Passing of the Great Race — Eolithic Man

_PART II_

EUROPEAN RACES IN HISTORY

I EOLITHIC MAN

Before considering the living populations of Europe we must give consideration to the extinct peoples that preceded them.

The science of anthropology is very recent—in its present form less than fifty years old—but it has already revolutionized our knowledge of the past and extended prehistory so that it is now measured not by thousands but by tens of thousands of years.

The history of man prior to the period of metals has been divided into ten or more subdivisions, many of them longer than the time covered by written records.

Man has struggled up through the ages, to revert again and again into savagery and barbarism but apparently retaining each time something gained by the travail of his ancestors.

So long as there is in the world a freely breeding stock or race that has in it an inherent capacity for development and growth, mankind will continue to ascend until, possibly through the selection and regulation of breeding as intelligently applied as in the case of domestic animals, it will control its own destiny and attain moral heights as yet unimagined.

The impulse upward, however, is supplied by a very small number of nations and by a very small proportion of the population in such nations.

The section of any community that produces leaders or genius of any sort is only a minute percentage.

To utilize and adapt to human needs the forces and the raw materials of nature, to invent new processes, to establish new principles, and to elucidate and unravel the laws that control the universe call for genius.

To imitate or to adopt what others have invented is not genius but mimicry.

This something which we call “genius” is not a matter of family, but of stock or strain, and is inherited in precisely the same manner as are the purely physical characters.

It may be latent through several generations of obscurity and then flare up when the opportunity comes.

Of this we have many examples in America.

This is what education or opportunity does for a community; it permits in these rare cases fair play for development, but it is race, always race, that produces genius.

An individual of inferior type or race may profit greatly by good environment.

On the other hand, a member of a superior race in bad surroundings may, and very often does, sink to an extremely low level.

While emphasizing the importance of race, it must not be forgotten that environment, while it does not alter the potential capacity of the stock, can perform miracles in the development of the individual.

This genius producing type is slow breeding and there is real danger of its loss to mankind.

Some idea of the value of these small strains can be gained from the recent statistics which demonstrate that Massachusetts produces more than fifty times as much genius per hundred thousand whites as does Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi, although apparently the race, religion and environment, other than climatic conditions, are much the same, except for the numbing presence in the South of a large stationary Negro population.

The more thorough the study of European prehistory becomes, the more we realize how many advances of culture have been made and then lost.

Our parents were accustomed to regard the overthrow of ancient civilization in the Dark Ages as the greatest catastrophe of mankind, but we now know that the classic period of Greece was preceded by similar dark ages caused by the Dorian invasions, that had overthrown the Homeric-Mycenæan culture, which in its turn had flourished after the destruction of its parent, the brilliant Minoan culture of Crete.

Still earlier, some twelve thousand years ago, the Azilian Period of poverty and retrogression succeeded the wonderful achievements of the hunter-artists of the Upper Paleolithic.

The progress of civilization becomes evident only when immense periods are studied and compared, but the lesson is always the same, namely, that race is everything.

Without race there can be nothing except the slave wearing his master’s clothes, stealing his master’s proud name, adopting his master’s tongue and living in the crumbling ruins of his master’s palace.

Everywhere on the sites of ancient civilizations the Turk, the Kurd and the Bedouin camp; and Americans may well pause and consider the fate of this country which they, and they alone, founded and nourished with their blood.

The immigrant ditch diggers and the railroad navvies were to our fathers what their slaves were to the Romans and the same transfer of political power from master to servant is taking place to-day.

Man’s place of origin was undoubtedly Asia.

Europe is only a peninsula of the Eurasiatic continent and although the extent of its land area during the Pleistocene was much greater than at present, it is certain from the distribution of the various species of man, that the main races evolved in Asia, probably north of the great Himalayan range long before the centre of that continent was reduced to a series of deserts by progressive desiccation.

The evidence based on man’s relatively large bulk, on the lack of the development of his fore limbs and particularly on his highly specialized foot structure all indicate that he has not been arboreal for a vast period of time, probably not since the end of the Miocene.

The change of habitat from the trees to the ground may have been caused by a profound modification of climate, from moist to dry or from warm to cold, which in turn may have affected the food supply and compelled a more carnivorous diet.

Evidence of the location of the early evolution of man in Asia and in the geologically recent submerged area toward the southeast is afforded by the fossil deposits in the Siwalik hills of northern India; where the remains of primates have been found which were either ancestral or closely related to the four genera of living anthropoids and where we may confidently look for remains of the earliest human forms; and by the discovery in Java, which in Pliocene times was connected with the mainland over what is now the South China Sea, of the earliest known form of erect primate, the _Pithecanthropus_.

This ape-like man is practically the “missing link,” being intermediate between man and the anthropoids and is generally believed to have been contemporary with the Günz glaciation of some 500,000 years ago, the first of the four great glacial advances in Europe.

One or two species of anthropoid apes have been discovered in the Miocene of Europe which may possibly have been remotely related to the ancestors of man but when the archæological exploration of Asia shall be as complete and intensive as that of Europe it is probable that more forms of fossil anthropoids and new species of man will be found there.

Man existed in Europe during the second and third interglacial periods, if not earlier.

We have his artifacts in the form of eoliths, at least as early as the second interglacial stage, the Mindel-Riss, of some 300,000 years ago.

A single jaw found near Heidelberg is referred to this period and is the earliest skeletal evidence of man in Europe.

From certain remarkable characters in this jaw, it has been assigned to a new species, _Homo heidelbergensis_.

Then follows a long period showing only scanty industrial relics and no known skeletal remains.

Man was slowly and painfully struggling up from a culture phase where chance flints served his temporary purpose.

This period, known as the Eolithic, was succeeded by a stage of human development where slight chipping and retouching of flints for his increasing needs led, after vast intervals of time, to the deliberate manufacture of tools.

This Eolithic Period is necessarily extremely hazy and uncertain.

Whether or not certain chipped or broken flints, called eoliths or dawn stones, were actually human artifacts or were the products of natural forces is, however, immaterial for man must have passed through such an eolithic stage.

The further back we go toward the commencement of this Eolithic culture, the more unrecognizable the flints necessarily become until they finally cannot be distinguished from natural stone fragments.

At the beginning, the earliest man merely picked up a convenient stone, used it once and flung it away, precisely as an anthropoid ape would act to-day if he wanted to break the shell of a tortoise or crack an ostrich egg.

Man must have experienced the following phases of development in the transition from the prehuman to the human stage: first, the utilization of chance stones and sticks; second, the casual adaptation of flints by a minimum amount of chipping; third, the deliberate manufacture of the simplest implements from flint nodules; and fourth, the invention of new forms of weapons and tools in ever increasing variety.

Of the last two stages we have an extensive and clear record.

Of the second stage we have in the eoliths intermediate forms ranging from flints that are evidently results of natural causes to flints that are clearly artifacts.

The first and earliest stage, of course, could leave behind it no definite record and must in the present state of our knowledge rest on hypothesis.