth century ... is concerned, it may be taken as a fact that in the main the limit of fertility of marriage was set by nature alone.’[1433] This applies equally to the whole of the period. In this respect, therefore, this period resembles those which preceded it.

Whatever effects may have to be attributed to these factors in the former periods, it is within the modern period that they first become of primary importance. Something was said in the First Chapter as to the history of the so-called Neomalthusian propaganda, and it was pointed out that it began relatively early in the century. It is obviously very difficult to obtain any definite facts regarding the extent of these practices, but a very great body of evidence points to the conclusion that, not only have these practices come to be of great importance, but also that it is by means of variation in their use, together with deliberate restraint from intercourse between married persons, by which population has come to be regulated.

With regard to definite evidence the results of an inquiry carried out by the National Birth-Rate Commission may be quoted. Of 481 schedules issued, 366 gave definite replies regarding the limitation of births. In 288 cases the marriages were specifically stated to be limited, and in 203 of these 288 cases there were further particulars. In 105 cases (51·7 per cent.) limitation appears to have been due merely to restriction of intercourse to periods when conception was believed to be unlikely or to abstention from intercourse. There were 98 cases in which contraceptive methods were apparently employed.[1434]

16. We now come to a consideration of the three practices which we found to be of such importance in the first two groups. Of prolonged restraint from intercourse imposed as a social custom there is no trace. It was certainly not characteristic of the mediaeval period; it is possible that in the earlier portion of the period, of which in these respects we have little definite knowledge, the practice may have been continued from the times previous to conversion to Christianity, just as we shall find that abortion and infanticide were continued in some cases. It is important also to notice that abortion and infanticide, at least in the form of well-recognized social customs, are also absent. For the first time in history none of these practices are in common use. We may shortly consider how they came to disappear.

‘Abortion’, says Lecky, ‘was probably regarded by the average Roman of the later days of Paganism much as an Englishman in the last century regarded convivial excess, as certainly wrong, but so venial as scarcely to deserve censure. The language of the Christians from the very beginning was widely different. With unswerving consistency and with the strongest emphasis, they denounced the practice, not simply as inhuman, but as definitely murder.’[1435] The evidence goes to show that the Christian objection to abortion was the chief factor in bringing this practice into discredit. The Christian attitude was due to the belief that children in the womb possessed souls. St. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, was of opinion that such children had guardian angels. It is probable that abortion was not stamped out altogether; it may have continued to some extent throughout the whole mediaeval period; it is known to be practised to a considerable extent among the less educated classes in the more advanced countries at the present day.[1436] Figures have been given which show that abortion is at the present day a considerable factor in France. But it is clear that from being a factor of the first importance it has come to be altogether a secondary factor and what is more to be regarded definitely as criminal.

The first protest against infanticide was made by Philo in the first century A. D.[1437] The Christians opposed infanticide as they did abortion, but it does not appear that Christian influence played as large a part in putting down this practice as it did in the case of abortion. Speaking of the later days of the Empire, Lecky says that ‘the legislators then absolutely condemned it and it was indirectly discouraged by laws which accorded special privileges to the fathers of many children.... Pagan and Christian authorities are united in speaking of infanticide as a crying vice of the Empire and Tertullian observed that no laws were more easily or constantly evaded than those which condemned it. A broad distinction was popularly drawn between infanticide and exposition. The latter, though probably condemned, was certainly not punished by law; it was practised on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference, and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence.’[1438] Finally in 374 Valentinian made all infanticide a capital offence and particularly enjoined the punishment of exposition. There is much evidence to show that many centuries elapsed before the practice was finally suppressed in Europe. It was apparently common in France up to the time of Charlemagne, who made it a capital offence. A law of the Spanish Visigoths in the seventh century punished both abortion and infanticide with death.[1439]

The disappearance of both these practices is connected with the evolution of the typical conditions of mediaeval society which are marked, as we saw, by postponement of marriage and religious celibacy. As the former went out the latter came in, and we shall find that numbers came to be regulated by the peculiar methods of the latter period as they had previously been regulated by those of the former.

17. Mention may perhaps be made of the influence of venereal disease. Gonorrhoea has long been prevalent; there is some reason to think that it was known in Assyria. Syphilis is of more recent introduction into Europe and may be of more recent evolution. Though syphilis is a frequent cause of abortions, still-births, and infant mortality, it does not produce sterility. The presence of gonorrhoea tends to prevent conception in women and, if not cured within a certain time, it may cause permanent sterility. A considerable proportion of the sterile marriages at the present day may, as indicated in the Fourth Chapter, be due to gonorrhoea. Though no great influence is to be attributed to venereal diseases when the whole question is broadly viewed, it may be remembered that within the third period they have been prevalent and thus further distinguish that period from the first two periods.[1440]

XI THE REGULATION OF NUMBERS AMONG HISTORICAL RACES

1. At the beginning of the Ninth Chapter it was shown that under any given conditions there is a certain density of population which is the most desirable. What was there said applies whenever men enjoy the benefits of co-operation. In the first and second groups, most men are engaged in the production of food, and, except in some races in the second group, the distinction between rich and poor, the division of labour, and other complications of social life are not far advanced. Where such complications are much increased, as in the third group, it may seem that so simple an idea as that of an optimum number is no longer even in general valid. It must suffice here to state that such complications do not destroy the general validity of this view. In fact the quotation from Professor Cannan given in the Sixth Chapter has direct reference to modern conditions, and the principle there laid down was intended by him to apply to the economic conditions of the present day, though it is, as he says, also applicable to any society once co-operation has arisen.

Among the complications of social life to which we may refer are those connected with property, the division of labour, and the division into classes. The latest development connected with property—the introduction of the capitalist system and the appearance of a large class of wage earners—does not change the general position. One remarkable modern development of the division of labour results in one country devoting itself largely to manufacture while another may devote itself to the production of food. Of all such complications there is only one which so modifies the idea of an optimum number as to require mention in a broad survey. That complication is the division into classes. Where there is a more or less well-marked division into classes performing more or less well-defined kinds of labour, there is nevertheless generally such an ebb and flow between them that there can hardly be any question, broadly speaking, of over-population in any one class. This, however, may not always be so, and in particular at the present day it may be that in the lowest social class there is over-population though not in the nation as a whole. It may be that in this class there is a failure to attain to such a standard of living as is within reach owing to over-population, and whether this does in fact happen will have to be discussed later.

In the Ninth Chapter, when discussing the data of the first and second groups, we showed how approximation to the desirable number might be brought about and we further came to the conclusion that normally there was such an approximation. It is proposed here to treat the data for the third group in the same fashion, though the treatment will be even slighter than in the case of the other groups. Subsequently we shall discuss the chief causes of failure of adjustment in this and in the preceding groups. Lastly we shall touch upon the questions of migration and war which have often been held to be caused by over-population.

2. The difficulties in dealing with the first sub-group are so great that we shall only devote a very few words to the consideration of the problems that arise. The facts regarding the social conditions in Egypt, Assyria, and other great empires are very scanty. It is only with regard to Greece and Rome that we have any considerable amount of information. Our conclusions as to what was in the main the position with regard to the ancient empires will be rather in the nature of a deduction when we have completed our sketch of all the races in the third group.

How adjustment may be conceived to have come about in these races is in the absence of knowledge of their social conditions not possible to illustrate. We know, however, that the social life of these races was based upon the cultivation of the land. It is true that in addition to the cultivator we find the artisan and the wage-earner.[1441] The question as to how the increase of the artisan, merchant, and wage-earning classes may be kept down to the desirable level will be discussed when dealing with the third and fourth sub-groups, and, as in general the conditions are probably much the same everywhere, we may omit the consideration of what happens among these classes in this sub-group. With regard to the cultivators we have already seen, when dealing with the second group, how, when either family or village communities are limited to a certain area, we can understand that the undesirability of such an increase as would cause the average earnings to fall below the possible maximum not only might, but actually does, result in a limitation of increase. So again here among the cultivators, we can suppose that the danger of an undue increase was brought to notice in the same fashion. We shall also discuss in some little detail what happens among the cultivators in the third sub-group, and thus we can omit the consideration of what facts there are for this sub-group and merely ask what methods there are whereby increase could have been checked.

Of fertility we have little evidence. It has to be remembered that on general grounds fecundity was if anything greater than among the races of the former groups. Lactation was apparently often prolonged and pre-puberty marriage may not have been uncommon. Disease and war were very important as factors of elimination, and moreover they were both erratic in their action. It is no longer possible to think of a certain average degree of elimination from these causes which varied little from year to year. On the other hand there is no difficulty in supposing that abortion and infanticide were employed in varying degrees to meet the situation. It may be observed that abortion in Rome and infanticide in Greece were practised systematically, and not merely when pressure had arisen but in order that it might not arise. Thus Hesiod recommends the cultivator not to bring up more than one son at home, for thus ‘wealth will increase in the house’.[1442] What practices were in use among the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and other peoples we do not know in any detail, though there is considerable evidence of the prevalence of infanticide. There may have been a tendency to practise these customs to some average degree, but there is no difficulty in supposing that following upon war and pestilence there would be such a relaxation as soon to bring numbers up to the former level. The question as to how far we may assume these methods to have been effective will be left for discussion until later in the chapter.

3. There is a great variety of races in the second sub-group; they fall under the headings of the more or less nomadic peoples, the more primitive peoples of India, who in many respects are comparable to the races of the second group but who have been to some extent influenced by Eur-Asiatic culture and the chief races of India and China. Those races which fall under the second and third headings are predominantly agricultural; 75 per cent. of the population of Bengal, for instance, is supported directly or indirectly by agriculture. Whether, as in many parts of India, the village community system obtains,[1443] or whether, as in China, there is family or individual ownership of the land,[1444] what was said above regarding the possibility of the desirable number making itself felt also applies here. So also does what was there said about the position of the artisan and wage-earner. As a typical example of the manner in which the pressure is felt where the family system obtains in an agricultural community, we may take the conditions in China as described by two Chinese authors. ‘In a village the well-to-do family is a rare exception, and the typical family is the working-class family. The father is, as a rule, a husbandman, and the sons follow his footsteps. If they do not possess a piece of land of their own they cultivate either the land of the ancestral hall, of the village temple, or that of any private owner. The mother, daughter, and daughter-in-law do the household work together, and also add considerably to the family income by such employment as may be carried on in the home. The earnings of all the members of a family are given to the mother in a hotch-potch for the maintenance of the corporate whole. The family from our point of view is a living organism which possesses a spirit quite apart from the individuals who form it. Each member does not live and work for himself, but for the family to which he belongs. Every other member has a claim on his earnings.’[1445] Another author, after describing this system, tells us that ‘any member of the family who should disgrace himself in any way, as by becoming an inveterate gambler and permanently neglecting his work, or by developing the opium vice to great excess, would be formally cast out, his name being struck off the ancestral register. Men of this stamp generally sink lower and lower, until they swell the ranks of the professional beggars, to die perhaps in a ditch.’[1446]

With regard to the nomadic peoples we always find that they are restricted to clearly marked territories. Robertson Smith, after describing the local groups among the Arabs, goes on to say that ‘the nomadic Arabs, whose way of life supplied the type in which all Arabian society was mainly moulded, are not to be thought of as roaming quite at large through the length and breadth of the peninsula. Each group, or confederation of groups, had its own pastures, and still more its own waters, beyond which it could not move without immediate risk of a hostile encounter.’[1447] Somewhat similar conditions are recorded of all nomadic people.[1448]

4. When we consider the factors which bear upon fertility and elimination, we find that, as in the first sub-group, war and disease are of importance—especially the latter—and that, further, the amount of elimination to which they give rise is very irregular from one period to another. For some thousands of years India appears to have been subject to the passage of scourge after scourge, sweeping away hundreds of thousands of the population. Famine at times is the cause of many deaths, and is due in part, as it is in varying degrees among all races, to climatic factors. It happens, however, that in India these conditions are such as to produce famine more often than anywhere else. Peninsular India is ‘subject to excessive variations [of rainfall] distributed quite irregularly and over very long periods. In such regions years of adequate rainfall and abundant yield may follow in successive decades at a time during which a considerable population settles and opens up the country; then follow a few years of drought with high temperature and aridity; and unless migration and storage works are practicable and are executed in time, the land is deserted.’[1449] Famine is also due at times to some failure in social organization or to some failure to keep up the previous level of skill, as, for instance, to maintain irrigation works.

Fecundity, as we have seen, is probably, on the whole, higher among these races than among the races of the second group. Pre-puberty marriage in India probably has a considerable influence in reducing fertility, at least among the Hindu part of the population. With regard to practices limiting fertility and causing elimination, we have seen that infanticide and abortion are widespread and perhaps to some small extent contraceptive practices or prudential restraint are employed by all these races. It may also be noticed that there is plenty of evidence that in former times in any case marriage customs existed which ensured that before marriage took place the bridegroom was competent to support a family at the recognized standard of living. ‘The days are still remembered when no young Munda could marry before he was able to construct a plough with his own hands, nor would a Munda girl be given away in marriage before she could, with her own hands, weave mats with palm leaves and spin cotton.’[1450]

5. There is no reason for thinking that over-population occurs among the nomadic people such as the Arabs; presumably the methods we have seen to be in use are effective. There has been much discussion as to whether over-population exists in India, and there is a very great difference of opinion on the matter. Hitherto, in order to throw some light on this point, we have had to rely on general evidence; here, for the first time, there is some exact evidence of the kind which should enable a definite answer to be given. What we want to know in the case of India is whether the real income per head is increasing or not with the increase of population. Unfortunately the evidence in India is somewhat contradictory. It has recently been summed up by Wattal.[1451] He shows that some of the arguments in favour of the view that there is no over-population are of very doubtful validity. It has been said, for instance, that large areas are sparsely populated; in this connexion it has to be remembered that the soil is poor in these areas. It has also been said that the complaints about insufficiency of labour point to the same conclusion. There are, however, many reasons to account for this fact. On the other hand, Wattal points out that the acreage per unit of the agricultural population hardly exceeds one and a half acres and further shows a tendency to fall. He also points out that in Europe 250 persons to the square mile is thought to be the limit of density where agriculture is practised, whereas in India from four to five times that number in many places find their support on an area of this size. He finds the explanation of this not in any superiority of soil or of skill but in the lowness of the standard of living. Four persons subsist on an income that would hardly support one person in Europe. The lowness of the standard of living, the small area of land per head, and the tendency for the amount of land per labourer to decrease points strongly to the conclusion that over-population does occur in many parts of India.

It is also probable that many parts of China are over-populated. The apparent overcrowding and the low standard of living lend support to this views and in this connexion it is interesting to note that infanticide is practised not so much as a regular custom but at times when, numbers being so great, no further increase could be supported. Moule says that infanticide is ‘local and spasmodic’ rather than ‘chronic and national’ and notices that it is especially connected with ‘want from flood, or famine or civil war’.[1452] There is much other evidence to the same effect.[1453] It will be remembered that some evidence was given in the last chapter pointing to the great prevalence of infanticide; it is necessary to remember that such conditions are consistent with a state of over-population. The prevalence of such a custom in no way shows that numbers are as a result being kept down to the desirable level. These customs may bring about this result, or they may, in a country in the position in which there is reason to believe that many parts of China now are, merely eliminate those for whom there is no place at all. Almost the same amount of infanticide, which would limit numbers to a desirable level in a country where such a level was being maintained, would, in a country where numbers were already excessive, merely cut off those for whom enough food to support existence could not be found.

What, then, is the cause of the over-population which almost certainly exists in parts of India and China? The irregularity of the factors of elimination is itself no bar to the adjustment of population, but this irregularity may indirectly have an important bearing upon the outlook of man and ultimately upon the behaviour of the mass of the population. Great scourges must tend to produce a hopelessness of outlook. When time and again war and disease sweep through a country, there must arise a tendency for the standard of living to be lost sight of. Gradually there may come about a condition of things when there is no hope or fear. European influence may have had an ill effect. The lessening of elimination through disease and war does not of necessity in itself tend to bring about any over-population. On the contrary, it tends rather to remove the causes which produce degraded social conditions and the consequences referred to above which flow from them. But in other ways European influence is not beneficial. Those customs, for instance, which insist upon the bridegroom possessing a certain degree of skill break down, and unless a more or less distinctly formulated ambition takes their place, there is nothing to ensure that the necessary effort to secure the highest standard of living that is possible will be made.

That which is common to these races, where over-population is suspected, is the absence of hope and fear alike, of ambition and of a standard of living; they are contented to subsist on what will just support life. Such conditions are fatal to the attainment of the desirable number. Abortion and infanticide may still be practised, but as a rule only in the presence of absolute need, not as regular customs before the need arises. To the bringing about of these conditions the factors mentioned above contribute, but they probably never represent the whole cause. In these cases we seem always to find that political misfortunes have overtaken these peoples. They have suffered from oppression in one form or another and gradually the old customs have been lost; hope and ambition have faded from the outlook. In consequence of oppression the mass of the people has by degrees sunk to a degraded condition in which neither the former customs are practised nor is an individual effort, as a rule, made towards the attainment of the best which the skilled methods available, surroundings and so on, make possible.

It is also probable that there is over-population in Egypt; it is probable, that is to say, that with the recent increase of the fellaheen population there has been a decrease in the income per head. Any one who has had an opportunity of watching the behaviour of the fellaheen side by side with that of members of some race such as the Somalis cannot fail to have been very much impressed. The fellaheen cultivate one of the richest countries on earth, and they have within their grasp and to some extent within their use a considerable degree of modern skilled methods. At an Egyptian port these men were to be seen at work during the war. From time to time Somalis disembarked with shiploads of camels. The Somalis live in a country which relatively to Egypt is infertile and have little knowledge of skilled methods. Stepping ashore for the first time in a modern port, bewildered as was inevitable with his surroundings, the Somali, nevertheless, showed himself a man. He carried a certain pride with him. The fellaheen grovelled to him; the Somali obviously despised him. The Somali is a man who has not suffered from a tradition of oppression as has the Egyptian fellah; it is easy to understand how among the Somalis conditions would arise and would be maintained whereby excess of numbers would not reduce them to a bare level of subsistence, whereas among the fellaheen numbers probably tend to be regulated by the ability of the land to keep men alive in spite of the possibility of the return per head being far higher in Egypt than in Somaliland.

6. Passing to the third sub-group we come for the first time upon conditions substantially different to those with which we have hitherto met. All those factors, which in previous groups we have noticed as having a bearing upon fertility, have either diminished in importance or more often have vanished altogether. Lactation was not prolonged, there was no pre-puberty marriage, and there is no evidence of restraint from intercourse between married persons being imposed as a social custom. Though the knowledge of contraceptive practices may have been present there is no evidence of their extensive use. It has also to be remembered that fecundity, if anything, was increasing. On the other hand disease was the cause of a very high death-rate, higher almost certainly than in any previous age.

The most striking difference, however, between this and former sub-groups is the absence of abortion and infanticide. Further, we find what we have never found before, or rather never in such a degree as to be of any importance, postponement of marriage and celibacy; in other words, for the older methods there has been substituted a new method whereby fertility may be reduced. We have now to inquire how the realization of the desirability of some limitation brought about the most important factor—postponement of marriage—and how effective it was. With regard to religious celibacy, which was of less importance and ceased to be of any importance in England during the sixteenth century, we may merely notice its existence. Under conditions, such as we shall describe, and which rendered marriage difficult, monastic institutions were obviously a refuge for many for whom there was little prospect of marriage.[1454] The estimates of the number of religious celibates are too vague and conflicting to be worth analysing. It can only be regarded as a secondary factor representing the most extreme result of the working of the pressure which we are about to describe.

7. The following sketch is in the main confined to conditions in England since the thirteenth century, and we may first notice that in that century ‘almost every one not only possessed land, but cultivated it’.[1455] Yet the serf, in addition to the pressure to postpone marriage which was felt by all cultivators, was definitely restricted with regard to marriage. Besides being unable to move away from his manor, ‘the serf was disabled from marrying his daughter without licence and fine. Very numerous instances are found of these kinds of payment, under the name of mercheta, in the earliest times. Similarly fines are paid for marrying a daughter outside the manor, for marrying a nief, i. e. a female serf, who was possessed of property, and men of another manor for marrying a female serf from her lord’s manor. I have found traces of this custom,’ says Rogers, ‘though they become very infrequent far on into the fifteenth century.’[1456] Such facts are to be regarded as the legal enforcement among serfs of that amount of postponement which was on the average enforced by circumstances upon cultivators in general. As villein tenements were usually indivisible, the question arises as to what happened when there was more than one son. ‘The indivisibility of villein tenements is chiefly conspicuous in the law of inheritance; all the land went to one of the sons if there were several; very often the youngest inherited; and this custom, to which mere chance has given the name of Borough English, was considered as one of the proofs of villeinage. It is certainly a custom of great importance, and probably it depended on the fact that the elder brothers left the land at the earliest opportunity and during their father’s life. Where did they go to? It is easy to guess that they sought work out of the manor as craftsmen or labourers; that they served the lord as servants, craftsmen and the like; that they were provided with holdings, which for some reason did not descend to male heirs; that they were endowed with some demesne land, or fitted out to claim land from the waste. We may find for all these suppositions some supporting quotations in the records. But still it would be hard to believe that the entire increase of population found an exit by these by-paths. If no exit was found, the brothers had to remain on their father’s plot, and the fact that they did so can be proved, if it needs proof, from the documents. The unity of the holding was not disturbed in this case; there was no division.’[1457] Here we see the pressure at work. The tenement would in general be of the size which could well support a family, and a tenement might not be divided, thus ensuring that there was no overcrowding of families until life could only just be supported.

8. Far more important than any particular disabilities regarding marriage which attach to serfs are the conditions making very difficult any increase in population which are always found among cultivators. When a village has as many hands as it requires, the number of houses is not increased. Speaking generally of the Middle Ages Pollard says that ‘the number of holdings was almost stationary and the number of families fixed’.[1458] The number of hands in a village found to be required would be about that which experience has shown to produce the largest average income. Any further increase is made very difficult, if not impossible. ‘Country life was as elsewhere rigid in its habits; young people found it difficult to establish themselves till some married pair had passed from the scene and made a vacancy in their own parish; for migration to another parish was seldom thought of by an agricultural labourer under ordinary circumstances. Consequently whenever a plague or famine thinned the population, there were always many waiting to be married, who filled the vacant places.’[1459]

Such always are the conditions among cultivators in a settled country; it is forced to the notice of every one that not more than a certain number of hands are required and postponement of marriage is thus imposed upon the younger people. Neither land nor houses are available for them at an early age. ‘Before the Reformation, not only were early marriages determinately discouraged, but the opportunity for them did not exist. A labourer living in a cottage by himself was a rare exception to the rule; and the work of the fields was performed generally ... by servants who lived in the families of the squire or farmer, and who, while in that position, commonly remained single, and married only when by prudence they had saved a sufficient sum to enable them to enter some other position.’[1460] Miss Davies, working on figures for the parish of Corsley, found reason for thinking that at any one time there was usually a number of younger people who were debarred from marrying and were waiting their turn, so to speak, until they could step into places vacated by members of an older generation.[1461]

9. In addition to those who cultivated the land there were merchants and craftsmen who for the most part lived in the towns. ‘The essence of the mediaeval town was the formation of gilds of merchants and craftsmen’ and ‘within the limits of the corporation gilds had the monopoly of manufacture or trade’.[1462] Membership of a guild was a birthright or an inheritance, and newcomers could only enter after a long period of apprenticeship. The result of this system of apprenticeship was to bring about the postponement of marriage, and thus to limit the undue increase of population. ‘The position of a son who acquired a holding when his parent died is analogous to that of an apprentice who cannot set up as a master till given permission by the proper authorities. It is quite plain that in the eyes of the ordinary man in the sixteenth century one of the advantages of a system of compulsory apprenticeship was that it prevented youths marrying at a very early age, e. g. an Act (2 and 3 Philip and Mary) forbids the admitting of any one to the freedom of the City of London before the age of twenty-four, and enacts that apprentices are not to be taken so young that they will come out of their time before they are twenty-four. The reason alleged for this rule is that distress in the city of which “one of the chief occasions is by reason of the over-hasty marriages and the over soon setting up of householdes by the younge folke of the city ... be they never so younge and so unskilful”.’ Again a petition of the weavers states (Hist. MSS. Com. Cd. 784, p. 114): ‘whereas by the former good laws of their trade none could exercise the same until he had served an apprenticeship for seven years and attained the age of twenty-four, now in these disordered times many apprentices having forsaken parents and masters ... refuse to serve out their time, but before they are 18 or 20 years old betake themselves to marriage.’[1463]

Rubin, whose conclusions regarding the age at marriage in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries have already been quoted, sums up the position in these words: ‘The domestic servant class then, as now, was unmarried, but that class was much more numerous than at present. Subordinates in the industrial class and in handicrafts were not, as in our own time, free and independent, but lived for the most part in the houses of their masters, and, at any rate, were accustomed to wait until they became masters before marrying; the chances of attaining the position of master were greater than now. The same rule applied to other journeymen in various employments, whether in town or country.’[1464]

Thus in the town as well as on the land the pressure was at work. The result was twofold. Marriage was made difficult, and many sought refuge in lifelong celibacy in religious institutions. Again, a standard of skill was insisted upon which tended to ensure that young husbands would be able to support a family as well as ensuring that they would not have a family at all until there was a place for them. And it must be assumed that the number of families felt to be desirable was somewhere about that which given all circumstances produces the maximum benefit from co-operation. It may also be observed that we can in evidence of the above kind detect the recognition of a standard of living—the essential feature in any community in which an approach to the desirable number is to be attained. For this standard of living is only the income per head which, given all the circumstances, is the highest within reach.

10. Regulations prohibiting the marriage of the poor were not uncommon in this period. ‘In Bavaria ... the regulations of the Government and the Police Ordinances of 1616 forbade the marriage of servants, day labourers, and others without property, and the punishments by which those were threatened by the legislation of 1751 who, without the permission of the superior authorities, entered into wedlock, and were afterwards unable to support themselves without begging or the like, extended to corporal chastisement and the like.’[1465] The Poor Law Commission of 1834 obtained reports regarding the regulations in various European countries. Of Denmark we hear that ‘all those persons who are in receipt of parish relief are not allowed to marry unless by permission granted on special grounds by the Commissioners’.[1466] In Würtemberg no subject of the state could marry until he possessed ‘the rights of a member of a community or a settled non-freeman. But even such a one must prove to the magistrates before his marriage that he possesses sufficient means of subsistence. The want of such means of subsistence is considered as existing, (_a_) in every one who is not primarily qualified in the exercises of a liberal art or science, or for exercising on his own account, commerce, a profession, agriculture or some other business sufficient for the support of a family, or possesses sufficient property for the independent support of a family; and (_b_) in every one who, at the time of the intended marriage, is the subject of political or police investigation, for vagabondage, prodigality, habitual idleness, notorious propensity to drinking, or repeated fraud, repeated theft or systematic begging, or who has been punished for the same, during the two years immediately preceding, or who in the course of the three preceding years (except in the case of misfortune not incurred by his own fault) has received assistance from public funds for his own support, or is in receipt of such at the time of the intended marriage.’[1467]

11. Somewhat similar conditions to those which led to postponement of marriage in England were operative elsewhere. Looking at this period in general there is little doubt that the restrictions upon increase were upon the whole effective. There were fluctuations in the nearness of approach to the desirable number; at times for some reason too great an increase became noticeable. Adjustment, however, soon followed. ‘There was reason to believe that towards the middle of the fifteenth century there was a considerable increase in population, unaccompanied by any great improvement in the means of production, and consequently a relative over-population in many European countries. The frequent complaints of poverty and lack of employment which led eventually to stringent measures against foreign competitors, confirms the evidence from other sources to show that the gilds were being overstocked with journeymen who could hardly hope to attain the position of householders and employers. In the callings where the old-world organization was effective there was an increasing tendency, during the fifteenth century, to restrict the avenues by which the freedom to exercise a craft could be obtained; larger fines were demanded on admission, while the social qualifications of those who were eligible as apprentices were raised.’[1468] At other times certain social changes caused over-population. Such was the case in the sixteenth century owing to the enclosures. ‘According to one calculation made in 1548 three hundred thousand men had been thrown out of work by the decay of agriculture—or about ten per cent. of the whole population.’[1469] What is important, however, is that in general the determination of the people to maintain the standard of living brought about adjustment—which at this period usually took the form of making marriage more difficult.

There were also instances of a definite failure over a long period to achieve adjustment. Such a case is that of Ireland in the eighteenth century. The potato was introduced about 1585, and when taken into cultivation throughout the country could have enabled a larger population to subsist at a higher standard of living. So degraded, however, did the social conditions become, that the introduction of the potato merely enabled a larger population to subsist at the lowest standard which would support life. The conditions of that period have been described in the following passage by Goldwin Smith: ‘The mass of the people were socially and economically in a state the most deplorable, perhaps, which history records as having existed in any civilized nation.... The Irish gentry were probably the very worst upper class with which a country was ever afflicted. Their habits grew beyond measure brutal and reckless. Their drunkenness, their blasphemy, their ferocious duelling, left the squires of England far behind.... Over the Roman Catholic poor on their estates these “vermin of the kingdom”, as Arthur Young calls them, exercised a tyranny compared with which the arbitrary rule of the old chiefs over their clans was probably a parental authority used with beneficence and justly repaid by gratitude and affection.... All moral restraints on the growth of population were removed by the compulsory ignorance into which Protestant ascendancy and the penal laws had plunged the Catholic peasantry and by the abject wretchedness of their lot.... The island became utterly overcharged with population.’[1470]

In this period it is not common to find over-population on this scale for so long a time. In all countries there were periods when population was excessive, but as a rule the circumstances were seldom such that the vigour of the people did not before long bring about a return to a higher standard.

12. In the fourth sub-group there is available a far larger amount of information, and more exact estimates as to the position are rendered possible than could be the case before. We have first to ask whether there is evidence of over-population. Where, as in this period, there has been a rapid increase in numbers the question is more easy to answer than when asked in connexion with periods which, compared with the present conditions, were relatively static. We can form a judgement based upon the relative increase in wealth and in population and upon the average real wages over a number of years. The following figures show that wealth has grown more quickly than population.[1471]

_Wealth of Great _Population._ Britain._ £ 1865 6,113,000,000 1861 28,927,485 1875 8,548,000,000 1871 31,484,661 1885 10,037,000,000 1881 34,884,848 1895 10,663,000,000 1891 37,732,922 1905 13,036,000,000 1901 41,458,721 1909 13,986,000,000 1911 45,216,665

The following figures show that real wages have risen during the period.[1472] With regard to the drop in real wages in the last years shown in this table it has to be remembered that such minor fluctuations may be due under complex modern conditions to a variety of causes. The condition of credit, the share taken of the total income by capital and many other factors, the action of some of which, there is good reason to think, was the cause of the decline in real wages noticeable in the early years of the present century, all affect real wages.

_Nominal Wages._ _Cost of Living._ _Real Wages._ 1880 100 100 100 1881–5 101 96 105 1886–90 104 89 117 1891–5 110 88 125 1896–1900 115 87 132 1901–5 121 91 133 1906–10 126 94 134 1911 128 96 133 1912 132 100 132 1913 134 100 134

All the evidence points to the same conclusion—namely, that throughout this period there has, on the whole, been an increase in the average real income per head, and that therefore there has been no over-population in England. On the whole the same conclusion applies to other countries in which the industrial conditions are more or less similar. It is well known that during this period there have been very remarkable fluctuations in the birth-rate. In England it was stationary from about 1840 to 1880. Since that date it has declined by about one-third.[1473] It seems clear that during this latter period the rapid increase of the former period ceased to be economically advantageous. In other words the decline has been in response to changing economic conditions. What we have now to ask is how the desirability of a limited increase under the conditions existing in this period can have been so realized that the adjustment of numbers to economic requirements took place.

13. The factors bearing upon fertility and elimination are in this sub-group in the main the same as those in the former sub-group. The factors which did or may have limited fertility in the earlier groups are again absent. Postponement of marriage is, as in the third sub-group, an important factor and in addition for the first time contraceptive practices play a large part. The importance of contraceptive practices, together with the decline in the birth-rate, due to the start made in this period towards the mastering of disease, are the chief differences to be noticed when comparing conditions in this sub-group with those in the former. It may also be noticed that the factors of elimination are more regular in their operation; epidemics of disease are rare and war does not now, as so often formerly, indirectly cause a large death-rate. The methods of limiting increase are confined to those which reduce fertility with the exception of the practice of abortion, which is still of some importance in the lower social classes. It is important to observe that, although the postponement of marriage has throughout the period had an important bearing upon fertility, it has not been, as in the former sub-group, by raising or reducing the age of marriage that the change in fertility has been chiefly due.[1474] This change has been due to diminished fertility which is to be chiefly accounted for by the conscious limitation of fertility in the form either of abstention from intercourse between married persons or of the use of contraceptive practices. We are not able to measure the prevalence of the different forms of conscious limitation and thus definitely to associate them with the declining birth-rate. We do not find, however, any such increase in other factors, such as venereal disease, which diminish fertility, as will account for the facts. We have no reason for supposing that fecundity has diminished, and as we have strong reasons for thinking that conscious limitation has been increasingly practised, we must attribute the changes to this cause.[1475]

14. In this sub-group we may roughly distinguish between property owners, professional classes, peasant proprietors, and wage earners. The distinguishing feature has been the rise of a very large wage-earning class not possessed of property. The peasant proprietor, who, though a property owner, is to be distinguished from other property owners, is of little importance in England. In other countries, however, the class of peasant proprietors is of importance, and we may first ask how the desirability of limiting increase is brought home to them.

As we have seen, wherever men owe their living to the produce of a definite area of land, whether ownership is vested in families or in village communities, the situation is in the main always much the same. That more than a certain number cannot maintain the standard of living upon a certain area must be obvious. It may be more or less definitely realized by each individual; it is also enshrined in the social conventions of such people. The conditions in French rural districts have been much studied, and there is a large amount of evidence pointing to the conclusion that families are consciously limited owing to the realization that large families are not economically advantageous. Legal regulations and social customs as to the inheritance of landed property are of considerable importance in France and other countries in this connexion, but there is no space to enter upon the subject here. The conditions are, generally speaking, clear; any one who is acquainted with the conditions of life in the country districts of France, Switzerland, or Norway, for instance, has probably observed what is going on. Somewhat as has been described for the Middle Ages in England, the number of houses, and consequently the number of families, is not increased. Further, when marriage takes place the number of children is clearly limited by considerations based on the economic conditions. There is, of course, always an opportunity for the young people to go to the towns and work for wages, and we must now ask what the conditions are among the wage-earning classes.

Hitherto, with the exception of the artisans of the Middle Ages, we have always found men in groups of varying size supporting themselves upon a restricted area. In the case of the wage earners it is more difficult to understand how the desirability of limitation can become translated into customs or habits whether consciously or unconsciously followed, because, first, we are no longer dealing with a small group confined in the knowledge of all of them to a certain area, and, secondly, because restrictive customs in the nature of taboos have little chance of establishing themselves to-day. There are no restrictions of importance on the entrance to various trades; there is at least nothing comparable to the restrictions imposed by the guilds. A young man of the wage-earning class finds no hindrance to marriage and further finds that the maximum rate of earning he is ever likely to attain to is within his grasp at an early age. Why therefore should he not marry early? Compared with the mediaeval period he does marry early. As Rubin says, ‘the journeymen and servants of former times were as a rule unmarried, while in our times skilled workmen and factory employees, on account of the high level of their earnings (and the fact that they are received in money, not in kind), and because, for the greater part, as stated earlier, they attain no better position by waiting—are married as journeymen or labourers.’[1476] We have now to ask why the wage earners should, if they do not limit fertility by postponing marriage, limit fertility by conscious restriction of their families.

This is not an easy question to answer. As there are no barriers to marriage, so to the production of a large family there are no barriers in the form of social conditions or customs which must be conformed to. There is apparently no hindrance to the production of as many children as can be fed—that is to say, to the increase of population to the level at which life can just be supported. Such an increase, however, does not take place. To understand why it is so we must first realize how powerful the desire to better the social conditions and to raise the standard of living has been among the wage earners. Mr. and Mrs. Hammond have lately described the conditions under which the village labourer existed in the earlier years of the last century.[1477] During the agricultural depression which followed the Napoleonic Wars the most determined effort was made by the governing classes to induce the labourer to lower his standard of living in the very mistaken hope that such a change would ease the position. Above all things the labourers were urged to abandon the use of wheaten bread and to accept some substitute. All kinds of arguments and many forms of pressure were employed. The labourers, however, were obstinate. They clung to their standard of living and in England, at least since the Industrial Revolution, this determination to maintain, and if possible to raise, the standard has been powerfully manifested by the wage-earning class.[1478] Returning now to the question we have to answer, we may say that this determination becomes translated into a system of family limitation, and that the decline in the birth-rate which is due to conscious limitation has been in correspondence with changing economic conditions. The previous rate of increase was no longer desirable in the interest of the wage-earning classes, and it has been checked. Nevertheless it has not been checked by a fully conscious realization of the position. At the most there has only been a semi-conscious understanding of what is involved. In the main we have to think of this determination as achieving its end by an unconscious adaptation of social habits and practices to the needs of the time. There have been other factors at work tending in the same direction. The influence of factory legislation in restricting the employment of children has been to render large families of less economic advantage. Again among more highly paid sections of the wage-earning classes certain influences, which are not economic at all but rather social, have also tended towards reduction in fertility.

It may be observed that, where the determination to maintain the standard of living is not strongly manifested, there over-population may occur. Thus in England, and in all industrial countries, there is at the bottom of the social scale a thriftless, unskilled, and casually employed class in which the limitation of families is little, if at all, practised. Among this class the desire to improve conditions is seldom shown and in consequence the birth-rate is not limited. If the members of this class ‘restricted considerably their rate of growth, there is’, says Hobson, ‘reasonable ground for holding that they would make a double economic gain, being paid at a higher rate, for more efficient and more regular work.’[1479]

The conditions among the professional classes need not detain us. In addition to feeling, as do the working classes, the benefit in a general way of restriction, there are many other factors which come in. Of these perhaps the most important is the question of the age at which the maximum income is attained. As these classes form only a small proportion of the population, and as we shall have to discuss in the following chapter the causes of the lower rate of increase in these classes than among the wage-earning class—having in view the possible bearing upon certain problems of qualitative change—we can omit any further discussion here, merely observing that no question of over-population arises. Possibly there may be relative under-population in something the same way as there is over-population in the lowest grade—whether this is so or not depending largely upon the ease with which the professional classes are recruited from below.

15. The discussion of historical races has been brief and was only entered upon in order to round off the subject. There are other points in connexion with the adjustment of numbers to which allusion must be made. It will be convenient, however, first to review shortly our conclusions regarding the problem of adjustment as a whole and then to ask in respect of the various periods in turn what we are led to think that the position must have been.

Reasons have been given for thinking that, if any general change in fecundity has taken place in the course of history, it has been in the direction of increase. In any case fecundity is very large—the theoretical power of increase, that is to say, is very great. Some figures were given at the end of the fourth chapter in illustration of this fact. There is a tendency noticeable in nearly all discussions of questions of quantity to under-estimate the power of increase. Another calculation previously given may therefore be recalled. It has been shown that at the present average rate of increase of the population of the world—a rate of increase which is obviously everywhere very severely restricted—a single pair would produce in 1,750 years descendants equal in number to the present population of the world.

In connexion with the under-estimation of the power of increase, is the over-estimation of the relief given by any factor which allows of a growth of population—increase in skill or migration, for example. It is constantly assumed that, when such a factor can be detected in operation, there is, so to speak, a complete outlet for fecundity. This is the idea which lies at the basis of such statements as those which speak of ‘surplus population’ as being drawn off by migration. When, however, a calculation is made, it is seen that the relief given is, except under very unusual circumstances, almost negligible. It was shown on p. 105 that under the circumstances mentioned a population of 1,000,000 would remain stable so long as to each married woman there was born an average of two children. But if the average was 2½ children, then in a hundred years the population would be 3,050,000. It follows, therefore, that most unusually favourable circumstances only make room for a fraction of the possible increase and that migration likewise only draws off an insignificant fraction of the possible additions to the population.

Starting with such considerations and taking into account the fact that, wherever social co-operation exists, there must be within any area a certain desirable density of population—the optimum number—it has been argued that there will come about an approximation to this number owing to the practice of certain habits and customs restrictive of increase. It has further been argued that, except under most unusual circumstances, habits and customs having primarily, and not merely incidentally, this result, must everywhere exist. This is seldom realized. Professor Myres, for instance, after remarking upon the fertility of ancient Egypt and of Assyria, says that ‘anything like infanticide was out of the question’.[1480] It is clear from the context that he is thinking not of infanticide in particular but of any practices restrictive of increase—the implication being that in a fertile country, where skill is increasing, there is a sufficient outlet for the increase of population resulting from the power of human increase. Again, it has been asserted that the Bantu races do not commit infanticide—at least on a large scale—as do many other primitive races, because, inasmuch as they have been in movement for an unknown length of time, the attrition following upon the war that is always in progress at the fringe of the movement is sufficient to absorb the ‘surplus population’. But it has been forgotten that the Bantu races practise prolonged abstention from intercourse—a custom quite as effective as abortion and infanticide—as may be seen when the evidence as to the small average number in a family is considered;[1481] for the average number in a Bantu family is as small as among primitive races in general, and it cannot be held that attrition through war falls seriously upon others than adults. It therefore follows that war among these people affords but an insignificant amount of relief.

16. Turning now to the methods of adjustment, we may take the first two groups together and afterwards the third group. War and migration, however, may be put aside and considered separately at the end of the chapter. As regards the first two groups it is necessary to say no more than this: evidence has been produced to show that everywhere among primitive races either abortion, infanticide, or prolonged abstention from intercourse are practised in such a degree and in such a manner as to have as their primary result the restriction of increase.

The question as to how far these practices are effective in bringing about an approximation to the desirable number is not easily answered. As regards those primitive races which have come under European observation there is no definite evidence because, before exact observation could be made, the conditions of life had wholly changed. But, putting aside the fact that the evidence, such as it is, does suggest an approximation, it may be observed that conditions were such as to render an approximation easy. Skill increased so slowly that for long periods of time the desirable number remained about the same; the factors of elimination, such as war and disease, were not erratic in their action; social organization was not complex in the economic sense and therefore the danger of break-downs followed by changes in the desirable number was absent. Thus we may conclude that, in all probability, in primitive society an approximation was normally attained.

In the third period we meet with wholly different conditions. Social organization becomes elaborate in the economic sense, war and disease become erratic in their operation, and, relatively to what was the case before, skill increases rapidly. As a result the desirable number frequently changes, becoming on the whole larger, particularly in those periods with which we are best acquainted. There has in consequence grown up an idea that throughout human history population has been increasing, whereas in fact it is far more correct to regard population as normally having been stable. It may not improbably turn out that the third period is in this respect peculiar and we may be approaching a period when population will again normally be stable. However that may be, the changes mentioned tend to make adjustment more difficult; on the other hand, there have been at the same time at work changes tending to facilitate adjustment among which growing freedom from convention and increasing sensitiveness to the economic situation may be particularly noticed. As regards the methods of adjustment, evidence has been adduced to show that, up to the opening of what we have called the mediaeval period, one or other of the same methods were in use that were in vogue before, that all these methods ceased to be practised in the mediaeval period and were replaced by postponement of marriage, and that finally in the modern period deliberate restriction has replaced postponement of marriage.

The question of the effectiveness of adjustment in this period has been touched upon. In general it may be said that under-population is rare. Under-population seldom arises and then generally as a result of the abnormal incidence of war or disease. It sometimes happens that for a long period an area once densely populated maintains but a sparse population and this is not infrequently taken to indicate under-population. But such situations generally arise when for one reason or another—such as the destruction of capital during prolonged war, or the breakdown of artificial works upon which the food-supply depends—there has been a decrease in the density desirable. Thus the Mesopotamian watercourses were neglected by the Mongol conquerors in the thirteenth century and in consequence the optimum number for that area declined. Such a situation should therefore not be taken as indicating, without further inquiry, under-population.

Over-population is less rare. It may be due to the neglect of ancient practices having as their effort the restriction of increase without the taking into use at the same time of new practices. This sometimes happens when a higher and a lower civilization come into contact and has been one of the causes of over-population in India. It may also arise when on the passing away of old practices some influence may militate against the taking up of new practices. In this manner the influence of the Catholic Church, which has been directed against contraceptive practices, may have tended to produce over-population in Ireland. More commonly, however, over-population arises in this period as the result of a spirit of apathy and listlessness. Under such circumstances, which are usually the result of social oppression or political misfortunes, no effort is made to keep up the standard of living and in consequence the machinery designed to restrict increase breaks down.

Taking the third period in more detail, we have as regards the last section of that period definite evidence to the effect that approximation is fairly close. There are minor fluctuations in the nearness of approach to the desirable number. That, however, which it is in any broad view of the whole problem of quantity desirable to emphasize, is the nearness of approach—the fact that in any country at any given time within this period the numbers present are, roughly speaking, those economically desirable. We shall, indeed, find later, when dealing with war and when referring again to this subject in the next chapter, that minor differences in the nearness of approach as between countries in close proximity may be of considerable importance.

Within the mediaeval period, in spite of the very high death-rate from disease, over-population occurred in England from time to time. The fact that wages rose after the Black Death, and that, after the decline in the population which took place in the last years of the seventeenth century and in the opening years of the eighteenth century, the average man was more prosperous, points to this conclusion, as does the fact that frequent attempts were made to render the restrictions upon marriage more severe. It seems probable that there was a similar tendency towards over-population in most European countries, and the reason would appear to be that postponement of marriage did not bring about a sufficient restriction of increase; postponement of marriage was not in fact a sufficient substitute for abortion, infanticide, and abstinence from intercourse, in spite of the prevalence of disease. Under-population was less frequent; when it occurred it was sometimes due in part to a spirit of luxury and selfishness following upon a period of expansion and prosperity, as in the later history of Spain. There may for similar reasons be under-population among the richer classes in Europe and America to-day.

With regard to the preceding period we have considerable knowledge of the conditions in Greece and Rome. The history of both countries presents very similar features. In the earlier times practices restrictive of increase comparable with those found among primitive races were operative. There followed a vigorous epoch of colonization and then a period of decadence. These periods of decadence have been much discussed. In these discussions it is sometimes forgotten that the destruction of capital in civil war on a large scale, especially in the last century B. C. in Rome, must have diminished the numbers desirable. But in spite of this it is clear that we are here again in the presence of examples of decline, at least among the richer classes, owing to the presence of selfishness and luxury; this is certainly the conclusion to which a study of Polybius leads as regards Greece, while the admirable works of Sir Samuel Dill render the position in Rome equally clear.[1482] Our knowledge of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia is insufficient to enable any judgement to be passed on conditions in these countries.

18. Our conclusions, therefore, are broadly as follows. Within the first two periods failure to approach the optimum number is rare. Within the third period departures away from the desirable number are less rare but are usually checked so long as the tone of society remains healthy and vigorous. In an oppressed society over-population not infrequently arises; in a selfish and luxurious society there may at times be under-population.

In the main, changes in numbers come about in response to economic requirements. We should not therefore attribute directly to changes in the quantity of population great historical events. Thus we may agree with Mr. Keynes when he says that ‘some of the catastrophes of past history, which have thrown back human progress for centuries, have been due to the reactions following on the sudden termination, whether in the course of Nature or by the act of man, of temporarily favourable conditions which have permitted the growth of population beyond what could be provided for when the favourable conditions were at an end’.[1483] But we cannot agree when he says that ‘the great events of history are often due to secular changes in the growth of population and other fundamental economic causes, which, escaping by their gradual character the notice of contemporary observers, are attributed to the follies of statesmen or the fanaticism of atheists. Thus the extraordinary occurrences of the past two years in Russia, that vast upheaval of Society, which has overturned what seemed most stable—religion, the basis of property, the ownership of land, as well as forms of government and the hierarchy of classes—may owe more to the deep influences of expanding numbers than to Lenin or Nicholas; and the disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.’[1484] In the first passage it is suggested that consequences of great import may follow when events so derange social organization that the numbers previously maintained cannot be supported. To this we may agree; the attribution of the catastrophe is not directly to changes in numbers. In the second passage it is suggested that national fertility may be so much in excess of requirements as to disrupt social organization. To this we cannot agree. In general increase is in response to economic requirements and, when it is in excess and is not within a reasonable time curbed, the conditions which result are not those which, though they may have important consequences, produce the kind of result here attributed to them.

19. Both war and migration are frequently said to be the consequences of over-population. We may take migration first.

It may be as well to give some typical expressions of this point of view. Mr. Haddon says, ‘when reduced to its simplest terms a migration is caused by an expulsion and an attraction, the former nearly always resulting from a dearth of food or from over-population, which practically comes to the same thing. Sooner or later a time comes when the increase of the population of a country exceeds its normal food-supply.’[1485] In the Report of the National Birth-Rate Commission we read that ‘a pressure of population in any country brings as a chief historic consequence overflows and migrations into neighbouring and other accessible countries’.[1486] Professor Myres, speaking of the Greek migrations of the eighth to the sixth centuries B. C., attributes them to the fact that ‘population had overtaken the means of subsistence’.[1487]

It is not altogether clear what is meant by such statements. Very frequently it seems to be implied that there commonly exists a condition in which there is more than enough food in an area occupied by an existing population, that sooner or later population catches up, so to speak, the food-supply and that migration afterwards follows any further increase of population. We may first look at this point of view. All that has so far been said goes to show that only for very short periods and under very unusual circumstances can there be under any conditions of social organization a state of under-population. Even if we put aside the idea of an optimum number, we must regard the population, which any area is capable of supporting, as strictly limited. Given the vast power of increase that we know always to be present, there cannot commonly be a condition of under-population—a condition, that is to say, in which population has ceased to increase before it was checked by the food limit. For we are not dealing with the spread of population into unoccupied areas; that occurred perhaps before there was any social organization. We are dealing with a period in which all portions of the earth’s surface, relative to the degree of skill attained, had long been fully occupied. Though increase of skill may at times enable regions previously quite infertile to be occupied, this is altogether an exceptional case; increase of skill normally merely allows of an increase of density in the same area. General considerations point to the normal condition being of necessity either one in which population has increased up to the level of subsistence or one in which it has increased to the optimum level, and the evidence presented shows that as a rule some approximation to the latter condition is attained. General considerations on the one hand and the evidence on the other both render wholly unacceptable the idea that commonly there is a condition of under-population which is followed by migration when the pressure due to the catching up of the amount of food available by the increase of population begins to be felt. Further, no support is given to this view by the facts known regarding any particular migration. What evidence is there, with regard to the Greek migrations referred to by Professor Myres, that for some unknown length of time, for some unknown reason, the increase of population had not reached the limit made possible by the food-supply? Unless there is definite evidence of peculiar circumstances in some peculiar combination, such a theory cannot be held to account for migration. The idea of population catching up the means of subsistence and bringing about a crisis followed by migration is the product of an altogether unhistorical view of the matter.[1488]

We do know, indeed, that at times a condition of under-population arises chiefly owing to the irregular action of certain factors of elimination. Disease has been known to remove one-third of the population of a country in two or three years. There does not, however, appear to be a single instance in which migration can be traced to the recovery from such a catastrophe. What appears usually to happen is that there is a certain relaxation of the pressure which before either hindered marriage or caused abortion or infanticide to be practised; population increases until the pressure again makes itself felt. And it may be observed that it is not following upon exceptional conditions such as these that migration is supposed by the authors quoted to take place. It is supposed to take place because not infrequently there is a condition of under-population for which there is in fact no evidence whatever. This view further clearly implies an over-estimate of the relief afforded by migration. The calculations given on a previous page apply here.

The view criticized above is sometimes so expressed as not to lay stress upon under-population as the condition which ultimately gives rise to migration. It is merely asserted that over-population is in some manner the cause of migration, and we may now examine this view. Let us recall what we found to be the condition in those countries in which over-population had undoubtedly occurred. We found the distinguishing feature of the social conditions of those countries to be the absence of hope, of a spirit of enterprise, and of a determination to maintain a standard of living. It most emphatically is not where such conditions are prevalent that migration takes place. All that we know of migration points to precisely the opposite. It is not from countries in the condition of India and China at the present day or of Ireland in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that waves of migration arise. Migrating races exhibit the opposite characters. With them we associate enterprise, hopefulness, courage, and so on. The conclusion cannot on general grounds be doubtful. Migration does not arise where a condition of over-population has come about. Further, if we examine the evidence of particular migration in no case can it be shown that migration has begun as a direct result of those conditions.[1489] It is true that compared with the numerous migrations of which we have knowledge, there are but few cases concerning which we have detailed information of the social conditions. But where this information does exist, in no instance do we find evidence that migration began after a condition of over-population had come about.

It may be that what is implied by those who put forward the view that migration is somehow connected with over-population is somewhat different. It may be implied that migration occurs when what we have called the optimum number has been attained. If our general conclusions on this subject are borne in mind, it is clear that something more than this is required as an explanation. Migration occurs irregularly at long intervals; adjustment of population to some point approximating to the desirable level is always going on. Clearly it cannot be in the ordinary process of adjustment that some impetus to migration occurs; there must be some particular predisposing factor or factors at work. What are these factors? It would seem to rest with those who put forward the theory to show what they are, and this has not been done.

On the other hand, there is another explanation which appears to account at least in part for nearly every migration of which we have some knowledge of the circumstances, and it may be that an explanation on similar lines accounts at least in part for most of the later migrations in history. There is nothing novel in this explanation; it is admitted as an explanation of many migrations by Mr. Haddon.[1490] He admits that many migrations have been undertaken for political or religious reasons and instances the voyage of the _Mayflower_ and the Islamic and Buddhistic movements. That which is common to these explanations is that migration is undertaken in response to some idea. There is no question of over-population at all, and in all those cases in which we have any detailed knowledge of the conditions connected with migration we find that we can point to some idea as the motive force. Why, therefore, when details are not known, should another explanation be sought? It is suggested that essentially the same explanation is the most reasonable explanation of all migrations, at least in historical times. With regard to the earlier movements we find that migrations appear to occur where a high level of skill has been reached in some area. Where races are in contact with others of a markedly lower degree of skill there arises a tendency for the former to eject the latter. The immediate motive is desire to possess their land where the land is fertile relative to the skill of the first mentioned race. Thus the Bantu people have pushed back the Bushmen until the latter were left with regions infertile relatively to the Bantu culture. Throughout human history there must have been this tendency for migrations to follow the great steps in the acquirement of power over nature. But there is no reason to think that, even in early times, migrations only arose as a result of increase of skill. What we know of even the most primitive races, such as the Australians, shows that we can imagine movements to have been initiated quite apart from any differences in skill. The accounts given of the respect in which the older men are held among the Australians renders it possible to understand how an impulse to movement might be initiated by them which, once having taken shape, might have far-reaching consequences. We have further accounts of the existence of a spirit of restlessness among primitive races. This restlessness proves on analysis to be nothing more than the currency of an idea—an idea that some benefit would arise if a movement took place.

We have, however, to remember when dealing with this matter that many if not most of the migrations of pre-history were probably not migrations at all in the usual sense of the term. They are probably better thought of as driftings of people; they may have occupied very long periods of time and have been connected with slow changes in climate. At any one time the movement may have been quite imperceptible, and, when this was so, such driftings are seen clearly enough to have had nothing to do with over-population if the immensity of the power of increase is borne in mind.

Some reference may now be made to the much-discussed theory to the effect that historical migrations are due to climatic changes. Ellsworth Huntington has put forward in a number of publications the view that not only have important climatic changes occurred within the historical period, but that these changes have been what he calls ‘pulsatory’—that is to say, there has been an alteration between humid and arid conditions in many parts of the world.[1491] This view has been contested.[1492] In particular doubt has been cast upon the ‘pulsatory’ nature of such changes as have taken place. Whether this view as to climatic change is correct or not is of no particular importance for our present purpose; for on the one hand it has been shown that certain migrations, particularly those in Central Asia, where the evidence as to the pulsatory nature of the change is said to be most clear, are explicable as due to political changes,[1493] while on the other hand it does not appear to be possible in general to correlate the migrations of history, which are essentially rapid movements, with slow changes of climate. It seems likely that population would adjust itself to slow climatic changes without difficulty or with as little difficulty as it adjusts itself to other changes which alter the optimum density. Extreme climatic changes very slowly brought about, as doubtless took place in pre-history, might result in driftings,[1494] but the less extreme changes in climate during the historical period have in all probability been without any pronounced effect upon movement.

Enough has been said to show that, whereas there is much that can be adduced both on theoretical grounds and after a review of the evidence against the theory attributing migration to over-population, there is much to recommend the extension of the explanation already admitted in many cases. But even if migration is not a result of over-population, it may seriously affect the adjustment of population, once it has been set on foot. And it is to the observation of the secondary disturbing effect of migration on population that we may attribute the error of tracing migration to over-population.

When, however, all allowances are made, the easy manner in which the common theory of migration is assumed to be true and is used by writers of great authority is very surprising. Mr. Hogarth, for instance, in a well-known and very delightful book alluding to the Chaldean or fourth great wave of migration from Arabia, is led to explain all these Arabian migrations as follows: ‘The great Southern Peninsula’, he says, ‘is for the most part a highland steppe endowed with a singularly pure air and an uncontaminated soil. It breeds, consequently, a healthy population whose mortality, compared with its death-rate, is unusually high; but since the peculiar conditions of its surface preclude the development of its internal food-supply beyond a point long ago reached, the surplus population which rapidly accumulates within it is forced from time to time to seek its sustenance elsewhere.’[1495] Let us consider this theory for a moment. To begin with, so far as relatively to the civilizations of the valleys of the Nile and of the Euphrates disease was rare and the death-rate on that account low, so far the position in Arabia merely approximated to that normal among primitive races. Therefore the healthy conditions taken by themselves do not necessarily form an incentive to migration. The remainder of the argument rests upon an over-estimate of the relief afforded either by increased skill or by migration. It is implied by Mr. Hogarth that, could additional skill have been applied to the increase of food, the ‘surplus population’ would have been absorbed; but that it was not so absorbed and found relief in migration. The calculations already given show how illusory is the idea that relief can be thus afforded. In such arguments the strength of human fecundity is always under-estimated. Further the theory assumes a condition of things within Arabia which is very difficult to understand. The Chaldean migration took place about 800 B. C., the third or Aramean, about 1500 B. C., the second or Canaanite, about 2500 B. C., and we may add a fifth or Islamic in the seventh century A. D. The shortest interval between these movements is 800 years. We are asked to suppose that for several hundred years there was an increase of population over and above that which could properly be supported; for evidently it is not supposed that the increases occurred only shortly before the migrations. Now we know that abortion and infanticide were practised regularly in Arabia. The increase therefore must have been small compared with the possible increase, and yet these methods were not according to the theory effective in producing that position which it must be the object of every vigorous society to attain. A very small increase in the degree to which these practices were performed would have brought about this result, and is it not far more reasonable to suppose that an approximation to this desirable position was normally attained rather than to suppose that there was a chronic failure the results of which could only have been socially disastrous?

There are two other considerations which may be adduced in favour of the view here advanced. Migration, in the first place, takes place rather from vigorous communities than from countries where social conditions have long been depressed by over-population. In the second place, the migrations in question are susceptible of another explanation. Regarding the only one of these migrations of which we have detailed knowledge—the Islamic—we know that it was prompted by the currency of an idea, and why should we not assume that the previous migrations were so prompted rather than fall back on the theory of over-population which raises so many difficulties?

20. It has often been said that war is a ‘biological necessity’. ‘Wherever we look in nature’, says General von Bernhardi, ‘we find that war is a fundamental law of development. This great verity, which has been recognized in past ages, has been convincingly demonstrated in modern times by Charles Darwin. He proved that nature is ruled by an unceasing struggle for existence, by the right of the stronger, and that this struggle in its apparent cruelty brings about a selection eliminating the weak and the unwholesome.’[1496] This has been a favourite contention of German publicists.[1497] It is not necessary to show here that such views rest upon a fundamental misunderstanding as to what is implied by the term ‘struggle for existence’. The error has been recently exposed by Mr. Chalmers Mitchell, who in particular has pointed out that there is nothing in the relationship between species in a state of nature which can in any sense be called war and further that modern nations are not units of the same order as species.[1498]

It has also been held that war originates from the necessity for the search for food. ‘La guerre’, said Comte, ‘constitue à l’origine le moyen le plus simple de se procurer les subsistances.’[1499] There is no foundation whatever for this view based either on what we know of species in a state of nature or of the conditions obtaining among primitive races. The same may be said of the theory that ‘eagerness to acquire property was originally the cause and object of war’.[1500]

The idea that over-population is the cause of war is sometimes carried back to some such ‘biological’ origin as that indicated above; in disproof of such views no more need be said. More often we meet with statements such as the following: ‘The population question pushes Germany on. For the most part it is inland peoples that have most severely felt that pressure of a growing population. Islanders and coast dwellers can expand over the seas. But when inland peoples outgrow their bounds, they must burst them.’[1501] Such a statement is a striking example of the over-estimation of the relief afforded by war and by migration and of the under-estimation of the power of fecundity. What has been said above regarding migration is again applicable here.

If our contention that over-population is not the cause of migration is well founded, then the argument that war is also due to over-population falls to the ground. Precisely the same conditions which are supposed to push nations on to fight are also supposed to push them on to migrate. As we shall see later, this by no means implies that questions of population do not at times enter into the situation when war breaks out.

What then is the cause of war? It is probable that the instinct of pugnacity led to fighting when men lived in groups of families—at least between the males for the headship of the family. It is further probable that, as social organization slowly evolved, sporadic fighting of this kind was continued and led to fighting between groups. But in very early times tradition began to overlay and obscure the manifestations of instinct; the manner in which this occurs will form an important part of the discussion in the second part of this book. It is enough to say here that among primitive races tradition can be of such a nature as altogether to overlay the instinct of pugnacity, as among certain peoples, who though not devoid of the instinct scarcely ever fight because of the existence of powerful social conventions and customs inhibiting its expression. Thus, though war may form an outlet for pugnacity, it can no longer be said that it is the direct consequence of pugnacity. War, in fact, gradually becomes a custom. That this is now essentially the nature of war needs no proof. It is obviously at the present day a mode of action whereby the highly organized governments of modern nations try to achieve some political end.[1502]

It has, however, to be remembered that warfare takes a place among the factors of elimination and that the greater the amount of elimination through war, the less need there is for the practices of abortion and infanticide. But this is quite a different thing from saying that warfare results from over-population or from the pressure of population. It merely implies that, given the power of increase, warfare is a factor which may perform to a small degree the elimination necessary in order that numbers should not exceed the desirable limit and is therefore tolerated—other things being equal—as a factor in social life by the natural selection of customs.

It has nevertheless to be allowed that, when war breaks out, the position as regards population may form an element in the situation—just as the passions which have been aroused may do so though they cannot be regarded as the cause of modern war. Let us consider the late war. Broadly speaking in all European countries increase in population was in response to economic requirements. Yet there were what we have called minor fluctuations away from the desirable economic density. France and Germany represented two opposite tendencies—towards under- and over-population respectively. These relatively slight differences were greatly exaggerated in popular opinion owing to the attention paid to the birth-rate. The Germans were thinking and talking of expansion whereas the French were stay-at-home people. The Germans looked across the frontier and thought they saw a half-empty country which they could well develop with their ‘surplus’ population, while the French thought they saw a teeming population ready to burst its bonds and overwhelm them. Again, as between England and Germany it appeared to many Germans that, while Germany had little or no opportunity of expansion, Great Britain had owing to her overseas dominions ample opportunity. But increase is governed by the conditions within a country, and the fact that emigration from Great Britain to Greater Britain was possible did not enter into the situation as regards the control of increase in Great Britain; very many people in this country, however, as well as in Germany, if they did not actually think that it did so, at least held opinions which were in fact founded upon this supposition. Thus though in actual fact England broadly speaking restricted her population as did Germany in accordance with the economic situation within the country, yet the position of England with reference to Greater Britain had an influence upon the situation, and many Germans thought that unless there was an outlet for ‘surplus population’ Germany would eventually be over-populated, whereas the fact is that, as we have seen, so long as conditions remain healthy in a country, over-population does not arise.[1503]

This subject could be elaborated at great length. Upon analysis it would always be found that, though certain aspects of the population problem and certain mistaken views of the position may and do predispose nations and governments towards war, it is not true strictly speaking to say that the population question is in any sense a cause of war. War has now merely become a mode of action whereby an organized state tries to achieve certain political ends. It is within the power of mankind to renounce this mode of action. There is nothing in the nature of man or of social organization which renders war inevitable. ‘Dieu ne leur a donné ni des canons de vingt-quatre ni des baïonnettes, et ils se sont fait des baïonnettes et des canons pour se détruire.’[1504]

XII SOME MODERN PROBLEMS

1. The present period, which may be dated from 1760 in England and from rather a later date in most European countries, has been marked by an unparalleled increase of population. The rate of increase has for some years been slowing down. This outburst of population is sometimes referred to as though there was something mysterious about it. It was, in fact, merely the response to increase in skill, and similarly the declining birth-rate is, at least for the most part, merely the response to the fact that skill is no longer increasing so fast.[1505] The fact that the upper social classes began to restrict their increase before the lower social classes is partly due to the fact that they are more sensitive to economic requirements. This point is almost always overlooked in discussions of the question of differential fertility, and when forming any judgement on this subject the possible loss in quality has—though it is a very difficult problem—to be balanced against the gain in arriving at an adjustment of quantity. There may be more to be said for Mill’s opinion quoted on a previous page than most eugenists would be willing to admit.

Before we go on to notice some of the many problems that arise, something may be said as to the future. So deeply have men been impressed by this increase that the most pessimistic prophecies have been published as to the fate in store for the human race. Numerous calculations have been made to show that within a certain length of time there will only be standing room. Mr. Knibbs has calculated that, if the rate of increase of the population of the world obtaining in the five years preceding 1911 was to be continued, there would in 500 years be 246,114 millions. He is appalled by the prospect. ‘No artifices of cultivation,’ he says, ‘nor any possible diminutions of human stature, so as to decrease the necessary quantity of food per person, can possibly relieve the gravity of the situation. In no case can the increase of 1 per cent. per annum be maintained for five centuries.’[1506] This pessimism is baseless; he appears to regard increase as something inevitable that cannot be stopped—forgetting that throughout the greater part of human history numbers have been for all practical purposes stationary, and that increase only exceptionally outruns economic requirements.[1507] There is no room, it is true, for mere complacency. Though the desirable density may as a rule result from economic pressure without conscious effort, it does not follow that it would not be better if adjustment was consciously brought about. And it may be that if and when men begin consciously to adjust numbers, they may have to take some criterion other than the economic into account. To this point we may now turn.

2. So far we have proceeded on the assumption that the only criterion was the economic criterion—that the only test whereby the desirable number might be ascertained was the test founded on the average income per head. There does not seem to be any reason for supposing that there is any limit to the increase of skill in the production of food, and that therefore there is any limit to the desirable number so long as the criterion remains economic. This suggests that at some point mankind will have to introduce another method of estimating what density is desirable, as it is clear that the economic advantages of increase somewhere come into conflict with other ideals as to desirable social conditions. In other words, at some point a larger income would not be worth having if it necessitated too large a population.

It would require a lengthy discussion of many points and the weighing up of many factors before it would be possible to come to any definite conclusion on this subject. It may be observed that there are those who with some apparent reason doubt whether, taking the broadest view of human welfare, a denser population than that now existing in Belgium can be thought desirable. It also seems reasonable to hold that our great cities, and in particular London, have passed the limit that allows of the development of the most healthy social conditions. It is a matter of doubt whether such agglomerations of population are or will remain necessary even if the total population of the country was to increase. There are two considerations which are relevant here. First it may be objected that in spite of the high average density of population in this and other countries, it is still easy to find large areas which are sparsely populated, and that their existence shows that there can be as yet no question of overcrowding beyond what is the socially desirable limit. But it must be remembered that the great mass of the population scarcely ever moves out of the densely populated areas, and that if they attempted to get out into the country, if only for holidays—as with increased leisure and higher incomes they will soon attempt to do—there would soon be little left of the solitude which can now be easily found.

The other consideration that is very relevant in this connexion is the average income per head. ‘Before the war’, says Professor Bowley, ‘the home income would not have yielded more than £230 gross annually per family of five, or £170 net after all rates and taxes were paid and an adequate sum invested in home industries.’[1508] No one can regard this position as satisfactory. On all hands it is agreed that it must be increased even by those who with justice insist upon the fact that any general improvement must be accompanied by a decrease in the emphasis now laid upon material comfort. Income can, of course, be increased without increasing population, but probably it cannot be increased so fast.

3. There are at least two other points of view from which the density desirable may be considered. England, for instance, is in a peculiar position with regard to her food-supply, a fraction only of which is produced in the country while the rest is imported. Only by this method can England maintain her present population. How far in the case of war, or in a lesser degree in the case of social or economic disturbances elsewhere, such a position is compatible with national safety is certainly a matter for careful consideration. It seems scarcely likely that the decision would ever be taken to limit population on this account alone in view of the economic sacrifices which it would entail.

In addition to treating the question as it affects safety in the sense just alluded to, it may also be treated from the purely military point of view. The desire for a dense population so frequently expressed from the sixteenth century onwards, as noted in the first chapter, is largely based on the fact that the larger the population the more potential soldiers there are. Harrison, for instance, wrote as follows: ‘Some also do grudge at the great increase of people in these days thinking a necessary brood of cattle far better than a superfluous augmentation of mankind. But if it should come to pass that any foreign invasion should be made, which the Lord God forbid for his mercy’s sake, then should these men find that a wall of men is far better than stacks of corn and bags of money, and complain of the want when it is too late to seek the remedy.’[1509] This attitude was especially noticeable in Germany before the war. A German author comments on the ‘mad craze for numbers’, and goes on to add that ‘at the back is rather the desire, which I admit is often vague, for as many soldiers as possible’.[1510] It is by no means absent in England. In the second Report of the National Birth-Rate Commission we read as follows: ‘But in the event of a war similar to that which we have just experienced, what would happen to us with a greatly reduced birth-rate? Surely all we have would be taken, and we must become slaves—as we should be to-day if we had entered on the struggle with Germany without adequate man-power. Moreover what would happen to our Empire?’[1511] It may be doubted whether there has been produced by such considerations in recent times even in Germany any effect upon numbers; probably economic forces have overruled such considerations altogether. It is possible that they may have had some influence upon military nations in earlier days. It is to be imagined and certainly to be hoped that they will not mould views on this subject in future.

4. As has been indicated, such departures as there are among European nations at the present day from the desirable density are of the nature of minor fluctuations. Europe is not from the point of view of productiveness over-populated (or was not in 1914; it is very difficult to sum up the position in this respect since the loss of capital owing to the war). There is no ground for the pessimism of Sir Thomas Holdich, who says that ‘Asia affords no asylum for overcrowded Europe’.[1512]

It may be observed that the phenomenon of unemployment as generally seen in industrial countries is not evidence of over-population. It has been shown by Beveridge that unemployment, such as now occurs in England, is in no way connected with over-population. It is due to certain maladjustments in the industrial system, such as the decay of industries, the seasonal and cyclical fluctuations of trade, and the position as to the normal reserve of labour. The industrial system so functions that, unless special measures are adopted, there is always a certain amount of unemployment. Unemployment is thus ‘a problem of industry’ as Beveridge has called it.[1513] It may also be observed that the remarkable differences in the return per head as between different countries are in any case very largely due to the amount of skill employed and not to the nearness of approximation to the desirable number.[1514]

At any given time in any nation it is desirable either that population should be stable or that there should be a certain ratio of increase. It is clear that increase may be brought about under many different conditions. A high birth-rate and a high death-rate may give the same ratio of increase as a low birth-rate and a low death-rate. These conditions have been much studied; the consideration of them falls outside this book. But we may note that, as far as numbers and the direct effect of the environment are concerned, but not necessarily so far as quality is concerned, a low birth-rate and a low death-rate represent more healthy conditions than a high birth-rate and a high death-rate. There is a certain correlation between the birth-rate and the death-rate, though it is often exaggerated. In Japan, for instance, there has recently been a tendency towards a decrease in the birth-rate and an increase in the death-rate. It is necessary to beware of those sweeping generalizations which assert that a high birth-rate means a high death-rate and vice versa. It may also be noted that the decrease in the birth-rate has been attained in different European countries in very different ways. Thus, whereas in England the decrease has been general throughout the country, in Germany it has been almost entirely confined to the towns.[1515]

Here, however, the discussion is limited to general principles; problems of this nature cannot be further inquired into. We have already noted that minor fluctuations in the nearness of approach to the optimum number as between neighbouring countries may increase, if it does not give rise to, friction between them. We may further note here that such consequences only follow when there are differences of nationality involved. When within an area inhabited by one nationality some part of it is becoming under-populated—say the urban districts—population flows in from other districts and in this case from the country. But when one country is tending towards under-population and a neighbouring country towards over-population, there is but little flow of population and but little adjustment. Various difficulties, some legal, others sentimental, check the movement towards the less fully populated country. Nevertheless, there is some movement. Thus there were resident in France in 1911 1,132,696 foreigners.[1516] But this immigration only went a little way towards bringing up the population towards the level which was apparently economically desirable, and there thus arose a position which aggravated the tension between France and Germany.

There are certain ‘new’ countries where curious conditions obtain. Their position cannot be judged in the same manner as can that of a country which has long been settled. The occupation of such countries can only proceed at a certain pace, and if it went more quickly we should have a peculiar condition of relative over-population. There is reason to think that population in many of these countries has not grown as quickly as it might have done, and that there is, in fact, a condition of relative under-population.

5. This leads us to refer to the methods of limiting increase in use at the present day. It is clear that some methods are necessary. Even if it should be thought advisable that population should increase, it cannot possibly be desirable that it should increase as fast as is possible. It therefore falls to those who disapprove of certain methods to suggest others. This problem is seldom faced by those who would dissuade men and women from certain practices. The attempt to advise in these matters without regarding the problem as a whole is strongly to be deprecated.[1517]

Abortion is condemned on every hand, and we are thus left with postponement of marriage, restriction of intercourse between married persons, and the use of contraceptive methods as the means of bringing about the limitation of families. There is much to be said for the postponement of marriage for a certain period after the age of puberty. That education should be completed, and that a certain experience of life should be gained, before the choice of a partner is made and the responsibilities of setting up a home are undertaken, are obviously desirable. In order, however, that postponement of marriage should be effective, it would require that the average age at marriage should be so late as to produce many undesirable consequences. It seems certain that, not only under present conditions, but under almost any conditions of social life that we can picture, late marriage must be accompanied by a system of prostitution and irregular sexual habits which nearly every one agrees in deploring. Apart from this almost overwhelming argument against late marriages, there are many other objections. It is not a good thing on the whole for children that their parents, should be beyond a certain age.[1518] Much can be urged with force against late marriage on the lines that after a certain age the outlook and habits of celibates so change as to render them less fitted to bring up a family. As few will be found to advocate late marriage as the only method, we may leave the matter at this point.

With regard to restriction of intercourse, the most important question is whether it can possibly be effective. Very serious doubts arise on this account when it is proposed to rely on this method alone. Late marriage might be in practice effective because sexual desire would find its satisfaction apart from marriage. Abstention from intercourse implies that sexual desire will not find its satisfaction; on this account it is likely that it can only be effective when accompanied by a system of prostitution that we have already agreed to regard as undesirable. Apart from this there are strong arguments against this method founded on the undesirable psychological results of abstention. It is in fact perhaps scarcely possible to think of a marriage system as satisfactory in which what we must regard as the physical object of marriage is not realized.

We are thus led to speak of the use of contraceptive methods and we may glance at two sides of the matter—ethical and physiological. It is a notable fact that all religious bodies, so far as their opinions can be discovered, are strongly opposed to this method.[1519] This objection is founded upon many considerations, of which the most striking is perhaps that the method allows of, or rather that it encourages, self-indulgence. Those whose attention has been drawn to the problem of the causes of the progress and decay of civilization will not fail to feel the force of any argument against the spread of habits which encourage self-indulgence. But it may be suggested that the normal exercise of any physical function can scarcely be called self-indulgence. There is a mean in the satisfaction of physical appetites, on the one side of which is self-indulgence and on the other side asceticism. It is a question whether those who disapprove of these methods because they encourage self-indulgence are not in fact demanding an ascetic life. As a form of self-discipline there may be much to recommend ascetic practices, but that is another matter. The fact is that in the use of these methods there is nothing which necessarily encourages self-indulgence. They make it possible to exercise a normal function; they do not necessarily lead to its over-use. This would seem to be without doubt the most tangible objection to these methods. The other objections are on the whole rather of a religious than of an ethical nature, and as such fall outside the scope of this book.[1520]

In addition to the ethical there is the physiological aspect of the matter. There are several different methods employed to prevent conception. It is a matter of great importance to know which of them can be employed without causing ill health. With regard to this little is known and opinions vary. More than this need not be said.

It is no part of the object of this book to advocate any particular methods;[1521] it is only intended here to show what problems arise at the present day from the quantitative aspect of the whole matter. It may be suggested that upon the question of the methods of limiting population it is desirable that there should be some consensus of opinion. Man has not only to settle how far he is going to limit population, but how he is going to do it.

6. We may now glance at certain questions which if they are to be referred to at all in this part of the book are most easily introduced here. These questions are not directly concerned with the quantitative aspect of the problem; their importance lies chiefly in their bearing upon the qualitative aspect.

It is a familiar fact that at the present day the birth-rate is higher among certain sections of the population than among others. There is reason to believe that this was also the case in some of the older civilizations—notably in Rome. We may first look at the facts and afterwards at the causes. Many investigations have shown that there is a higher fertility among the lower social grades. Heron found that there is a high average correlation between the birth-rate and conditions which indicate a lower social grade, such as the number of pawnbrokers per 1,000 inhabitants, the amount of child employment, pauperism, overcrowding, and other indications of poverty and lack of culture.[1522] Whether a differential birth-rate results or not in a differential contribution to the next generation depends on whether there is a differential survival rate, and if so, whether it compensates for or not the differences in the birth-rate. The following extract from the Report of the National Birth-Rate Commission throws light upon this point. Using material provided by the Registrar-General for England and Wales giving the births for 1911 classified according to the occupation of the father, the following is the position:

‘Classifying into groups arranged in descending order of social grade we have:

_Social Class._ _Births per 1,000 married males aged under 55 years._ Upper and middle classes 119 Intermediate 132 Skilled workmen 153 Intermediate 158 Unskilled workmen 213

‘The rate of mortality in the first year of life is also provided in these groups, and follows the same order, viz. 76·4, 106·4, 112·7, 121·5, 152·5. If, however, we multiply the birth-rate by the difference between unity and the proportion of deaths, i. e. the proportion of survivals in the first year, the resulting effective birth-rates are still in the same order, viz. 110, 118, 136, 139, 181, after the hazards of the first twelve months have passed. We must conclude, therefore, that the initially higher birth-rate of the lower classes is not so reduced by heavier infant mortality that their effective birth-rates are brought into approximate equality with those of the wealthier classes. We have no material allowing us to extend the comparison to later years of life; but equally we have no reason to suppose that such an extension would change the order.’[1523]

All available evidence goes to support this conclusion, namely, that the higher the social status the lower is the fertility, and that this initial difference is not removed by subsequent differential mortality. This is apparently true not only for England but also for other countries in which the economic situation is similar, and is a relatively recent phenomenon.[1524]

7. In looking for the causes of this differential increase as between various sections of the population, we have to remember that, in accordance with what has been said in the last chapter, we suppose the position in regard to population in the nation as a whole to be ruled by economic factors. If there is an increase, then we suppose that increase to be somewhere about that which the economic situation demands in order that the greatest income per head should be gained. It follows that generally speaking the conditions we find among the mass of the industrial population excluding the lowest class approximate to those which are demanded; but it is possible that, just as the increase among the lowest class is excessive, so the increase among the higher social class may be too small judging from the economic standpoint. We have here to ask what factors there are which bring about a lower fertility among the upper classes, recollecting that this low fertility may not be wholly due to an approximation to economic requirements, but may represent a failure in adjusting increase to the economic situation.

Among the factors which bring about a low fertility in these classes, those connected with differences in education and the age at which the maximum income is obtained are the most important. Education is continued in these classes up to an age at which men in the industrial classes are earning almost the maximum wage to which they will ever attain. Even when education in the ordinary sense of the word is finished, there usually follows a period when the salary gained is low, or when perhaps a premium has to be paid in order to obtain a start in whatever profession is chosen. Doctors and barristers seldom begin to earn until some years after their education is complete. Further, when they do begin to earn, the income is often for many years low, and may in some cases not reach the maximum until late in life. Among the industrial population conditions are wholly different, and the maximum rate of wages is soon reached. Whatever forces, therefore, may be playing upon the industrial population, there are in addition the above forces playing upon the professional classes which account for the lower rate of increase among them.

There are also many other factors at work in the same direction. In the life led by the upper social classes there are more numerous ways in which the desire for relaxation, change, and pleasure may find satisfaction than among the lower classes. Life is in many ways more varied. This has an influence upon fertility in two ways. When a marriage takes place among the upper social classes it involves to a far more considerable extent than among the lower classes a renunciation of much that has given pleasure hitherto. When a man marries and ‘settles down’ he gives up, as a rule, many activities from which he had derived pleasure before. Further, after marriage the possibility of indulging in many of the pleasures which this varied life offers is often incompatible with the bringing up of a family. Children are often in the way. Again, though children are no longer the economic asset among the lower classes which they were before the passing of the Factory Acts, the possession of children is generally looked upon among those classes as a support in old age when the power of earning has gone. Children, on the other hand, among the upper classes have rather to be provided for, and in any case are seldom regarded as a support.[1525]

Very many other factors might be mentioned, but enough has been said to show how in the main the different fertilities may be explained. The insufficient income of many of the less well-paid groups of the higher classes is often alleged as a cause of low fertility. This view is well founded when, as often occurs, social conventions force a so-called higher standard of living upon them—a standard which merely involves the expenditure of more money than among the industrial classes in preserving appearances without adding to welfare. When, however, this is extended to classes in which income has reached, say, between £600 and £1,000 a year, it cannot be allowed that income is truly insufficient. It is in such cases only insufficient when more than is reasonable is expended in the way of material satisfaction. A man cannot be heard to say that he cannot afford a large family as otherwise he will not be able to keep a motor-car—so long, that is to say, as the motor-car is not necessary to his profession.

7. This differential fertility occurs in countries where the population is less homogeneous than in England, and thus assumes importance in another aspect. For whether we assume the differences between the elements in the population to be due to inherited characters or to varying social traditions—a question to be discussed later—a change in the proportion of the different elements will be of great importance. According to Hill, who has investigated this matter in America, the percentage of white women of native parentage under 45 years of age bearing no children is 13·1, while the percentage of foreign women is 5·7. The average number of children for white married women of native parentage is 2·7, and for similar women of foreign parentage 4·4. Among the foreign women the average number of children for a married English woman is 3·4, for a German 4·3, for an Italian 4·9, for a Pole 6·2.[1526] The above is only one example of conditions which obtain in many countries raising difficult problems.

The same problem arises in an even more important form when there are in the same country races as different as the white and the negro. In the United States and in South Africa the problem assumes greater importance than elsewhere. In the latter country the negroes are increasing faster than the white element of the population. In America this has not been the case in the last hundred years; but the fact that the white element has maintained its relative position is due to the fact that in addition to the increase in the native-born white population there has been an increase due to immigration.[1527]

8. The question of the relative rate of increase of the population of different countries is a somewhat different matter. It is due to many factors, one of the less important of which is that the population of various countries does not approach equally closely to the number desirable in each country. The chief factor is the variation in the arts of production in use in each country. It is only an extension of this fact that the natural resources of different countries have been more exploited in some cases than in others. In Russia the arts of production in use are less advanced than in more western countries. The introduction of western methods into such a country enables a rapid increase of population to take place. During the same period the increase can only be slow in countries which already use these methods, and thus, so long as the knowledge of the arts of production is not equal in all countries, different rates of increase are liable to arise when knowledge spreads into a more backward country.[1528]

Such changes are altering the composition of the population of the world. The following figures have been given for Europe. Out of 1,000 inhabitants there were in the years named the following proportion of Teutonic, Romance, and Slav elements:

1801 1850 1905 Teutonic 375 369 273 Romance 355 321 251 Slav 268 310 375

XIII THE QUALITATIVE PROBLEM

We now approach the second part of the problem, and turn from a consideration of the quantity to a consideration of the quality of the population. In the second and third chapters we found that reproduction was a necessity, and that to the fact of reproduction can be traced the origin of problems both of quantity and of quality. In the third chapter we further found that the position of animals and plants in a state of nature as regards problems of quality was in its broadest aspect simple. The changes in the forms of organisms, which, when viewed as a whole, we call evolution, are due to changes in the physical basis from which new generations arise. The long procession of organisms, usually of increasing complexity, from the simplest type to the immediate ancestor of rational man, thus owes its being to a long procession of changes in the germ-cells.

When treating of the quantitative problem among men, we considered a large amount of evidence which bears also upon quality, and this evidence, supplemented as and where necessary, will enable us to make some estimate of the importance of qualitative changes among men. This is the object of the remaining chapters. We have to try and estimate how far human history is comparable with changes among species in a state of nature—is due, in other words, to germinal changes. There are two other possible causes of change among men—the direct influence of the environment and the influence of tradition—and in order to estimate the importance of germinal change, it will be necessary also to consider what importance is attributable to these two factors. To one of them—namely to tradition—we shall find reason to attribute great importance. Tradition, in fact, comes ultimately to be of more importance than germinal change among the underlying causes of history. But tradition is profoundly influenced by the quantity of population among other factors, and, therefore, to the extent to which this is so, the determining factor in human history is still bound up with the population problem. As history ceases to be strictly correlated with changes in quality, it comes to be influenced by a factor the nature and strength of which is largely determined by the quantity of population. Thus the two aspects of the whole problem are linked together in the case of man in a manner that does not obtain among species in a state of nature.

The attempt to deal with this problem will be undertaken in the following manner. In Chapter III reference was made to the influence of the environment upon growth and upon the adult form. In Chapter XIV this subject will be developed so far as species in a state of nature are concerned, and the results of the inquiry will be applied to man in