11. THE DIVISIONS OF PREHISTORIC TIME1

By LORD AVEBURY

The first appearance of Man in Europe dates from a period so remote, that neither history, nor even tradition, can throw any light on his origin, or mode of life. Under these circumstances, some have supposed that the past is hidden from the present by a veil, which time will probably thicken, but never can remove. Thus our pre-historic antiquities have been valued as monuments of ancient skill and perseverance, not regarded as pages of ancient history; recognized as interesting vignettes, not as historical pictures. Some writers have assured us that, in the words of Palgrave, "We must give it up, that speechless past; whether fact or chronology, doctrine or mythology; whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America; at Thebes or Palenque, on Lycian shore or Salisbury Plain: lost is lost; gone is gone for ever."' Others have taken a more hopeful view, but in attempting to reconstruct the story of the past, they have too often allowed imagination to usurp the place of research, and have written in the spirit of the novelist, rather than in that of the philosopher.

Of late years, however, a new branch of knowledge has arisen; a new Science has, so to say, been born among us, which deals with times and events far more ancient than any which have yet fallen within the province of the archaeologist. The geologist reckons not by days or by years; the whole six thousand years, which were until lately looked on as the sum of the world's existence, are to him but one unit of measurement in the long succession of past ages. Our knowledge of geology is, of course, very incomplete; on some questions we shall no doubt see reason to change our opinion, but on the whole, the conclusions to which it points are as definite as those of zoology, chemistry, or any of the kindred sciences. Nor does there appear to be any reason why those methods of examination which have proved so successful in geology, should not also be used to throw light on the history of man in prehistoric times. Archaeology forms, in fact, the link between geology and history. It is true that in the case of other animals we can, from their bones and teeth, form a definite idea of their habits and mode of life, while in the present state of our knowledge the skeleton of a savage could not always

1

From pages 1-5 of Sir John Lubbock [later Lord Avebury], Pre-historic Times, as illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages, 1865.

be distinguished from that of a philosopher. But on the other hand, while other animals leave only teeth and bones behind them, the men of past ages are to be studied principally by their works; houses for the living, tombs for the dead, fortifications for defence, temples for worship, implements for use, and ornaments for decoration.

From the careful study of the remains which have come down to us, it would appear that Pre-historic Archaeology may be divided into four great epochs.

I. That of the Drift; when man shared the possession of Europe with the Mammoth, the Cave bear, the Woolly-haired rhinoceros, and other extinct animals. This we may call the "Palaeolithic" period.

II. The later or polished Stone Age; a period characterized by beautiful weapons and instruments made of flint and other kinds of stone; in which, however, we find no trace of the knowledge of any metal, excepting gold, which seems to have been sometimes used for ornaments. This we may call the "Neolithic'' period.

III. The Bronze Age, in which bronze was used for arms and cutting instruments of all kinds.

IV. The Iron Age, in which that metal had superseded bronze for arms, axes, knives, etc.; bronze, however, still being in common use for ornaments, and frequently also for the handles of swords and other arms, though never for the blades.

Stone weapons, however, of many kinds were still in use during the Age of Bronze, and even during that of Iron, so that the mere presence of a few stone implements is not in itself sufficient evidence that any given "find" belongs to the stone age. In order to prevent misapprehension, it may also be well to state, at once, that, for the present, I only apply this classification to Europe, though, in all probability, it might be extended also to the neighboring regions of Asia and Africa. As regards other civilized countries, China and Japan for instance, we, as yet, know nothing of their pre-historic archaeology. It is evident, also, that some nations, such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, etc., are even now, or were very lately, in an Age of Stone.

It is probable that gold was the metal which first attracted the attention of man; it is found in many rivers, and by its bright colour would certainly attract even the rudest savages, who are known to be very fond of personal decoration. Silver does not appear to have been discovered until long after gold, and was apparently preceded by both copper and tin, as it is rarely, if ever, found in tumuli of the Bronze Age; but, however this may be, copper seems to have been the metal which first became of real importance to man: no doubt owing to the fact that its ores are abundant in many countries, and can be smelted without difficulty; and that, while iron is hardly ever found except in the form of ore, copper

often occurs in a native condition, and can be beaten at once into shape. Thus, for instance, the North American Indians obtained pure copper from the mines near Lake Superior and elsewhere, and hammered it at once into axes, bracelets, and other objects.

Tin also early attracted notice, probably on account of the great heaviness of its ores. When metals were very scarce, it would naturally sometimes happen that, in order to make up the necessary quantity, some tin would be added to copper, or vice versa. It would then be found that the properties of the alloy were quite different from those of either metal, and a very few experiments would determine the most advantageous proportion, which for axes and other cutting instruments is about nine parts of copper to one of tin. No implements or weapons of tin have yet been found, and those of copper are extremely rare, whence it has been inferred that the art of making bronze was known elsewhere, before the use of either was introduced into Europe. Many of the so-called "copper" axes, etc., contain a small proportion of tin; and the few exceptions indicate probably a mere temporary want, rather than a total ignorance, of this metal.

The ores of iron, though more abundant, are much less striking in appearance than those of copper. Moreover, though they are perhaps more easily reduced, the metal, when obtained, is much less tractable than bronze. This valuable alloy can very easily be cast, and, in fact, all the weapons and implements made of it in olden times were cast in moulds of sand or stone. The art of casting iron, on the other hand, was unknown until a comparatively late period. . .

Hesiod, who is supposed to have written about 900 B.C., and who is the earliest European author whose works have come down to us, appears to have lived during the transition between the Bronze and Iron Ages. He distinctly states that iron was discovered after copper and tin. Speaking of those who were ancient, even in his day, he says that they used bronze, and not iron. . . . His poems, as well as those of Homer, show that nearly three thousand years ago, the value was known and appreciated. . . . We may, therefore, consider that the Trojan war took place during the period of transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age.

In the Pentateuch, excluding Deuteronomy, bronze, or as it is unfortunately translated, brass, is mentioned thirty-eight times, and iron only four times.

12. SOME PRINCIPLES OF MENDELIAN HEREDITY1

By IRVING FISHER

I have sometimes said that eugenics is hygiene raised to the highest power. It is a comparatively new movement, but one which is sweeping over the world with wonderful rapidity, and taking hold of the emotions of mankind in a way that no other movement has ever done, or has deserved to do.

First of all, what is eugenics? Eugenics, as the Greek derivation of the word shows, means the science of right breeding. The word was invented by Sir Francis Galton, of England, to express his ideal of founding a world movement to improve the human race. It was, of course, a colossal ambition, and, at first, almost everybody scoffed. Even today there are comparatively few who realize how immediately practical is this dream of Sir Francis Galton's.

Eugenics does not mean, as many people at first thought, anything like the old Spartan practice of infanticide. The Spartans tried to develop a strong, physical race according to their ideals, and they succeeded, but they did it in a cruel fashion by ruthlessly exposing children when born. Infanticide has been practiced in many of the barbarous countries of the world, and when eugenics was proposed, many people very naturally imagined this was what it meant. But it does not. Nor does eugenics propose to do violence in any other way to any humanitarian or Christian effort. Eugenics does not mean, as some have imagined, compulsory or government-made marriages. Some people have thought that eugenics was some half-baked scheme to breed the human race as we breed domestic animals, and to make a race of pug-noses or blond hair or blue eyes or any other fancy that some master of ceremonies should conceive. Nor does it mean a reduction in the proportion of love marriages. On the contrary, it means an increase of such marriages. Just as soon as men and women come to see and admire, as in ancient Greece, the ideal of physical perfection, they will fall in love on that basis, as nature always intended that they should. There will be less interference with love marriages through ambition to acquire property or title.

Eugenics is simply an application of modern science to improve the human race. "But," says the skeptic, "that will take millions of years!" Nevertheless, I reassert that it is easily practical to alter and improve the human race and to do so in a very short time.

1

From Eugenics Good Health Magazine, XLVIII, 1913.

This is the new optimism of eugenics, and it is based on solid evidence. Until recently no one realized how fast the race could improve if it would. Even Galton himself, when he first proposed eugenics, was under the impression that we inherit from our ancestors in a way which would make possible improvement extremely slow. He put forward as a theory (what we now know to be incorrect) that each child gets half of its nature from its parents, one-quarter from its grandparents, one-eighth from its great grandparents, one-sixteenth from its great great grandparents, and so on indefinitely back, the sum total of those fractions being, when added up to infinity, just unity or the whole inheritance. Instead of such a relation holding true, however, we know that a child inherits something from both parents in relation to every character of body or mind, and that the something which it inherits from its mother, is by its mother inherited from one (not both) of its mother's parents, and likewise the something which it inherited from the father, was inherited from one (not both) of the father's parents, and so on in two streams on either side, from each parent backward. Thus each individual today is in respect to any one characteristic (such, for example, as eye-color) simply a combination of two beings in any previous generation. One generation back, it is the two parents from whom he gets his eye-color; two generations back it is two out of its four grandparents, and not the other two at all; three generations back, it is two of its great grandparents and not the other six at all. Consequently, if you can carry back your inheritance to someone who came over in the Mayflower, the chances are a thousand to one that you did not inherit any given character, such as eye-color, from that ancestor at all. In fact, you may have absolutely nothing in mind or body which came from him.

The marvelous laws of inheritance are now being fairly well explained and understood. They were discovered first by a priest named Mendel, in the year 1865. But when he gave his discovery to the world, he found the world was blind and deaf, as it often is, to new discoveries, and it waited until the beginning of the twentieth century, when De Vries and other scientists rediscovered the Mendelian principle, which today is the foundation stone of the science of heredity and eugenics.

We can best understand Mendel's laws by taking a few concrete cases. The first case is that of an Andalusian fowl. We shall consider the two species, pure bred black and pure bred white and confine ourselves to observing the inheritance of the single characteristic, color. Of course, as long as the black mate only with the black, the children will be black and as long as the white mate with white, the children will be white. But if a white mates with a black, the children will not be either black or white, but blue. All will be blue. But the most interesting facts appear in the next generation, when these hybrid blue fowls mate with black, or with white, or with each other. The original of the cross between the