i. 101, 123, 211), along with flint doubtless (but this was common

throughout the bronze age, as Sir John himself admits), at an early period;--and bronze, though comparatively rare, yet exists among the very early Assyrian remains--there seems no good reason to suppose that the knowledge of metals, which we know (Gen. iv. 22) to have existed before the Deluge, and which the construction of the ark presupposes, was ever lost.

A stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to all mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the testimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only partially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional knowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I may at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor Rawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of history: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the geological or palæontological argument override it? Is not history supreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect consistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should have a right to expect? "Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum" (Eccles. iii. 11).

[242] Wilson ("Archæologia of Scotland," 360) says, "But after all it is to Asia we are forced to return for the _true source of nearly all our primitive arts_, nor will the canons of archæology be established on a safe foundation till the antiquities of that older continent have been explored and classified." Not only bronze but iron has been found in the East in use at an early period (_vide_ Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," 178-9, 194). At Nimroud, Dr Percy (_id._ 670) says the iron was used to economise the bronze; if so it must have been cheaper, and therefore probably more abundant; and he is of opinion that "iron was more extensively used by the ancients than seems to be generally admitted." Philology seems also to establish an early common knowledge, and subsequent tradition of the use of metals. Mr Max Müller (ii. 45) says, "That the value and usefulness of some of the metals was known before the separation of the Aryan race can be proved only by a few words; for the names of most of the metals differ in different countries. Yet there can be no doubt that iron was known, and its value appreciated, whether for defence or attack. Whatever its old Aryan name may have been, it is clear that Sanscrit 'ayas,' Latin 'ahes,' in 'ahencus' and even the contracted form 'æs, æris'; the Gothic 'ais,' the old German 'er,' and the English iron, are names cast in the same mould, and only slightly corroded even now by the rust of so many centuries." The Swedish Gothic race had no tradition but of weapons of iron. (Professor Nillson's "Stone Age," p. 192.) I find in Captain Cook's Voyages that in Otaheite their word for iron is "eure-eure." Germans (_apud_ Tacitus) called their iron lances "framea," which has great resemblance to _ferrum_. (_Vide_ Wilson, 195.) The following passage from Wilson's "Archæologia" seems to prove this common terminology still more extensively--"The Saxon 'gold' differs not more essentially from the Greek '[Greek: chrysos]' than from the Latin 'aurum'; iron from '[Greek: sideros]' or 'ferrum'; _but_ when we come to examine the Celtic names of the metals it is otherwise. The Celtic terms are: Gold: Gael, 'or,' golden, 'orail'; Welsh, 'aur'; Latin, ' aurum.' Silver: Gael, 'airgiod,' made of silver, 'airgiodach'; Welsh, 'ariant'; Latin, 'argentum'--derived in the Celtic from 'arg,' white, or milk, like the Greek '[Greek: argos],' whence they also formed their '[Greek: argyros].' Now, is it improbable that the Latin 'ferrum' and the English 'iron' spring indirectly from the same Celtic root? Gael, '_iarunn_'; Welsh, '_haiarn_'; Saxon, iron; Danish, 'iern'; Spanish, 'hierro,' which last furnishes no remote approximation to 'ferrum.' Nor with the older metals is it greatly different, as bronze, Gael, 'umha' or '_prais_'; Welsh, 'pres,' whence our English 'brass,' a name bearing no very indistinct resemblance to the Roman 'æs.' Lead in like manner has its peculiar Gaelic name 'luaidha,' like the Saxon 'læd' (lead), while the Welsh 'plwm' closely approximates to the Latin 'plumbum.' It may undoubtedly be argued that the Latin is the root instead of the offshoot of these Celtic names, but the entire archæological proofs are opposed to this idea," p. 350.

Sir J. Lubbock, "Pre-historic Times" (p. 372) says, "The tools of the Tahitians when first discovered were made of stone, bone, shell, or wood. Of metal they had no idea. When they first obtained nails they mistook them for the young shoots of some very hard wood, and hoping that life might not be quite extinct, planted a number of them carefully in their gardens."

Captain Wallis, however, speaking of the islands within the Polynesian group, remarks "as an extraordinary circumstance that although no sort of metal was seen on any of the lately discovered islands, yet the nations were no sooner possessed of a piece of _iron_, than they began to _sharpen it_, but did not treat copper or brass in the same manner."--"Voyages of English Navigators round the World," iii. 108.

Would not these different appreciations of iron and brass be accounted for if we suppose iron to be the _last_ metal they had been traditionally acquainted with? iron being the more common and inexpensive metal.

Now, secondly, as it happens that bronze is only a combination of copper and tin in certain proportions, and as neither existed on the spot (in the Mesopotamian valley), it is a curious question how they could have hit upon the discovery through actual experiment. Tin, for instance, is only found in Cornwall, Banca (between Sumatra and Borneo), Spain, Saxony, and Siberia. Now, how did it enter the heads of even these wise Chaldæans to go to these distant countries in search of this metal unless they knew beforehand through tradition, that if procured along with copper it would produce the useful amalgam they sought? True, it might have been brought to them through commerce, but in that case there must have been some other race more advanced in civilisation than themselves. If the Phoenicians, much the same argument will recur. If some race in the countries where tin was procured, where is it now? If it exists it must be represented by some race at present or historically known to have been in a state of barbarism. This, however, at this stage of the argument, would be too precipitate an admission of degeneracy!

Now, in a certain modified sense, I should be quite prepared to admit a stone age. Nothing more probable than that in the dispersion certain families would have taken only what came readiest to hand. Those who made long marches, and came to countries where minerals were scarce, would have been in the way of losing the knowledge of metals altogether, except in so far as they preserved the tradition of them; and this would much depend upon how far they preserved other traditions.[243] Some instance should be given us--and as there are savages who are still using nothing but flint, there is still the chance--of some set of savages who have spontaneously hit upon the plan of fusing different metals, or even of smelting metals which were under their eye? Certainly not our supposed flint ancestors, who, as Professor Nillson and Sir J. Lubbock agree, must have got their knowledge of bronze from Asia: Sir J. Lubbock inclining to an Indo-European, Professor Nillson to a Phoenician "origin of the bronze age civilisation." ("Pre-historic Times," p. 49.) All this perfectly coincides with the view I have indicated, that the contrast arose through the divergence of the lines of the dispersion, leading the tribes to varied fortunes, some losing and others retaining the tradition; and those who retained it eventually communicating it to those who had lapsed. But then there are those unfortunate Bashkirs, who, Professor Nillson tells us, are still in their stone age, and who have remained Bashkirs since Herodotus described them as such 2300 years ago. As they have resisted the contact of civilisation so long, one can only watch with careful curiosity the transitionary process by which they will pass by internal development from their stone to their bronze age.[244]

[243] "Mr Vaux of the British Museum has added the following interesting note on the metallurgy of the ancients. 1st, The earliest form of metal work appears to have been employed in the ornamentation of sacred vessels for temples, &c.... Occasionally the floor or foundation of some temples was of brass: thus [Greek: chalkeos oudos] (Soph. OEd. Col.), perhaps like the room at Delphi called [Greek: laïnos oudos], itself also a treasury."--Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," p. 673.

Boulanger, "L'antiquité dévoilée par ses usage," (iii. 359), says, "Ce sont les mystères qui out tiré les hommes de la vie sauvage pour les ramener à la vie sociale et policée. Ces mystères étoient un composé de cérémonies religieuses ... _leur origine remonte_ au temps des héros et des demi-dieux."

[244] "Of all the different phases of civilisation, those which a nation _must pass_ before it attains the highest grade of development, the first rude state is the most enduring and the most difficult to get over."--Professor Nillson's "Stone Age," 191.

"The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the _sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_ knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision, and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human sacrifice."--Wilson's "Archæologia," p. 29.

I must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion, viz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition.

Sir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of the stone and bronze age, "because the use of metals has in all cases preceded that of writing." I should like to know whether Sir John is prepared to adhere to this "dictum" under all circumstances, inasmuch as, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria even beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to have found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) "in the ruins of Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech" (the city of Nimrod) we find inscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus, who, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession from Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), "accords very curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions." There is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were the first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find bricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their previous use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's "dictum," finding evidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that the use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven reigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod.

[245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it merely by scientific induction.

Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's "Stone Age" (which is a summary of the whole question), "I have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious to show_ that in archæology we can arrive at definite and satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any assistance from history; consequently regarding times before writing was invented, and therefore before written history had commenced" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.

"Nor," says Sir J. Lubbock (p. 335), "will tradition supply the place of history. At best it is untrustworthy and shortlived. Thus in 1770 the New Zealanders had no recollection of Tasman's visit. Yet this took place in 1643, less than one hundred and thirty years before, and must have been to them an event of the greatest possible importance and interest.... I do not mean to say that tradition would never preserve for a long period the memory of any remarkable event. The above-mentioned facts (De Soto's expedition is also referred to) prove only that it will not always do so; but it is unnecessary for us to discuss this question, as there is in Europe no tradition of the Stone Age, and when arrow-heads are found the ignorant peasantry refer them to the elves or fairies; stone axes are regarded as thunderbolts, and are used not only in Europe but also in various other parts of the world for magical purposes" (p. 336).

_"Relieved" then_ "from _the embarrassing interference of tradition_, the archæologist can only follow the methods which have been so successfully pursued in geology" (p. 336).[246]

This is partly a limitation of the question to oral tradition, and partly an anticipated denial of what I shall now venture to assert, namely, that we can only look for the savages' traditions of things known to them before they were savages, religious impressions which have not been effaced from their minds, legends connected with their race, facts which have determined their destiny. The very characteristic of the savage is that he lives only for the present; that he has little memory for the past, and no forecast for the future; that his mind is stricken with a hopeless sterility and fixedness, so that he only seems to remember things that are bred in the bone, and the tradition of which he cannot divest himself.[247]

[246] "It must not be forgot to the honour of the Babylonians that they are acknowledged, by all antiquity, to have been the first who made use of writing in their public and judicial acts, but at what period it is not known."--Goguet, "Origin of Laws," i. 45.

Diodorus, however, says of the Egyptians (_vide_ p. 48), "_Menes_ without doubt has been esteemed the first legislator of Egypt, _because_ he was the first who put his _laws in writing_. For before him Vulcan, Helius, and Osiris (_vide ante_, p. 189) had given laws to Egypt."--Diod. l. 1, 17-18.

But also it must be recollected that the copper mines of Egypt were worked from the earliest period.

[247] But there are savages and savages; or rather there are savages who are strictly such, and savages who have still the germ of life and who are more properly distinguished as barbarians. _Vide ante_, p. 285, De Maistre's definition of the barbarian.

And so the ignorant peasantry when these flints were first dug up, although they had "no tradition," rushed instinctively upon these hatchets and considered them magical, apparently on no better grounds than that they had belonged to a former race of men whom they associated with elves and fairies. Was not this their way of saying with Cicero, "Antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos."[248]

[248] I find curious testimony to the belief in M. Maupertius' (Pinkerton, i. 252-4) account of an expedition of thirty leagues which he was induced to make into the interior of Lapland, by the accounts which he had received of a monument which the Laplanders "looked upon as the wonder of their country, and in which they conceived was _contained the knowledge of everything_ of which they were ignorant." In the end a monument was found bearing on it the appearance of great antiquity, and an inscription which M. Celsius, his companion ("very well acquainted with the Runic"), could not read. M. Maupertius indeed says, "If the tradition of the country be consulted, all the Laplanders assure us that they are characters of great antiquity, containing valuable secrets; but what can one believe in regard to antiquity from those people who do not even know their own age, and who for the greater part are ignorant who were their mothers." Without supposing that the mysterious stone actually concealed any valuable and recondite knowledge, I am still struck by this attestation to the belief that antiquity shrouded such secrets; and if, which does not altogether accord with other accounts, the Lapps are as ignorant as they are here represented, then it would seem to be true that when mankind lose the knowledge of everything else, they still retain the tradition of their loss and the knowledge of their degradation. Concerning the superstitious veneration for stone arrow-heads very generally diffused, _vide_ Mr E. T. Stevens' "Flint Chips" (Salisbury, 1870, p. 89.)

And so far from tradition supplying us with no clue to solve the problem of the stone age, does it not in this way suggest a very decided though an antagonistic view to that of Sir John Lubbock. The superstitious regard of the peasantry for these newly found relics--which I presume came under Sir John's own observation when exploring the northern coast-finds--is really very curious, because it shows that their ideas and feelings in these matters were, after the lapse of at any rate a thousand years, identical with those of their ancestors. In evidence of which I adduce the following passage from Professor Nillson, having reference to the legend of the "guse arrows" or "Orvar Odd's saga":--

"This ancient romance shows very clearly that at the time when it was composed, neither arrows, nor other weapons of stone were in common use as weapons, but _that even then_ the opinion was _generally current_ that these stone weapons, which owed their existence to the dwarf race skilled in sorcery, were endowed with a magic power against witches and witchcraft which no other weapons possessed."--Professor Nillson, "Stone Age," p. 199.

But this suggests the further reflection, whether this stone age among certain tribes was not as much in rejection as in ignorance of metals. Professor Nillson (p. 97, 98) shows that flint was used for _sacred_ sacrificial purposes by the Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Latins, long after they were acquainted with weapons of metal. Among these the traditional idea about flint, whatever it was, was kept in due subordination; but among tribes that had sunk into savagery it is conceivable that it may have become a superstition, and dominated.

I am not sure that we do not underrate the capacity for tradition among savages where it has once taken hold; still, if it had been a question of mere savages, at the first glance I should have been disposed to agree with Sir John Lubbock. But let us take the case of Tasman, which Sir John puts forward as a sort of crucial case, and which may be accepted as such, seeing that the New Zealanders may fairly claim to be regarded as "barbarians."[249]

[249] _Vide_ Sir George Grey's "Polynesian Mythology," p. xiii.; F. A. Weld's (Governor of Western Australia) "Notes on New Zealand," pp. 15, 60.

In the first place, I find the following in a note to "Cook's Voyages" (Smith, 1846):--"Mr Polack, in his 'Narrative of Travels and Adventures during a residence in New Zealand between the years 1831-37,' collected all the particulars relating to Cook's brush with the natives, 1769, on the spot."

Next, let us see what Cook says on the subject of Tasman ("Cook's Voyages," i. 164)--

"But the Indians still continued _near the ship_, rowing round many times [hardly the most favourable conditions under which to recover a tradition], conversing with Tupia [the Otaheitan interpreter] chiefly concerning the traditions they had among them with respect to the antiquities of their country. To this subject they were led by the inquiries which Tupia had been directed to make, whether they had ever seen such a vessel as ours, or had ever heard that any such had been on their coast. These inquiries were all answered in the negative, _so that_ tradition has preserved among them no memorial of Tasman, though by an observation made this day we find we are _only fifteen_ miles south of Murderers' Bay!"

Evidently the shrewd and gallant investigator himself was not satisfied with the cross-examination, for we find at p. 170--

"When we were under sail one old man, Topaa [a native], came on board to take leave of us; and as we were still desirous of making further inquiries whether any memory of Tasman had been preserved among their people, Tupia was directed to ask him whether he had ever heard that such a vessel as ours had before visited the country. To this he replied in the negative; but said that _his ancestors had told him_ there had once come to this place a _small_ vessel from a distant country called Ulimaroa, in which were _four_ men, who upon coming on shore were _all killed_. Upon being asked where this distant land lay he pointed to the northward."

But what does Tasman himself say?--

"On the 17th December these savages began to grow a little bolder and more familiar, insomuch that at last they ventured on board the _Heemskirk_, in order to trade with those in the vessel. As soon as I perceived it, being apprehensive that they might attempt to surprise that ship, _I sent my shallop_, with seven men, to put the people in the _Heemskirk_ on their guard, and to direct them not to place any confidence in these people. My seven men, being _without arms_, were attacked by these savages, who _killed three_ of the seven, and _forced_ the other _four_ to swim for their lives; _which_ occasioned my giving that place the name of the Bay of Murderers.[250] Our ship's company _would undoubtedly_ have taken a severe revenge if the rough weather had not prevented them."--_Tasman's Voyage of Discovery, Pinkerton_, xi.

[250] This was a recognition on Tasman's part that there was a violation of the law of nations, which he evidently considered ought to have been recognised by these people. For killing unarmed men he does not stigmatise them as savages, but as murderers, which name has clung to the spot and to the transaction to this day.

Now, I submit that this old man Topaa's recollection of the tradition of an event which occurred one hundred and thirty years before his time, was much more perfect than Captain Cook's, Sir Joseph Banks', Dr Solander's, and Sir J. Lubbock's recollection of the same event from geographical records.

Emboldened by this instance of the fallibility of scientific men, I now proceed to question the truth of the two following propositions of Sir J. Lubbock, after which I shall ask to be allowed to enunciate a proposition of my own.

First, Sir J. Lubbock says: "It has been asserted over and over again that there is no race of man so degraded as to be entirely without a religion--without some idea of the Deity. So far from this being true, the very reverse is the case" (p. 467).[251]

[251] I am aware that what I have opposed to Sir J. Lubbock is only the contrary and not the contradictory of his proposition. I find, however, that a very competent authority, Wilson, "Archæology and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland," p. 42, says: "No people, however rude or debased be their state, have yet been met with so degraded to the level of the brutes as to entertain no notion of a Supreme Being, or no anticipation of a future state." "All polytheism is based on monotheism; idolatry implies religious feeling."--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iv. 69. But in truth it was not a priest or a missionary who first enunciated the contradictory of Sir John Lubbock's proposition--it was Cicero. "Itaque ex tot generibus nullum est animal, præter hominem, quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei: ipsisque in hominibus nulla gens est, neque _tam immansueta_, neque _tam fera_, quæ non _etiam si ignoret qualem habere deum deceat_, tamen _habendum sciat_." De Legibus; i. 8.

Second, "It is a common opinion that savages are, as a general rule, only the miserable remnants of nations once more civilised; but although there are some well-established cases of national decay, there is no scientific evidence which would justify us in asserting that this is generally the case" (p. 337).

In opposition to the first proposition, I maintain that there is no race of men so degraded as to be without some vestige of religion.

And in opposition to the second, I assert that if they have a vestige of religion, and nothing else, they have still that which will convict them of degeneracy.

First, To say that a savage has no idea of the Deity, is to say merely that he is a savage; and it appears to me that this extinction of all knowledge of the Deity among a people, precisely marks the point where the barbarian lapses into the savage.

Taking the range of the authorities quoted by Sir J. Lubbock,[252] I find a great concurrence of testimony to the fact that there is some vestige of religion. One only--whose authority on any other point incidental to African travel I should regard as of the highest value--Captain Richard Burton, asserts without qualification, and in language sufficiently explicit, that "some of the tribes of the lake district of Central Africa admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil." Others assert the same negatively--they did not come upon any signs of religion, any external observances, any trace of ceremonial worship. For instance, it is said that the Tasmanians had no word for a Creator (p. 468, Lubbock), which need not excite surprise, as it is also said of them that they were incapable of forming any abstract ideas at all (p. 355, Lubbock). Again, in many of those cases where it is more or less roundly asserted that there is no vestige of religion, we find it plainly intimated that there is a belief in the devil, _e.g._ Lubbock, p. 469.

[252] I should not have considered it necessary to have entered so elaborately into this argument, if I had previously read the chapter on Animism in Mr Tylor's "Primitive Culture." The instances, however, which follow will stand as supplementary.

"The Tonpinambas of Brazil had _no religion_, though if the name is applied 'à des notions fantastiques d'êtres surnaturals et puissans on ne sauroit nier qu'ils n'eussent une croyance religieuse et _même une sorte_ de culte exterieur.'"--_Freycinet_, i. 153.

Now, although the devil may, and in many instances no doubt has,[253] made a special revelation of himself to his votaries, the ordinary channel of information concerning him is through tradition, and through the tradition of the fall of man.

[253] Sir J. Lubbock says (p. 370) of the Feegee islanders: "They did not worship idols, but many of the priests seem to have really thought that they had been in actual communication with the Atona; and some of the early missionaries were inclined to believe that Satan may have been permitted to practise a deception upon them, in order to strengthen his power. However extraordinary this may appear, the same was the case in Tahiti."

But I ask further of those who dispute this, If savages are found with this fear of the supernatural world, after they have lost the idea of God, how do they get it? If not from tradition, then from reflection? But savages do not reason (Lubbock, p. 465). Moreover, at p. 470, Sir J. Lubbock says, what really brings us very nearly to agreement, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count their own fingers, possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of a religion?" This is said with reference to a previous allegation, "That those who assert that even the lowest savages believe in a Deity, affirm that which is entirely contrary to the evidence" (p. 470). But there is a great concurrence of evidence that "even the lowest savages" believe in the devil. Belief in the devil involves a realisation more or less obscure of the fallen angel, of the Spirit of Evil--and this for the savage who "cannot count his fingers" is as great an intellectual effort as would be, merely considered as an intellectual effort, a belief in the Deity. On any theory of growth or development how could he ("the lowest savage") have got the idea?

Several writers who are quoted, whilst they deny the existence of any notion of religion among a particular people, mention facts which are incompatible with that statement. I may also say, parenthetically, that to detect or elicit the sentiment of religion in others, one must have something of the sentiment in ourselves; _e.g._ there is the instance of Kolben (Lubbock, p. 469), "who, _in spite_ of the assertions of the natives themselves, _felt quite sure_ that certain dances _must be_ of a religious character, let the Hottentots say what they will." Now I must say there is great _à priori_ probability in the truth of Kolben's conviction, although he was probably led to it merely by the insight of his own mind. Let it be taken in connection with the following evidence in Washington Irving's "Life of Columbus," iii. 122-124:--

"The _dances_ to which the natives seemed so immoderately addicted, and which had been _at first_ considered by the Spaniards mere idle pastimes, were _found_ to be often _ceremonials of a serious and mystic character_." Again--"Peter Martyn observes that they performed these dances to the chant of certain metres and ballads _handed down from_ generation to generation, in which were rehearsed the deeds of their ancestors. Some of these ballads were of a _sacred_ character, containing their _traditional_ notions of theology, and the superstitions and fables which comprised their religious creeds."

Pritchard, "Researches into Phys. Hist. of Man" (i. p. 205), quoting Oldendorp, and speaking of the African negroes, says:--"At the annual harvest feast, which _nearly all_ the nations of Guinea solemnise, thank-offerings are brought to the Deity. These festivals are days of rejoicing, which the negroes pass with feasting and dancing." _Vide_ also "Hist. of Indian Tribes of North America, 120 portraits from the Ind. Gal. in Depart. of War at Washington, by T. M'Kenney (late Ind. Dep. Wash.) and J. Hall of Cincinnati" (Philadelphia, 1837).

"Dancing is among the most prominent of the aboriginal _ceremonies_; there is no tribe in which it is not practised. The Indians have their _war_ dance and their _peace_ dance, their dance of _mourning for the dead_, their _begging_ dance, their pipe dance, their green-corn dance, and their Wabana (an offering to the devil). Each of these is distinguished by some peculiarity ... though to a stranger they appear much alike, except the last.... It is a ceremony and not a recreation, and is conducted with a seriousness belonging to an important public duty."

At p. 437 (Lubbock) it is said, "Admiral Fitzroy never witnessed or heard of any act of a decidedly religious character among the Fuegians." Still, as Sir John admits, "some of the natives suppose that there is a great black man in the woods who knows everything, and cannot be escaped." If this is not the devil, it looks very like him. Again, p. 469, Mr Mathews says, speaking of the Fuegians, "he sometimes heard a great howling or lamentation about _sunrise_ in the morning; and upon asking Jemmy Button what occasioned the outcry, he could obtain no satisfactory answer; the boy only saying, 'people very sad, cry very much.'" Upon which Sir John remarks, "This appears so natural and sufficient an explanation, that why the outcry should be 'supposed to be devotional' I must confess myself unable to see" (469).

Now, if this was not their traditional notion and mode of prayer, degraded according to the measure of their degeneracy, the degeneracy is at least proved in another way, for, being still reasonable beings, they had, according to the account, congregated together to send up a lamentation, which, if it was not prayer, could be likened only to the moonlight howling of wolves. This mode of prayer resembles what Father Loyer and the missionary Oldendorp (Pritchard, i. 197) tells us of the negroes. Father Loyer "declares that they have a belief in a universally powerful Being, and to him they address prayers. Every morning after _they rise_ they go to the river side to wash, and throwing a handful of water on their head, or pouring sand with it to express their humility, they join their hands and then open them, whisper softly the word 'exsuvais.'" Oldendorp says (p. 202): "The negroes profess their dependence on the Deity, ... they pray _at the rising_ and setting of the sun,[254] on eating and drinking, and when they go to war." Compare also Helps' "Spanish Conquest in America," i. 285:--

"The worship of the Peruvians was not the mere worship of the sun alone as of the most beautiful and powerful thing which they beheld; but they had _also_ a worship of a far more elevated and refined nature, addressed to Pachacamac, the soul of the universe, _whom_ they hardly dared to name; and when they were obliged to name this Being, they did so inclining the head and the whole body, now _lifting_ up the eyes to heaven, now lowering them to the ground, and _giving kisses in the air_. To Pachacamac they made no temple and offered no sacrifices, but they adored him in their hearts."[255]

[254] After all, is there not something in their mode of prayer which recalls the language of Psalm cxl., "Dirigatur oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: _elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum_."

If the reader will refer to Bunsen's "Egypt," &c. vol. i. p. 497, he will find "a man with uplifted arms" as the ideographic sign (19) for "to praise, glorification," which is in evidence not only that it was the natural but the traditional mode.

[255] Garcilasso de la Vega's authority is so unimpeachable, and at the same time his testimony is so unmistakable on this point, that it will be as well to give his own words, as he was well acquainted with the Peruvian traditions, through his mother, who was one of the Yncas. He adds: "When the Indians were asked who Pachacamac was, they replied that he it was who gave life to the universe, and supported it; but that they knew him not, for they had never _seen_ him, and that for this reason they did not build temples to him, nor offer him sacrifices; but that they worshipped him in their hearts (mentally), and considered him to be an _unknown God_.... From this it is clear, that these Indians considered him to be the maker of all things." Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega's "Royal Commentaries of the Yncas," ed. C. Markham, 1869, i. 107. He further remarks that, whereas they hesitated to pronounce the name of Pachacamac, "they spoke of the sun on every occasion."

Compare the accounts we have of the Guanches. M. Pegot Ogier, "The Fortunate Isles" (Canaries), 1871, says (p. 283), that a comparison of the Chronicles of the Conquest shows that, "far from being idolaters, the Guanches worshipped one God, the Creator and Preserver of the world," and that (p. 282), "in their worship, they _raised their hands_ to heaven, and sacrificed on the mountains by pouring milk on the ground from a _height_; their milk was carried in a sacred vase called _ganigo_." The name of their god, "Achoron Achaman" = "He who upholds the heaven and earth," and "Achuhuyahan Achuhucanac" = "He who sustains every one," has resemblances with "Pachacamac" = "Pacha," the earth; and "camac" participle of "camani," "I create."--(C. Markham, Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega, i. 101.)

At p. 468 Sir John somewhat too roundly asserts that "Dr Hooker tells us that the Lepchas of Northern India have _no religion_."

Turning to Dr Hooker's "Himalayan Journal," I find (i. 135), "The Lepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of good and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_ introduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with the natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_, faith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the doctrine of metempsychosis" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p. 224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed there is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive monotheism.

So, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, "Once more Dr Hooker states that the Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the contrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs is the principal part of their religious practice."

It is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), "The Khasias are superstitious, but have no religion;" he adds, however, "_like the Lepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the grove, cave, and stream." It seems, however, that the only outward manifestation of their religion is in "breaking hens' eggs"! What can be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of primitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," second series) how primitive truth was concealed under material symbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, "Even upon the hypothesis that these fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the hieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince us of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph, whom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the natural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity." Again, p. 115, "In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation was proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the poets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things." "_The egg_," says Plutarch, "is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of Bacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and comprehends all things in himself." There is a passage in Athenagoras to the same effect.

[256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.

Superstitions were also connected with cocks and hens in Khasia. Whether these again were connected with the symbolical representation of the egg can only be conjectured. It may possibly be that the representation had a common origin with the cock of Apollo and the cock of Æsculapius, if, indeed, these were not also originally derived from the same primal conception. This would be only to renew the old classical dispute as to whether the hen proceeded from the egg, or the egg from the hen, which I take to be only the form in which the great question of the First Cause was debated by the Gentile world after their ideas of a Creator had become indistinct, and with reference to this ancient symbol. However that may be, I wish to point out that this ceremonial use of the cock may be traced in Europe, Asia, and Africa: _e.g. Asia_--"The Lepchas scatter eggs and pebbles over the graves of their friends.... Among the Limboos, the priests of a higher order than the Lepcha, Bijoras officiate at marriages, when a _cock_ is put into the bride-groom's hands, and a _hen_ into those of the bride. The Phedangbo then cuts off the birds' heads, when the blood is caught in a plantain leaf, and runs into pools, from which omens are drawn" (Dr Hooker, "Himalayan Journal," i. 238). _Africa_--_vide_ Pritchard, "Phys. Hist. of Man," i. 203, 204, 208: "Even the dead are not buried without sacrifices. A white hen is slain by the priest before the corpse comes to the grave, and the bier whereon the body lies is sprinkled with its blood. This custom was introduced by the nation of Kagraut." _Europe_--If any one will turn to the _Illustrated London News_ of Nov. 14, 1868, he will find an account and illustration of a local ceremony peculiar to the village of Gorbio in the Maritime Alps, in which the priest, on a particular day in the year, is solemnly presented with four cocks hung upon a halberd--together with an apple by the bachelors and spinsters of the village--from which it would seem to have had originally some connection, as we have seen above, with a marriage ceremony. Wilson ("Archæologia") remarks that the custom of "Easter, or, in the north, Paste eggs (Pasch), was very prevalent in the north."[257]

[257] Compare the following passage in the Bishop of Chalons' "Le Monde et l'Homme Primitif" (with reference to Gen. i.--the Creation). At p. 11 the Bishop says, "That when the Book of the Law of Manou and the Mahabarata relate that God, who contains within Himself his own principle in the first instance, the water, and gave it fecundity, and that the produce of this fecundity became _an egg_, ... can we see in this anything else than the fantastic translation of this phrase of Scripture, 'L'esprit de Dieu _couvait_ la surface des eaux--Rouha Elohim meharephet hal pene hammaïm.'" _Vide_ also p. 11 (as to universality of tradition) and p. 34 as to text also. J. G. Vance ("Archæol." xix.) says, upon the mundane egg "the whole system of ancient religion was based" (J. B. Waring, "Stone Monuments of Remote Ages," p. 5, 1870).

It strikes me that it would be difficult to assign a Christian origin for the custom. It must then have been a custom which the Church diverted or sanctioned in giving it an innocent or Christian application; in which case, in so far as it is pagan, it may possibly be traced to a common origin with the practices in Khasia among the Lepchas.

It would extend the inquiry too far to follow Sir J. Lubbock through all the cases adduced by him. I will conclude, therefore, with his account of the Andaman islander--who, with the Australians, Esquimaux, and Fuegians, dispute the point of being considered the lowest of mankind. It is said of the Andamans, "that they have no idea of a Supreme Being, no religion, or any belief in a future state of existence" (p. 346). It is, however, casually mentioned that, "after death, the corpse is buried in a sitting posture." Now this mode of burial is common to them with Esquimaux (p. 409), the Australians (p. 353), the Maories (p. 369), and the natives of the Feegee Islands (p. 361), among whom we seem to get a clue to this strange mode of burial; "the fact is, _they_ (the Feegee islanders) not only believe in a future state, but are persuaded that as they leave this life, so will they rise again." Sir J. Lubbock, in his "Introduction to Prof. Nillson" (xxxiii.), says that this was the common mode of burial in the Stone Age; and Prescott ("Hist. of Mexico," ii. 485) says, "Who can doubt the existence of an affinity, or at least an intercourse, between tribes, who had _the same strange habit of burying the dead in a sitting position_, as was practised to some extent by most if _not all_ of the aborigines from Canada to Patagonia?"[258] But not only may it be presumed that they had an affinity and intercourse, but a common religious idea. It may be doubted then whether even the naked Andaman is so entirely destitute of all religious impressions as he is supposed to be.

[258] I find, in _Archæological Journal_, No. 89, 1866, p. 27, that corpses in a sitting posture were found under the long cromlechs in South Jutland.

I have already urged that if any vestiges of religion remain they must be considered as evidence of tradition and proof of degeneracy. I think the following reflection will tend to clench this argument.

Although it is obscure and disputed to what extent certain savages do retain glimmerings of religion, it is certain and admitted that some savages have religion and a religious ceremonial. Now, as Sir J. Lubbock says, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count upon their fingers possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of religion." It is clear, then, that the lowest grade of mankind did not invent it, how then did the higher grade get it, "assuming always the unity of the human race"?

Finally, if man commenced with the knowledge of the devil, how did they proceed on to the idea of God? "The first idea of a God is almost always as an evil spirit" (Lubbock, p. 468). How then did they advance to the knowledge of the God of purity and love, or even of "the Great Spirit" of the Indians?[259]

[259] _Vide_ Dr Newman's "Grammar of Assent," p. 386, _et seq._

Let us at least know whether it is supposed that this was the order of knowledge ordained by Divine Providence, or whether it is believed that man in this manner developed the idea of God out of his own consciousness, his primitive, or perhaps innate, idea being, the conception of evil and of the evil spirit.[260] Sir John says (p. 487), "There are no just grounds for expecting man to be ever endued with a sixth sense." But why not? If by his own mental vigour he can out of the primitive idea of evil generate the idea of good--what may we not expect?

[260] _Per contra_, I invite Sir J. Lubbock's attention to the following passage from Mr Gladstone's "Homer" (ii. 44), "As _the derivative idea_ of sin depended upon that of _goodness_, and as the shadow ceases to be visible when the object shadowed has become more dim, we might well expect that the contraction and obscuration of the true idea of goodness would bring about a more than proportionate loss of knowledge concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation of evil could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner as the opposite of the impersonation of good; and when the moral standard of Godhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find to be the case even in the works of Homer, the negation of that standard could not but cease to be either interesting or intelligible. Accordingly we find that the _process of disintegration_, followed by that of arbitrary reassortment and combination of elements, had proceeded to a more advanced stage _with respect to the tradition of the evil one_ than in the other cases."

Yet, if any one will compare the evidence which Sir John has collected, he will come, I think, to the conclusion, that the invention and adaptability of the savage is very slight indeed. He will find (p. 350) that the inhabitants of Botany Bay had fish-hooks, but no nets; those of Western Australia, nets but not hooks; that those who had the throwing-stick and boomerang, were ignorant both of slings and bows and arrows; that those who had retained the knowledge of the bow did not pass on to the use of the bola; that the northern tribes visited by Kane were skilful in the capture of birds with nets, yet were entirely ignorant of fishing (452); that the nearest approach to the South American bola is among the Esquimaux (450); that the throwing-stick is common only to the widely distant Esquimaux, Australians, and some of the Brazilian tribes (_id._); that the "sumpitan" or blowpipe of the Malays occurs only in the valley of the Amazons. Does not this point to a traditional knowledge of these things? Nevertheless, this mass of evidence seems to have produced the very opposite conviction with Sir J. Lubbock.

"On the whole, then, from a review of all these and other similar facts which _might have been_ mentioned, it seems to me most probable that many of the simpler weapons, implements, &c., have been invented independently by various savage tribes, although there are no doubt also cases in which they have been borrowed by one tribe from another" (p. 451). Instances in which they have been borrowed from each other are not infrequent, but then neither are they inconsistent with the theory of tradition; but the instances of invention _are limited to one_. (See for instance p. 394.) At p. 394 we find--"Although they (the Esquimaux) had no knowledge of pottery, Captain Cook saw at Unalashka vessels "of flat stone, with sides of clay, not unlike a standing pye." We here obtain an idea of the manner in which the knowledge of pottery _may have been_ developed. After using clay to raise the sides of their stone vessels, it _would_ naturally occur to them, that the same substance would serve for the bottom also, and thus the use of stone _might be_ replaced by a more convenient material."

Recollecting how roast pig came to be discovered, it cannot be said to be impossible that pottery may thus have been invented; but in this instance it might equally have been the rough substitute for the pottery of their recollection. Besides, the proof is wanting that they ever did pass on to the invention of pottery. It may, for anything we know to the contrary, be in this inchoate state amongst them still.

Now, until further evidence is forthcoming, I shall take the liberty of maintaining that savages seem to show no inventive faculty or power of recovery in themselves.[261] Whatever they possess seems to be limited to what they have retained of primitive civilisation, and what they have retained of civilisation seems exactly in proportion to what they have retained of primitive religion.

[261] Sir J. Lubbock ("Pre-historic Times," p. 337) says, "The largest erection in Tahiti was constructed by the generation living at the time of Captain Cook's visit, and the practice of cannibalism had been recently abandoned." For these statements he refers to Forster, "Observations made during a Voyage round the World," p. 327, a work I have not at hand, and also Ellis, "Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 29. I have made the reference to the latter, but I do not find a syllable about cannibalism; and as to the other point Ellis says, "In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses in the mountains ... stone pavements of their dwellings and courtyards, foundations of houses and ruins of family temples, _are numerous_.... _All these relics_ are of the _same kind_ as those observed among the nations at the time of _their discovery_, evidently proving that they belong to the same race, though to a more populous era of their history." I draw attention to this inadvertence, as the above instances (two) are the most important of the four which Sir J. Lubbock adduces in support of his view. _Vide_ Appendix.

In supporting this proposition I shall hardly have occasion to go beyond the four corners of Sir J. Lubbock's "Pre-historic Times."

It is indeed a moot point with the travellers and ethnologists who have given their attention to the subject, which race of savages is "the lowest in the scale of civilisation." In this competitive examination a concurrence of opinion seems to decide in favour of the Fuegian, who at any rate is miserable enough, living, when better food fails him, on raw and putrid flesh, eked out with cannibalism; and whose clothing (in Central Fuego) consists "in a scrap of otter skin, about as large as a pocket handkerchief, laced across the breast with strings, and shifted according to the wind" (Darwin, _apud_ Lubbock). Their religion, as we have just seen, consists in a vague apprehension of the black man who lives up in the woods--and their prayer is something slightly elevated above the howl of the wolf. Their civilisation, therefore, like their religion, may be considered to be at a "minimum." The Australians have been called "the miserablest people in the world" (p. 445). They are said to have "no religion or any kind of prayer, but most of them believe in evil spirits, and all have a dread of witchcraft" (p. 353). Here again we see their civilisation degraded _pari-passu_ with their religious belief--so, too, with the Andaman (_vide supra_) and the Tasmanian (p. 355).

When, however, we come to the inhabitants of the Feegee Islands, not greatly different from the people surrounding them, their characteristics, manners, and customs being partly Nigrito and partly Polynesian, although in the matter of cannibalism they are simply horrible, and eat their kind, not on any high notion that they are appropriating the spirit and glory of him whom they devour (_vide_ Lubbock, 371), but from a repulsive preference; yet they have a distinct notion of religion, with temples, and ceremonies, and we are told they look down upon the Samoans because they had no religion. Well, we find the Feegeeans in a state of material civilisation exactly corresponding--they live in well built houses, 20 to 30 feet long and 15 feet high, in fortified towns, with earthen ramparts, surmounted by a reed fence, &c. "Their temples were pyramidal in form, and were often erected on terraced mounds like those of Central America" (p. 357). They had efficient weapons, agricultural implements, well-constructed canoes, and (p. 372) pottery.[262]

[262] The Duke of Argyll, balancing the conclusions of Archbishop Whately and Sir J. Lubbock ("Primeval Man," p. 139), says, "Whately defies the supporter of Development to produce a single case of savages having raised themselves. Sir J. Lubbock replies by defying his opponent to show that it has not been done and done often. He urges, and urges as it seems to me with truth, that the great difficulty of teaching many savages the arts of civilised life, is no proof whatever that the various degrees of advance towards the knowledge of those arts which are actually found among semi-barbarous nations may not have been of strictly indigenous growth. _Thus it appears that one tribe of red Indians called Mandans_ practised the art of _fortifying_ their towns. _Surrounding tribes_, although they saw the advantage derived from this art, yet _never practised_ it, and _never learned it_." So far as to the fact. The Duke of Argyll continues the argument on the side of Sir J. Lubbock. But what I wish to indicate is that this crucial instance of the Mandans may be triumphantly adduced in support of my proposition. Why, these are the _very Mandans_ among whom Catlin and the Prince Maxmilian of Neuwied discovered the curious commemorative ceremony of the Deluge! _Vide_ ch. xi.

When, however, we come to the Tahitians we find a very high state of civilisation. Of their religion it is said--"That though they worshipped numerous deities," and sometimes sacrificed to them, "yet they were not idolators." "Captain Cook found their religion, like that of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with apparent inconsistencies." They had a priesthood (p. 387). "They believed in the immortality of the soul, and in two situations of different degrees of happiness somewhat analogous to our heaven and hell, though not regarded as places of reward and punishment; but the one intended 'for the chief and superior classes,' 'the other for the people of inferior rank.'" This is substantially Captain Cook's account of the Tahitians, and allowing it to be exact, although I have a suspicion that a missionary would have put it somewhat differently,[263] it shows a comparative state of religion very much elevated above anything we have yet seen. They had besides curious customs, such as that of eating apart. "They ate alone," they said, "because it was right, but why it was right they were unable to explain"--a custom which is common to them with the Bachapins (p. 384), (who, _by the way_, are also among the races classified as "of no religion"). Although the inhabitants of Tahiti present to us a much higher standard of religion and morality than we have yet met with, _also_ "they, on the whole, may be taken as representing _the highest stage_ in civilisation to which man has in any country raised himself, before the discovery or introduction of metallic implements" (Lubbock, p. 372).

[263] Since writing the above, I have referred to Wallis and Bougainville. Wallis could not discover "that these people had any kind of religious worship among them." Bougainville says "that their principal deity is called 'Ein-t-era,' _i.e._ 'king of _light_' or 'of the sun'; besides whom they acknowledge a number of inferior divinities, some of whom produce evil and others good; that the general name for these _ministering_ spirits is Eatona; and that the natives suppose _two_ of these divinities attend _each affair of consequence in human life_, determining its fate either advantageously or otherwise. To one circumstance our author speaks in decisive terms. He says, when the moon exhibits a certain aspect which bears the name of 'Malama Tamai' (the moon is in a state of war), the natives offer up human sacrifices.... When any one sneezes, his companions cry out 'Eva-rona-t-eatona,' _i.e._ 'May the good genius awaken thee,' or 'May not the evil genius lull thee asleep.'"

Captain King ("Journal of Transactions on returning to the Sandwich Islands," &c., Pinkerton, xi. 737) says of the Sandwich Islanders, "The religion of these people resembles in most of its principal features _that of the Society and Friendly Islands_. Their morais, their whattas, their idols, their sacrifices, and their sacred songs, _all of which_ they have in common with each other, are _convincing proofs_ that their religious notions are derived _from the same source_."

It is impossible within these limits to investigate every case. I have taken the more salient cases, as instanced by Sir J. Lubbock, and contrasted them. I now wish to present the contrast in somewhat livelier form, and I do not see that I can do better than to present to the reader two scenes precisely similar, as to substance, yet under different conditions, in different parts of the world. The first shall be a description of "a whale ashore," by Sir J. Lubbock, among the Australians; and the second, a description of the same scene by Catlin ("Last Rambles, &c., among the Indians of Vancouver's Island").

I must preface that Sir J. Lubbock says that the Australians "have no religion nor any idea of prayer, but most of them believe in evil spirits, and all have great dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).

The following is the scene to which I refer:--

"They are not, so far as I am aware, able to kill whales for themselves, but when one is washed on shore it is a real godsend to them. Fires are immediately lit to give notice of the joyful event.... For days they remain by the carcase, rubbed from head to foot with the stinking blubber, gorged to repletion with putrid meat, out of temper from indigestion, and therefore engaged in constant frays, suffering from a continuous disorder from high feeding, and altogether a disgusting spectacle."--_Capt. Grey, apud Lubbock_, p. 347.

This is one picture; now for the other. It may be said that it is only the different idiosyncrasies of the writers transferred to their pages--that one is the narrative of _Jean qui pleure_, &c., or of the _médicin tant pis_, &c.; but I do not think so.

Mr Catlin premises by telling us that the scene occurred when on a visit with the chief of the Klah-o-gnats, of whom he says that he knew at first sight by his actions that he was "a chief, and by the expression of his face that he was a good man," and whom his companion described as "a very fine old fellow; that man is a gentleman; I'd trust myself anywhere with that man." Of their religion, the chief himself told Catlin that on that western coast of Vancouver's Island "they all believed in a Great Spirit, who created them and all things, and that they all have times and places when and where they pray to that Spirit, that he may not be angry with them."

One day came the startling announcement that a whale was ashore.

"The sight was imposing when we came near to it, but not until we came around it on the shore side had I any idea of the scene I was to witness. Some hundreds, if not thousands of Indians, of all ages and sexes, and in all colours, were gathered around it, and others constantly arriving. Some were lying, others standing and sitting in groups; some were asleep and others eating and drinking, and others were singing and dancing." The monster was secured by twenty or thirty harpoons, to which ropes were attached. "These were watched, and at every lift of a wave moving the monster nearer the shore, they were tightened on the harpoons, and at low tide the carcass is left on dry land, a great distance from the water.... The dissection of this monstrous creature, and its distribution amongst the thousands who would yet be a day or two in getting together, the interpreter informed us, would not be commenced until all the claimants arrived."

Several immense baskets had been brought in which to carry away the blubber. The possession of these baskets made all the difference in the scene which followed. To some this will be a sufficient explanation. How, then, did the others come to know nothing of baskets? Truly there are people who cannot be made to see the effect of "character upon clover." I rely, however, upon the broad lines of the contrast. The absence in this latter scene of the disgusting sights above so graphically described--their quick use of the harpoons--and the general order and equity of the distribution. "A whale ashore," Mr Catlin says ("Last Rambles," p. 105), "is surely a gift from heaven for these poor people, and they receive it and use it as such."

Whilst quoting from Catlin, I must be allowed to refer my readers to the very striking proof (p. 248) he incidentally affords of the theory of degeneracy in his comparative illustration of the heads of the alto and bas Peruvian, and of the Crow and modern Flathead:--

"The Crow of the Rocky Mountains and the alto-Peruvian of _the Andes_, being the two great original fountains of American man, to whom all the tribes point as their origin, and on whom, of course, all the tribes have looked as the _beau ideals_ of the Indian race. The Flathead (letter _c_), aiming at the Crow skull (like the copyists of most fashions), has carried the copy into a caricature; and the Bas-Peruvian (_d_), aiming at the _elevated frontal_ of the mountain regions, has squeezed his up with circular bandages to equally monstrous proportions." Also _vide_ Prescott's "Mexico," ii. 493, 6th ed., 1850. "Anatomists also have discerned in crania disinterred from the mounds, and in those of the inhabitants of the high plains of _the Cordilleras_ an _obvious difference_ from those of the more barbarous tribes. This is seen especially in the _ampler forehead_, intimating a decided intellectual superiority.... Such is the conclusion of Dr Warren, whose excellent collection has afforded him ample means for study and comparison."

Before quitting this subject I must revive a question which I think Sir John Lubbock will admit, if he turns to the evidence dispersed in his pages, is at present involved in some obscurity. It is simply this, "How did the savage come by the knowledge of fire?" Sir John Lubbock suggests (p. 473) "that in making flint instruments sparks would be produced; in polishing them it would not fail to be observed that they became hot, and in this way it is easy to see how the two methods of obtaining fire may have originated.... In obtaining fire _two totally different_ methods are followed; _some_ savages, as for instance the Fuegians, using percussion, while others, as the South-Sea Islanders, rub one piece of wood against another.... Opinions are divided whether we have any trustworthy record of a people without the means of obtaining fire" (p. 453). To this point I shall recur. I will now give Sir John's quotation from Mr Dove: "Although fire was well known to them (the Tasmanians), some tribes at least appear to have been ignorant whence it was originally obtained, or how, if extinguished, it could be relighted. In all their wanderings," says Mr Dove, "they were particularly careful to bear in their hands the materials for kindling a fire. Their memory supplies them _with no instances_ of a period in which they were obliged to draw upon their _inventive powers_ for the means of resuscitating an element so essential to their health and comfort as flame. How it came originally into their possession is unknown. _Whether_ it may be viewed as the _gift of nature_ or the product of art and sagacity, they _cannot recollect a period when it was a desideratum_" ("Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science," i. 250, _apud_ Lubbock, p. 355).[264]

[264] The "Popul Vul" (pp. 223-227, Paris, 1861, _vide_ Baring Gould, "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," p. 383) gives an instance--or embodies a reminiscence--of a people who had lost the tradition of fire.

"Then arrived the tribes perishing with cold, ... and all the tribes were gathered, shivering and quaking with cold, when they came before the leaders of the Iniches.... Great was their misery. 'Will you not compassionate us,' they asked; 'we ask only a little fire. Were we not all one, and with one country, when we were first created? Have pity on us.' 'What will you give us that we should compassionate you,' was the answer made to them.... It was answered, 'We will inquire of Tohil'" (their fire-god); and then follows the horrible condition of human sacrifices to be offered to their fire-god Tohil, with reference to which Mr B. Gould quotes it. _Vide supra_, p. 81, tradition among the Sioux Indians, of fire having been sent to them from heaven after the Deluge.

In Colden's "Five Indian Nations," p. 167, I find an Indian chief says: "Now before the Christians arrived, the general council of the Five Nations was held at Onondaga, where there has from _the Beginning_ a _continual fire_ been kept burning; it is made of two great logs, _whose fire never extinguishes_."

Now, if it is a tenable opinion--and at least these are the statements of Father Gobien, and of Alvaro de Saavedra, and of Commodore Wilkes, to whose testimony I shall revert, that there are some tribes who are unacquainted with fire--that there are some who have and some who have not the art of rekindling fire, then arises the question whether those who have it not have lost the art, or whether those who now possess it invented it. If they did not invent it, they must have held it as a tradition, until, reaching a lower point of degradation still, they lost it. Mr Dove's testimony to this effect is very strong. What an emblem that never-extinguished torch of primitive tradition! We find the same tradition among the American Indians. "The Chippeways and Natchez tribes are said to have an institution for keeping up a perpetual fire, certain persons being set aside and devoted to this occupation" (Lubbock, p. 421). Freycinet certainly declares that Peré Gobien's statement, that the inhabitants of the Ladrone were totally unacquainted with fire until Magellan burnt one of their villages, to be "entirely without foundation." "The language," he says, "of the inhabitants contains words for fire, burning, charcoal, oven, grilling, boiling, &c." Again, as against Commodore Wilkes' assertion as an eye-witness, that he saw no appearance of fire in the island of Fakaafo, and that the natives were very much alarmed when they saw sparks struck from flint and steel, we are told that "Hale gives a list of Faakaafo words in which we find _asi_ for fire" (Lubbock, p. 454). However, Sir John does not attribute to this argument the same force that Mr Tylor does, as _asi_ is evidently the same word as the New Zealand _ahi_, which denotes light and heat as well as fire.[265] If, then, we have positive evidence that they have not the thing (Wilkes), and also evidence that they have the word (_vide_ note), does not this prove that it is a tradition which they have lost? and is there not the presumption that they have lost it through degeneracy?

[265] I find, in Falkner's "Description of Patagonia," &c., 1774 (Falkner resided near 40° 7' in those parts), "that in the vocabulary of the Moluches, although the word for 'fire' is 'k'tal,' the word for 'hot' is '_asee_,' 'cold' 'chosea.'"

But Sir J. Lubbock admits "asi" is the same word as "ahi," and if "ahi" denotes light and heat, _it also_ signifies fire.

Should we not expect, at least ought it to cause surprise, that the word for "fire," where poverty of language may be presumed, should stand also for light and heat? In the Andaman vocabulary (Earl's "Papuans") "ahay" is their word for the sun--in which the two senses seem to combine. In Shortland's "Comp. Table of Polynesian Dialects" ("Traditions of the New Zealanders"), I find _ahi_ means fire, and not light.

---------+------------+------------+-------------+----------------- |New Zealand.| Raratonga. | Navigator's | Sandwich Islands | | | (Savaii). | (Hawaii). +------------+------------+-------------+----------------- _Fire_ = | Ahi.[C] | Ai. | Afi. | Ahi. ---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

[C] And as would appear from Shortland (_id._ pp. 55, 56, "_ao_," a seemingly cognate though not identical word with "ahi," is the New Zealand word for light. But in Bougainville's "Vocabulary of Faiti (Otaheite) Island," I find again "eaï," _i.e._ their word for _fire_, whereas their word for light, not darkness, is "Eouramaï" and "Po" = day light), whilst they have a distinct word for "hot" = "Ivera"--"Era" being the sun. Compare Sanscrit "aghni" = ignis, fire.--_Vide_ Card. Wiseman, "Science and Revealed Religion," p. 40, 5th ed.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XII.

Compare the following account of the New Zealanders:--

"Shut out from the rest of the world, without any to set them a pattern of what was right or to reprove what was wrong, is it surprising that morally they should have degenerated, even from the standard of their forefathers? They were not always addicted to war, neither were they always cannibals; _the remembrance of the origin_ of these horrid customs is _still preserved amongst them_. If the progressive development theory were true, aboriginal races should have progressively advanced; every successive generation should have added some improvement to the one which preceded it; but experience proves the contrary. A remarkable instance of this may be adduced in the fact, that the New Zealanders have retrograded, even since the days of Captain Cook; they then possessed large double canoes, decked, with houses on them similar to those of Tahiti and Hawaii, in which, traditionally, their ancestors arrived; it is now more than half a century since the last was seen. Tradition also states that they had finer garments in former days and of different kinds; that, like their reputed ancestors, they made cloth from the bark of trees--the name is preserved, but the manufacture has ceased. There are remains also in their language which would lead us to suppose that, like the inhabitants of Tonga, they once possessed a kingly form of government, and though they have now no term to express that high office, still they have words which are evidently derived from the very one denoting a king in Tonga. Their traditions, which are preserved, also establish the same fact, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs is their language; its fulness, its richness, and close affinity not only in words but in grammar to the Sanscrit, carries the mind back to a time when literature could not have been unknown." From "Te Ika a Maui," or "New Zealand and its Inhabitants," by the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S., a Missionary in New Zealand for more than thirty years, pp. 5, 6.