THE CHANCES OF DEATH 89 



age, than can the American of the present day. Pearson's 

 comment on this fact is worth quoting. He says: "In 

 the course of those centuries man must have grown re- 

 markably fitter to, his environment, or else he must have 

 fitted his environment immeasurably better to himself. 

 No civilized community of to-day could show such a curve 

 as the civilized Romano-Egyptians of 2,000 years ago 

 exhibit. We have here either a strong argument for the 

 survival of the physically fitter man or for the survival 

 of the civilly fitter society. Either man is constitution- 

 ally fitter to survive to-day, or he is mentally fitter, i.e., 

 better able to organize his civic surroundings. Both con- 

 clusions point perfectly definitely to an evolutionary 

 progress. . . . That the expectation of life for a 

 Romano-Egyptian over 68 was greater than for a modern 

 English man or woman is what we might expect, for with 

 the mortality of youth and of middle age enormously 

 emphasized only the very strongest would survive to 

 this age. Out of 100 English alive at 10 years of age 39 

 survive to be 68; out of 100 Romano-Egyptians not 9 

 survived. Looking at these two curves we realize at a 

 glance either the great physical progress of man, which 

 enables him far more effectually to withstand a hostile 

 environment, or the great social and sanitary progress 

 he has made which enables him to modify the environ- 

 ment. In either case we can definitely assert that 2,000 

 years has made him a much ' fitter' being. In this com- 

 parison it must be remembered that we are not placing 

 a civilized race against a barbaric tribe, but comparing 

 a modern civilization with one of the highest types of 

 ancient civilization. ' ' 



Macdonell was able to continue this investigation on 

 much more extensive material extracted from the Corpus 



