Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

changes take place with extreme slowness; indeed, it is probable that a mingling of peoples, whether by commerce, migration, or war, is almost a necessary condition for change and progress. If, then, we examine a people that has for at long time remained isolated from contact with other peoples, we shall find that in most instances it is a backward people, and often what we call a savage one. Although we cannot range all peoples into a sequence, and assert that one tribe is intermediate in culture between two others, or that a more civilised nation has passed through a rigorously defined order of evolution, yet we may hope to be able in general terms to place most of the peoples about whom we have adequate knowledge in certain stages of culture, and we may in this way attempt to gain some idea as to the phases through which our ancestors have passed. The comparative study of customs, modes of thought, and religion, has yielded results of immense importance and interest. As a method of inquiry it is invaluable; but even it has its dangers, and it must be used with circumspection.

The second psychical probe into the past is folk-lore. One is too apt to dismiss this study with a smile of derision as being concerned with ghosts, fairy-tales, and old wives' superstitions. What does the name imply? The "lore of the folk." But the "folk " bear the same relation to educated people that savages do to civilised communities. They are the backward people among ourselves. The same value applies to the study of their actions and modes of thought as to the investigation of savages. But folk-lore is the investigation of psychical survivals within a more or less civilised society, and thus by its means we are largely enabled to study the practices and beliefs of our forefathers, for in an attenuated form many of these actually persist amongst us. By appealing to comparative custom and religion we can often form a pretty good idea as to what those

actions really signified, and so we can recover our ancestral religions.

The materials for the study of anthropology are as numerous as the bodily, mental, and moral diversities among mankind. What man is, what he thinks, what he aspires after, what he does-all this is the field of our inquiry. Our object is to record what occurs, and to discover its significance. These two aims should not be disassociated. A considerable amount of information that has been recorded in the past is comparatively barren because the significance of it was not understood at the time. Many travellers appear to be quite unaware that customs and beliefs, the form of an object and its decoration, may have a meaning that is by no means obvious. Further, it is only on the spot and from the people themselves that this significance can be discovered; those who read my former book on Evolution in Art will clearly see the importance of acquiring local information.

Now is the time to record. An infinitude has been irrevocably lost, a very great deal is now rapidly disappearing; thanks to colonisation, trade, and missionary enterprise, the change that has come over the uttermost parts of the world during the last fifty years is almost incredible. The same can also be said of Europe and of our own country. Emigration and migration, the railway, the newspaper, the Board School-all have contributed to destroy the ancient landmarks of backward culture. The most interesting materials for study are becoming lost to us, not only by their disappearance, but by the apathy of those who should delight in recording them before they have become lost to sight and memory.

Fruitful study results only from those facts of observation which have been fertilised by the mind that can see behind them. Nothing is easier than to burrow among de

tails, to be lost among a multiplicity of facts, and to be overwhelmed by a mass of material.

It is my object in this small book to present certain aspects only of the science of anthropology. I do not pretend to give an abstract of anthropology, nor even a general idea of the subject as a whole. But we will make several excursions, as it were, into the subject, not with the object of attempting to learn something about anthropology, but in order to see what anthropology can teach us about ourselves. For, after all, we are of more interest to ourselves than any study can be. We will then use the methods of anthropology, not for the erection of an academic study, but for the simple purpose of explaining ourselves to ourselves.

Our immediate object, then, is to try and discover what the significance is of certain of our bodily peculiarities, and of a few of the innumerable objects and actions that we see around us.

The theory of evolution throws a bright and far-reaching light on the problems of anthropology, and though we may not be able to explain the processes of, or the reasons for evolution, there can be no doubt as to the fact of its occurrence. There is no need to explain what is usually understood by evolution, but I would like to hint at some of the aspects of the evolution of man.

Speaking in general terms, the structure of man is essentially similar to that of the higher apes. The differences may be superficially striking, but the resemblances are fundamental. The disparity is patent when we see what man can do with his mechanism as opposed to what an ape does with his, but we must not forget that it is these apparently slight differences of structure which make possible the vast differences of functions; the two are intimately bound up together, and so it is not wise to overlook the differences between man and apes.

The akinship then of man and living apes is not one of direct relationship, but of common descent. It is constantly reiterated in books that the lower races of man are more simian than the higher, and the anatomical differences between an Australian or a Negro and a European are often described as "low," or " high," as the case may be, the "low" character being regarded as arrested or atavistic. This generalisation must be accepted with great caution; it is only partially true, and some of the characters on which reliance is placed may prove to have another signification.

The three great groups of mankind-the white, yellow, and black races-are probably all divergencies from the same unknown ancestral stock. They have severally specialised along different lines of evolution, and what is important to note is that different traits of their organisation have become arrested, or have specialised in different degrees and in different directions. In some part of their organisation each of these groups is less specialised or more specialised than the other two. While the white man may, for example, be nearer the ape in the character of his hair than the Mongol or the Negro, the usual short body and long legs of the latter also remove him farther from the ape, to whom, in this respect, the other groups are more allied. Of course there can be no doubt that, on the whole, the white race has progressed beyond the black race.

Stress is laid by evolutionists on the resemblances to one another of the young of different divisions of the same group, and this is an argument for the view that these different classes had a common ancestry.

The same holds good for man. The infants of white, yellow, brown, red, and black people wonderfully resemble one another-both as to form, feature, and colour,-and not only so, but they very much more resemble the young of the higher apes than do their respective adults.

In fact it could be argued, with some show of plausibility, that the newly born infant is not purely human, but that it rapidly passes through a pre-human stage.

An English baby is very unlike an English man; apart from evolution there is no reason why their bodily proportions should not be similar, or why their noses should be so dissimilar. It is a very significant fact that among the pigmy. peoples, such as the Andamanese and Bushmen, we find many infantile characteristics persisting in the adults, and among the taller races, the yellow people retain several juvenile characteristics. Thus we find that a people may retain infantile characteristics in some respects and be specialised in others; in employing the term "characteristics," I do not limit myself merely to physical features, but include mental and moral traits.

Anthropology also recognises the vast importance of the study of children. Following the strictly scientific method we thus enter the sacred precincts of the nursery, and inquire of the suckling the answer to one of the most momentous questions man can ask, " Whence are we?" We seek in the youngest man the story of the oldest man, and endeavour to trace in the evanescent characteristics of earliest infancy some of the steps through which man has climbed. above the brute.

From the nursery we pass to the school and the playground, endeavouring to discover in the child some evidence as to the direction of man's upward progress. As the newly born babe reveals to us the last traces of an arboreal ancestor and then speedily passes into human-kind, so the child repeats in its growth the savage stage from which civilised man has so recently emerged.

In subsequent chapters I shall refer to primitive survivals in child-life. There is not only a parallelism to some extent in physical features between children and certain savages,

« ForrigeFortsæt »