Tropical nature, and other essays

by Alfred Russel Wallace

As my own knowledge of and interest in Anthropology is confined to the great outlines rather than to the special details of the science, I propose to give a very brief and general sketch of the modern doctrine as to the Antiquity and Origin of Man, and to suggest certain points of difficulty which have not, I think, yet received sufficient attention.

Many now living remember the time (for it is little more than twenty years ago) when the antiquity of man, as now understood, was universally discredited. Not only theologians, but even geologists then taught us, that man belonged altogether to the existing state of things; that the extinct animals of the Tertiary period had finally disappeared, and that the earth’s surface had assumed its present condition before the human race first came into existence. So prepossessed were even scientific men with this idea—which yet rested on purely negative evidence, and could not be supported by any arguments of scientific value—that numerous facts which had been presented at intervals for half a century, all tending to prove the existence of man at very remote epochs, were silently ignored; and, more than this, the detailed statements of three distinct and careful observers confirming each other, were rejected by a great scientific Society as too improbable for publication, only because they proved (if they were true) the coexistence of man with extinct animals.[54]

[54] In 1854 (?) a communication from the Torquay Natural-History Society confirming previous accounts by Mr. Godwin-Austen, Mr. Vivian, and the Rev. Mr. M‘Enery, that worked flints occurred in Kent’s Hole with remains of extinct species, was rejected as too improbable for publication.

But this state of belief in opposition to facts, could not long continue. In 1859 a few of our most eminent geologists examined for themselves into the alleged occurrence of flint implements in the gravels of the north of France, which had been made public fourteen years before, and found them strictly correct. The caverns of Devonshire were about the same time carefully examined by equally eminent observers, and were found fully to bear out the statements of those who had published their results eighteen years before. Flint implements began to be found in all suitable localities in the south of England, when carefully searched for, often in gravels of equal antiquity with those of France. Caverns giving evidence of human occupation at various remote periods were explored in Belgium and the south of France—lake-dwellings were examined in Switzerland—refuse-heaps in Denmark—and thus a whole series of remains have been discovered carrying back the history of mankind from the earliest historic periods to a long distant past.

The antiquity of the races thus discovered cannot be measured in years; but it may be approximately determined by the successively earlier and earlier stages of civilization through which we can trace them, and by the changes in physical geography and of animal and vegetable life that have since occurred. As we go back metals soon disappear, and we find only tools and weapons of stone and of bone. The stone weapons get ruder and ruder; pottery, and then the bone implements, cease to occur; and in the earliest stage we find only chipped flints of rude design, though still of unmistakably human workmanship. In like manner domestic animals disappear as we go backward; and though the dog seems to have been the earliest, it is doubtful whether the makers of the ruder flint implements of the gravels possessed even this. Still more important as a measure of time are the changes in the distribution of animals, indicating changes of climate, which have occurred during the human period. At a comparatively recent epoch in the record of prehistoric times we find that the Baltic was far salter than it is now and produced abundance of oysters, and that Denmark was covered with pine forests inhabited by Capercailzies, such as now only occur further north in Norway. A little earlier we find that reindeer were common even in the south of France; and still earlier this animal was accompanied by the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros, by the arctic glutton, and by huge bears and lions of extinct species. The presence of such animals implies a change of climate; and both in the caves and gravels we find proofs of a much colder climate than now prevails in Western Europe. Even more remarkable are the changes of the earth’s surface which have been effected during man’s occupation of it. Many extensive valleys in England and France are believed by the best observers to have been deepened at least a hundred feet; caverns now far out of the reach of any stream must for a long succession of years have had streams flowing through them, at least in times of floods; and this often implies that vast masses of solid rock have since been worn away. In Sardinia land has risen at least 300 feet since men lived there who made pottery and probably used fishing-nets;[55] while in Kent’s Cavern remains of man are found buried beneath two separate beds of stalagmite, each having a distinct texture, and each covering a deposit of cave-earth having well-marked differential characters, while each contains a distinct assemblage of extinct animals.

[55] Lyell’s Antiquity of Man, fourth edition, p. 115.

Such, briefly, are the results of the evidence that has been rapidly accumulating for about fifteen years, as to the antiquity of man; and it has been confirmed by so many discoveries of a like nature in all parts of the globe, and especially by the comparison of the tools and weapons of prehistoric man with those of modern savages (so that the use of even the rudest flint implements has become quite intelligible), that we can hardly wonder at the vast revolution effected in public opinion. Not only is the belief in man’s vast and still unknown antiquity universal among men of science, but it is hardly disputed by any well-informed theologian; and the present generation of science-students must, we should think, be somewhat puzzled to understand what there was in the earliest discoveries that should have aroused such general opposition, and been met with such universal incredulity.

But the question of the mere “Antiquity of Man” almost sank into insignificance at a very early period of the inquiry, in comparison with the far more momentous and more exciting problem of the development of man from some lower animal form, which the theories of Mr. Darwin and of Mr. Herbert Spencer soon showed to be inseparably bound up with it. This has been, and to some extent still is, the subject of fierce conflict; but the controversy as to the fact of such development is now almost at an end, since one of the most talented representatives of Catholic theology, and an anatomist of high standing—Professor Mivart—fully adopts it as regards physical structure, reserving his opposition for those parts of the theory which would deduce man’s whole intellectual and moral nature from the same source and by a similar mode of development.

Never, perhaps, in the whole history of science or philosophy has so great a revolution in thought and opinion been effected as in the twelve years from 1859 to 1871, the respective dates of publication of Mr. Darwin’s Origin of Species and Descent of Man. Up to the commencement of this period the belief in the independent creation or origin of the species of animals and plants, and the very recent appearance of man upon the earth, were, practically, universal. Long before the end of it these two beliefs had utterly disappeared, not only in the scientific world, but almost equally so among the literary and educated classes generally. The belief in the independent origin of man held its ground somewhat longer; but the publication of Mr. Darwin’s great work gave even that its death-blow, for hardly any one capable of judging of the evidence now doubts the derivative nature of man’s bodily structure as a whole, although many believe that his mind, and even some of his physical characteristics, may be due to the action of other forces than have acted in the case of the lower animals.

We need hardly be surprised, under these circumstances, if there has been a tendency among men of science to pass from one extreme to the other; from a profession (so few years ago) of total ignorance as to the mode of origin of all living things, to a claim to almost complete knowledge of the whole progress of the universe, from the first speck of living protoplasm up to the highest development of the human intellect. Yet this is really what we have seen in the last sixteen years. Formerly difficulties were exaggerated, and it was asserted that we had not sufficient knowledge to venture on any generalizations on the subject. Now difficulties are set aside, and it is held that our theories are so well established and so far-reaching, that they explain and comprehend all nature. It is not long ago (as I have already reminded you) since facts were contemptuously ignored, because they favoured our now popular views; at the present day it seems to me that facts which oppose them hardly receive due consideration. And as opposition is the best incentive to progress, and it is not well even for the best theories to have it all their own way, I propose to direct your attention to a few such facts, and to the conclusions that seem fairly deducible from them.