The processes of history

Preface

The question "Is History a science?" has now been debated by successive generations of historians without any general agreement having been reached. It would seem, therefore, that in some particular the problem had been wrongly stated. Hence, following the critique presented in my Prolegomena to History, I have approached the whole matter from a new angle by asking what sort of results might be obtained by a strict application of the method of science to the facts of history. The outcome of this procedure, stated in general terms, is an attempt to do for human history what biologists are engaged in doing for the history of the forms of life, and this publication offers in summary form a first analysis of the factors and processes manifested in the history of man.

For the sake of clearness, and in order that the essential considerations might be brought within a brief comprehensive view, the argument has been condensed and made as explicit as circumstances would permit. Since footnotes and cita-

PREFACE tions of authorities have also been eliminated in the interest of brevity and directness, it should be understood that there is no view expressed which, I believe, is not already familiar to students in one or another branch of humanistic inquiry. So far as I am aware, all that is new in the present contribution is the co-ordination into one consistent statement of results which are well known, but which are widely scattered throughout the literature of anthropology, history, political science, philology, education, geography, and other studies. Further than this, the most significant feature of the book is an insistence that, in dealing with a problem of this magnitude, the prime requisite must be an exacting care in regard to the method employed. Hence, it seems to me, that the questions for immediate consideration are : first, whether the problems of method have been correctly stated ; and, second, whether the factors and processes indicated are correctly described.

More generally, there is no disguising the fact that the present world-situation is imperative in forcing men to question searchingly the validity of their own activities. Are, then, those of us who are engaged in the study of History doing all that

[vi]

PREFACE lies within our power to make our inquiries contributory to the well-being of our fellow-men? We must admit that while, during the last fifty years, the students of Nature have most significantly enlarged the knowledge of the world in which we live, the students of Man have made no such striking advance in their field of investition. It is true that we have been persistent in the collection of facts, and in the refinement of the technique of investigation, but it would seem as if the utilization of all this accumulated knowledge in the spirit of modern science might now be undertaken. What, then, is presented here is a tentative statement, based upon the application of the method of science to the facts of History, made in the earnest belief that inquiry conducted along the lines marked out must ultimately lead to an understanding of the difficulties that beset our civilization, and to a furtherance of the welfare of mankind.

[vii]

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. The Nature and Scope of the Inquiry ..... i

II. The Geographical Factor in History . . . . .41

II The Geographical Factor In History

i. Having arrived at a formulation of the problem to be investigated, and at a general conception of the method to be followed, it next becomes necessary to consider the character of the evidence to be employed. Freeman was far from being alone in the belief that, while the recovery of the ancient records of Eastern peoples was to be regarded with pleasure, the historian could not accept these as materials for the study which was his own. This is an artificial distinction and an improper limitation to research, and, indeed, the greatest obstacle to the scientific study of history has been the conventional attitude, of which this is an example, by which the attention of historians has been restricted to Europe and the activities of Europeans, for such limitation would impose an absolute bar to the application of the comparative method. If, however, the many histories with which we are confronted, histories of

India, China, and Europe, are to be compared, this involves the assumption that the essential content of history is everywhere the same, that human history is made up of the same materials throughout, and woven upon the same loom. Simple as this declaration may appear to be, it involves conclusions of such far-reaching importance that it becomes essential to examine the bases for an acceptance of the homogeneity of history.

Europe and Asia are indissoluble, and are separated in name only. When we stop to consider the map of the eastern hemisphere it is at once apparent that Europe is just a westward extension or peninsula of the great land-mass of Eurasia. The convention by which we regard the two continents as divided is not an outgrowth of modern geographical knowledge, but represents simply a traditional nomenclature which we have inherited from immemorial antiquity. Physically, Europe and Asia are continuous : the great northern plain of Asia penetrates into the heart of Europe; the mountain barrier which, alternately expanding to enclose great basins like those of Hungary, Persia, and Tibet, and focussing in knots like the Alps, Ararat, and the Pamirs, stretches from Atlantic to Pacific, is crossed only by occasional passes; the line of depressions, conspicuous in the Mediterranean, runs through the Black, the Caspian, and the Aral seas, through lakes like Balkash, Issik, Zaisan, and Baikal, from west to farthest east; the desert belt lies stretched, a veritable cincture, Sahara, Arabia, Iran, Turkestan, and Takla Makan, across the body of the older world.

Again, if we consider the distribution of peoples, there is no point at which we may draw a line of separation between Asia and Europe. There are representatives of European stocks to be found throughout the eastern continent, while, conversely, in the West there is no nation without its quantum of Asiatic blood : there are Finns in the North, Mongols in Central Europe, Arabs in Spain, Turks on the Aegean, and Semites everywhere.

Furthermore, in their history, the two parts of Eurasia are inextricably bound together. Mackinder has shown how much light may be thrown upon European history by regarding it as subordinate to Asiatic ; and while we may question Ujfalvy's saying that Rome fell because the Chinese built a wall, we cannot deny that the

PROCESSES OF HISTORY ancient history of Europe is as incomprehensible without a knowledge of the Nearer East as medieval history without reference to the migrations of Asiatic peoples from the northern steppes. The oldest of historians held the idea that the epochs of European history were marked by alternating movements across the imaginary line that separates East and West; to us these movements are distinguishable in remotely prehistoric times, they have left their legible traces on the languages we speak, they are evident in periods of Greek history unknown to Herodotus, and are already modern with the expeditions of Darius and Alexander, with the appearance of Huns and Moslems in the West and of Frankish kingdoms in the East. The tide has turned, we may say, since Russia conquered Siberia and Britain became paramount in Hindustan, but the East has not been vanquished, and, possibly, the returning tide may not long be delayed.

Something more than this intimacy of relation, however, is necessary in order to demonstrate that the history of man in Europe and Asia is homogeneous. The fundamental basis of argument for holding that the History of man everywhere is of the same fabric, does not rest upon the interconnections of events, but may be stated in the form that the varying experiences of human groups have been similarly conditioned by the varying aspects of the conformation of the globe. Man cannot escape the physical world in which he lives, nor its infinite diversification; this is obvious, but it will require some illustration to make clear the fact that the even-handed dominance of nature leads inevitably to widely different results in the lives of men.

2. Europe is visibly a projection from the block of Eurasia, but if we examine the configuration of the larger area it will be found that there are other projections to the south and east. India, indeed, is easily recognizable as a peninsula, but China lies quite as completely outside the quadrilateral of the central mass. Comparing these three, which, incidentally, contain together by far the greater part of all the inhabitants of the globe, it will be discovered that China and India, though seemingly more closely united to the central block, are, from the point of view of human accessibility, much more completely set apart than Europe. For while the latter lies exposed and open to the center, through the level plains of Russia and the convenient approach of the

PROCESSES OF HISTORY Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean, the former lie behind the protecting bulk of the highest and most difficult mountain system in the world. Hence India may be reached only by utilizing one or other of a few tortuous routes through the towering mountains on its northwestern frontier, while China, similarly, enjoys the protection of the inaccessible mountains of Tibet on its western flank, and of the wideextending deserts to the northwest. In either case, the routes by which the borders of the country may be reached are few and strictly defined, and are impracticable in face of an organized defence ; and it will also be observed that both in China and in India the entire country stretches away from the gateway by which alone access may be gained, and the defence of this protects the land from molestation. In the case of Europe, on the other hand, all this is changed, for here there is no single or restricted strategic point at which the whole area may be defended, and, as a consequence, its penetration to the farthest recesses has been repeated and complete. Here, then, in its very simplest form is an example of homogeneity, inasmuch as the fortunes, expressed in history, of the inhabitants of these areas have turned primarily upon the relative accessibility of the land.

The principal reason, apart from the concentration of attention upon the affairs of Europe, why this close dependence of history upon the irregularities of the surface of the earth has not been fully recognized, seems to be the unavoidable tendency to regard as interchangeable or synonymous the geographical name of a land and the title of its dominant political power. Thus we speak of "the history of China" thinking at once of political happenings and of a certain area of the earth's surface which we Europeans have agreed to call by this name. But the subject of the historian's discourse is not an actual physical land, he considers this only as the seat of a particular political organization, and hence a more careful usage would distinguish between the title of the political unit and the name of the country over which its jurisdiction extends. It would, indeed, obviate misunderstanding if we were to speak habitually of the governmental unit, coincident with the geographical area which we call "China," as the "Middle Kingdom," Chung Kwo, Hwa Kwo, or any of the titles used by the Li Min or Han Ten themselves, for then we

PROCESSES OF HISTORY would recognize more easily that the political organization has not always been, and strictly speaking is not now, equated with the geographical area.

This consideration leads to the recognition of another aspect of homogeneity, which is, that the political organizations dealt with in History have all come into being at definite and restricted spots, from which, subsequently, they have expanded. Indeed, no intimate knowledge of history is necessary to reveal how limited were the original geographical areas from which grew the political units known as the Roman, Chinese, Russian, and British empires. A uniformity of this sort is clearly of interest in and for itself ; it becomes of great significance, however, when we turn to examine the elements common to all such cases, and to see in these small beginnings the universal influence of geographical factors.

Various attempts, already alluded to, have been made to discover common elements in the beginnings of early civilizations. The difficulty in all these cases has been that the investigator has limited his observation to the lands of the Nearer East, and has failed to extend the comparison to all known instances of the emergence of political units. So, while at first sight it may appear that these beginnings have some relation to the irrigable valleys of rivers like the Nile and the Euphrates, further consideration will show, on the one hand, that there were valleys of this character in which civilizations did not arise, and, on the other, that civilizations have made their appearance in quite different situations. Some part of the difficulty that has been experienced in the attempt to isolate the common factors in the different instances of the emergence of advanced groups is unquestionably due to the use of such vague and all-inclusive terms as "civilization." If, however, we restrict the inquiry, for the moment, to the beginnings of political organization, a working basis for comparison will be obtained which will be found to lead to definite and verifiable results. When, therefore, we come to compare the different cases in which political units can be seen to emerge, it is first to be observed that these units are restricted in every case to small areas, and, when the common character of these areas is examined, it is demonstrable that they are termini of routes of travel, and hence points of pressure

PROCESSES OF HISTORY which have been strictly determined by the physical conformation of the earth's surface.

It may be well, as far as possible, to envisage the situation. South of the great Eurasian plain, the mountain barrier and the desert belt offer very real obstacles to human movement; the actual ways, restricted to practicable passes and sufficiently watered routes, provide but limited possibilities in lines of travel. Hence supposing that any considerable body of men should, for any reason whatever, be driven from an established habitat to seek a new place of abode, the world would be "open" to it only in the most general sense. In such a case, indeed, any one choice would severely restrict all the movements that were to follow, and with each step in any given direction, the options for the future would become ever fewer. If now we turn to observe the habitable extremities to which the routes lead, it is manifest that a theoretical first migrating group will settle down where conditions are endurable, but a second will find itself confronted by the first as occupants in possession. In whatever manner this situation may be met, and in certain cases there is evidence that the earlier group moved on, the time comes when the question of occupancy must be fought out at the gateway. In other words, while a little effort will serve to move a single railroad car on the track, a long line of cars lying ahead cannot be set in motion by any amount of mere human pressure exerted at one end.

Where these conditions have been fulfilled, political organizations have arisen, sooner or later, throughout the Eurasian continent. Thus in China and in India, which, as has already been pointed out, are pockets on a gigantic scale, the earliest appearance of political units is just within the entrance or opening. Something of the same general character is to be seen in England, where the earliest political units came into existence along the line of greatest exposure to the continent, while, just as in China and India, the population of the more remote and inaccessible areas of the kingdom have scarcely been politicized up to the present day.

All the termini of routes are not, however, of this Indo-Chinese pattern, and Mesopotamia affords an example of a different kind. Here, indeed, is a land which is accessible from every quarter, so that it may be regarded as the focus of routes leading in from different directions.

Nevertheless, the phenomena exhibited are of exactly the same character; political organizations come into existence at the point of pressure, and the only difference between this case and the former is a difference in the degree of exposure, which turns, not upon the activity of men, but upon the physical disposition of mountains, rivers, and deserts. Furthermore, if we think of the Euphrates and Tigris, we may see that as water would rise in a river in presence of some obstacle, political units make their appearance higher and higher upstream as successive entrants make their way along the different avenues of approach.

Stated thus, even in the most general terms, it becomes evident that everywhere the beginnings of political organization have been determined by the physical disposition of the land. It will have been observed, however, that this determinant influence of routes has been dependent upon the presence of human beings, that it comes into play only in case of the movement of peoples. Hence the origin of these movements becomes a matter of primary importance, more particularly as the homogeneity of history is further ex-

GEOGRAPHICAL FACTOR hibited in the dependence of these movements or migrations upon man's physical surroundings.

3. With practical uniformity, the view taken of the origin of migrations is that these movements have been the necessary outcome or manifestation of the "natural increase" or "automatic excess" of population. Nothing indeed could well appear simpler to the modern mind than this transference to earlier times of the typically nineteenth-century picture of ever flowing streams of emigration finding their way to distant colonies. Yet, convincing as it may seem, the explanation conceals a problem of some magnitude and complexity.

To reach the core of the difficulty, it may be pointed out that the great rise in European population during the last century and a half is an altogether exceptional phenomenon. At its very beginning, this increase deeply impressed the minds of thoughtful contemporaries, and, among others, Malthus took up the problem, setting himself "to investigate the causes that have hitherto impeded the progress of mankind." The object of the present inquiry might almost be stated in the same terms, but Malthus, possibly with greater discretion, limited his field of re-

PROCESSES OF HISTORY search to an investigation of the effects, in the case of man, of the constant tendency in all life to increase beyond the available means of subsistence. Of this tendency there can be little doubt, and, later on, Darwin took it for granted that organic beings may be regarded as striving to the utmost to increase in numbers. He pointed out that the progeny of a single pair of any species, if unhindered, would soon cover the earth, and Malthus estimated that, under favorable conditions, the human race might double itself four times in every hundred years. Manifestly, however, no such "natural increase" takes place, either among animals or men, and the crucial point in the investigations both of Malthus and of Darwin was the nature and effect of the "checks" by which population is limited.

It was argued by Darwin that each organic being lives by a struggle at some period of its life, and, adopting the view expressed by Malthus that those who labor under any original weakness or infirmity would be the first to succumb, he arrived, by inverting the idea, at the conclusion that the survival of the fittest led eventually, not merely to a maintenance of the standard, but to the development of new species. As there has been a marked disposition on the part of humanistic students to apply Darwin's hypothesis to the special case of man, it may be urged that Darwin's adaptation of Malthus' ideas should not be permitted to supersede Malthus' contribution in its own field. And this particularly since, notwithstanding the common tendency of animal and human population to increase, the difference in the nature of the "checks" applied in the two cases is so marked as to make separate consideration imperative. Among animals, as Darwin saw, the struggle is a direct physical effort, and results in the elimination of individuals unable to bear their part; among human beings, as Malthus pointed out, actual want of food is, practically speaking, never the immediate check. Indeed, what we have to consider in the latter case is the means adopted for the prevention of increase, for in no human group has population been left to grow with perfect freedom or without interference. The inquiry in the case of man must concern itself, then, with the results of means adopted, consciously or unconsciously, for the restriction of population ; and hence at the outset we are confronted with a substitution of ideas in place of the physical processes represented in "natural selection."

In beginning his examination of the influences which have retarded human advancement, Malthus set forth certain "propositions" which he regarded as axiomatic. First, he considered that "Population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence," and, second, that "Population always increases where the means of subsistence increase." To the first of these an addendum might be offered, which, though by no means self-evident, is regarded by Bateson as axiomatic from the standpoint of the biologist. This may be stated in the form that, as population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence, in normal stable conditions it remains stationary. Now it will readily appear that if this addendum is a true statement of the case, mere "natural increase" cannot be assigned as a reason for migration, and hence some other explanation must be sought to account for this phenomenon. It follows, therefore, that the nature of the arguments which may be advanced in support of the added "proposition" must be briefly indicated.

The point to be brought out is that owing to the restrictive measures employed, primitive groups do not multiply to such an extent that an overflow of population takes place. Among animals, the individual arrives on the scene of life to accept the chances of a struggle in which the more vigorous and fortunate have an advantage; among primitive peoples, on the other hand, a continuance of the life of the individual turns, in the first instance, upon the decision of older members of the group into which he is born, and the chances of survival are arbitrarily limited by the forethought, for their own well-being, of those upon whom the new arrival is dependent. Writing in the eighteenth century, Raynal called attention to "that multitude of singular institutions which retard the progress of population." To convey a clear impression of the extent to which the "natural increase" of early or lower groups was restricted, it would be necessary to consider each of these various practices; for the present purpose, however, it will be sufficient to take as an example the influence of infanticide.

First, it should be observed that, in order to render population stationary, it would only be necessary that the restricting practices should affect a limited and variable surplus which would remain after allowance had been made for the normal or average infant mortality of a given place and condition of life, and for the number actually necessary to maintain the full complement of the group. This being the case, it is of importance to notice that infanticide, the killing of newborn infants, has been practised universally throughout the world (until superseded in modern times by more remote methods for accomplishing the same ends).

It is not to be assumed that, in its earliest application, the practice of infanticide was inspired by any far-sighted concern for the food supply of later years. In its simplest form, the practice seems to have arisen from the readily appreciable difficulty that a mother finds in caring for more than one infant at a time under primitive conditions of life. At a very early period, however, it seems to have been definitely recognized that if all the children born were allowed to live there would not be food enough to support everybody. This truth, as has frequently been pointed out, would soon force itself upon the attention of islanders; and modern observers have reported that in certain islands from a half to two-thirds of all infants were killed at birth. When forethought had once come to play a part, the practice of infanticide seems to have assumed some fairly definite form, and to have come, in a measure, under public surveillance. So while in one group the first or even the first two or three infants would be killed, in another all after the first three or four would be done away with. Twins, weakly children, those born on unlucky days or for whom the omens were inauspicious, children whose upper teeth came first, appear, in general, to have met with an untimely end. Before long the selection evidently came into close association with some conception of the needs of the group : Australian women are said, out of an average of six children, to rear as a rule two boys and a girl, and practically everywhere the ratio of boys and girls is a matter of special concern.

Owing to the interest excited by M'Lennan's theory of the origin of exogamy, the question of the prevalence of female infanticide has to a great extent overshadowed the more general problem. Here it may be observed that male infanticide seems to stand in the same relation to mother-rite groups that female infanticide does to patriarchal groups. In the former, since descent passes through the female side, girls are preferred, and boys are less desirable; while, in the latter case, the conditions are reversed. So, too, where daughters could be sold for a good price to husbands, they would be valued, but where a dower had to be given they would be looked upon as a source of loss. Conversely, with the introduction of the custom of tracing descent through males, boys were preferred, more especially because the dead were dependent upon heirs-male for the sacrifices associated with ancestor- worship.

If the influence of infanticide in restricting numbers is to be fully appreciated, it must be understood that the practice was not a mere matter of individual caprice, but was commonly regarded as a public concern of moment to the group as a whole. The decision was not by any means universally left to the parents, and in some places the carrying out of the sentence was entrusted to professional practitioners. The most important aspect of the case, however, is that the infant had no standing in the group into which it was born — was veritably "a little stranger" — until it had been formally accepted into the kin. As van Gennep has pointed out, the attitude of the group towards the infant was one of selfdefence, and it was necessary that the newcomer should undergo purification, and remain for a period in a state of probation, before the rite of admission was celebrated. Very generally, it would appear, the child was submitted to more or less public inspection, and the rite of acceptance was performed by the headman of the village or the head of the family group. At Athens the decision seems, primitively, to have been arrived at by a family council; later, the father made official announcement before the altar of Hestia as to whether the child was to be accepted or abandoned ; finally, it would seem, the official ceremony was confined to acceptance — failure to celebrate the birth was tantamount to rejection.

Clearly, then, the practice of infanticide alone must have gone far towards limiting the numbers of earlier groups and rendering population stationary, and it must not be overlooked that this is but one of a number of such practices. That these methods of keeping population within bounds were effective may, furthermore, be inferred from the stability of the boundaries between different primitive groups, and from the widespread evidences of a persistent attitude of hostility towards strangers. The boundaries of tribal territory, as Grierson has shown, are, in general, clearly defined, not merely by the natural landmarks of rivers, lakes, forests, and mountains, but even by artificial monuments. The borders are jealously defended, and, being on either side placed under the protection of supernatural powers who are believed to take upon themselves the punishment of venturesome intruders, are not violated without trepidation. Indeed, beyond the group boundary, the world was necessarily full of menace, for, among all lower peoples, the stranger was feared and treated as an enemy, and the relation between stranger-groups was one of persistent hostility. So, while Holsti has shown conclusively that primitive warfare consisted more of shouting and terrifying than of fighting with intent to kill, it is not to be assumed that the hostility was factitious ; and the fact that peaceful intercourse between neighboring groups was limited in the extreme is shown by the custom of the "silent trade." Singular as it may appear, in this mode of bartering, traces of which are still to be found in every quarter of the globe, the traffickers not only do not address, but do not even see one another. The silent trade is simply a means by which enemies may mutually ex-

GEOGRAPHICAL FACTOR change goods, and at the same time remain in safety; "they, indeed, keep faith with one another, but in so doing they are actuated, not by any feeling of amity, but wholly by the wish to serve their own interests."

It cannot be asserted that the addendum offered to the first proposition of Malthus has the same axiomatic character as the statement that "Population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence" ; nor can it be demonstrated from statistics that "in normal stable conditions population remains stationary" ; nevertheless, it may now be urged that there are weighty considerations which tend to substantiate such a conclusion. So, as the longevity of the savage is less than that of civilized man, and as the conditions of savage life undoubtedly have an appreciable influence upon fecundity, the prevalence of such customs as infanticide, not to speak of the influence of various forms of marriage, must have made anything like rapid increase of population impossible. Furthermore, all we know of the habits of lower groups, more particularly their dread of strange places and strange people, tends to confirm the view that such groups have long remained practically stationary in numbers. Fi-