[27] Traditionally a theoretical presumption has been held to the contrary. It has been taken for granted that the institutional outcome of men’s native dispositions will be sound and salutary; but this presumption overlooks the effects of complication and deflection among instincts, due to cumulative habit. The tradition has come down as an article of uncritical faith from the historic belief in a beneficent Order of Nature; which in turn runs back to the early-modern religious conception of a Providential Order instituted by a shrewd and benevolent Creator; which rests on an anthropomorphic imputation of parental solicitude and workmanship to an assumed metaphysical substratum of things. This traditional view therefore is substantially theological and has that degree of validity that may be derived from the putative characteristics of any anthropomorphic divinity.
[28] Cf. e. g., F. H. Cushing, “A Study of Pueblo Pottery as illustrative of Zuñi Culture Growth,” Report, Bureau of Ethnology, 1882–1883 (vol. iv); J. W. Fewkes, “Archeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895,” sections on “Pottery” and “Paleography of the Pottery,” ibid, 1896–1897 (vol. xviii); W. H. Holmes, “The Ancient Art of Chiriqui,” ibid, 1884–1885 (vol. vi).
[29] The restrictions in this respect are mainly those which devote the “sacred” vessels, distinguished by peculiar shapes and decorations, to particular ceremonial uses.
[30] Cf. E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, especially ch. xvii.
[31] Cf. “The Evolution of the Scientific Point of View,” University of California Chronicle, Oct., 1908.
[32] So, e. g., the proficiency of Bushmen, Veddas, Australians, American Indians, and other peoples of a low technological plane, in tracking game has been remarked on with great admiration by all observers; and the efficiency of these and others of their like is no less admirable as regards swimming, boating, riding, climbing, stalking, etc.
[33] Cf. G. and A. de Mortillet, Le Préhistorique, especially the chapter “Données chronologiques,” pp. 662–664; W. G. Sollas, Ancient Hunters, ch. i and xiv.
[34] Cf. Sophus Müller, L’Europe Préhistorique.
[35] Cf., e. g., Report of Bureau of American Ethnology, 1884–1885, Franz Boas, “The Central Eskimo;” ibid, 1887–1888, John Murdoch, “The Point Barrow Eskimo.”
[36] What is assumed here is what is commonly held, viz. that the racial stocks that made up the late palæolithic population of Europe are still represented in a moderate way in the racial mixture that fills Europe today, and that these older racial types not only recur sporadically in the European population at large but are also present locally in sufficient force to give a particular character to the population of given localities. (See G. de Mortillet, Formation de la nation française, 4me partie, and Conclusions, pp. 275–329.) Great changes took place in the racial complexion of Europe in the beginning and early phases of the neolithic period, but since then no intrusion of new stocks has seriously disturbed the mixture of races, except in isolated areas, of secondary consequence to the cultural situation at large.