NATURE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1871 


PRIMITIVE CULTURE* 
i 
HEN the commencement of Mr. Buckle’s great “ In- 
troduction” appeared, some fourteen years ago, no 
small controversy arese as to the possibility of construct- 
ing a Science of History. On the one hand it was argued 
that for two or three centuries past every generation had 
demonstrated certain events to be regular and predictable, 
which previous generations had considered irregular and 
unpredictable ; had generalised facts which it was supposed 
were incapable of being generalised ; and had indicated 
the existence of order, method, and law, in events which 
earlier ages had regarded as regulated only by the fitful 
vagaries of a blind chance, or the inscrutable decrees of a 
supernatural interference. On the other hand, it was 
asserted that, even supposing the universal prevalence of 
law and order to be proved, our necessary nescience would 
stillremain so totally unenlightened with regard to the 
operation of the law and the sequence of the order, that 
no ingenuity could achieve such a classification of human 
motives and actions as could justly be dignified with the 
mame of ascience. Since then we have passed through 
what amounts to a scientific revolution. Not only has 
archzeology vastly extended the limit of its domain, but 
the doctrine of evolution—itself the most striking generali- 
sation deduced from a comparison of the world’s present 
with the world’s past—points decisively to archzology as 
the most fruitful province of inquiry to the student of the 
science of History. Before Buckle wrote, archeology had 
indeed already discovered more than one new world for 
the conquest of modern science. In the last generation, 
the archzology of organic nature, brought to light by 
geology, had afforded a sure basis for the science of Com- 
parative Anatomy ; and in a precisely analogous manner 
the archeology of language and religious worship, revealed 
in the early literary monuments of India, Assyria, and 
Egypt, had more recently altogether regenerated the 
science of Comparative Philology, and created that of 
Comparative Mythology. Butthe value and importance 
of archzeological research in other directions had not yet 
been understood and appreciated. It was not until the 
-disceveries of human implements and remains in the drift 
and cavern deposits had directed attention to the multi- 
farious problems presented by primitive culture, that 
investigators began to regard the sciences of Language and 
Religion as merely departments of the more general and 
comprehensive science of Comparative Civilisation, and to 
recognise the fact that the science of Comparative Civili- 
sation is the very corner-stone of any real science of 
History. As indicating the direction of scientific research, 
itis significant that Mr. Darwin’s last work, which surely 
should have been entitled the “Ascent” ratherthan the “ De- 
scent of Man,” should beso closely followed by the volumes 
of Mr. Tylor on Primitive Culture. The main argument, 
indeed, of both writers is fundamentally the same. The 
difference between them is that Mr. Darwin traces it out 
in connection with what man zs, Mr. Tylor in connection 
* ‘Primitive Culture : Researches into the Development of Mythology, 
Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom.” By Edward B. Tylor, author of 
“Researches into Early History of Mankind,” &c. Two vols. 8yo. 
(London; Murray, 1871.) 
VOL, IV. 

117 
with what man does. One applies the theory of evolution 
to man in relation to organic nature, the other to man in 
relation to human culture. Both, too, have pursued the 
same method. It was no part of Mr. Darwin’s design to 
write an exhaustive physical history of mankind, or of 
Mr. Tylor’s to detail the history of civilisation. Each has 
selected the most salient and significant points to illustrate 
his argument, and has instanced only sufficient facts to 
supply a reasonable proof of the propositions enunciated, 
It is not, however, merely as an exponent of the theory 
of development that Mr. Tylor has taken his work in hand, 
Leibnitz long ago pointed out the supreme importance of 
a study of mankind in connection with that of what he 
terms the natural history of the world, in order to ascer- 
tain what ought to be introduced and what banished from 
among men. This principle Mr. Tylor has recognised 
throughout, and the facts he brings forward have quite as 
often been selected -for the light they throw on vexed 
questions of the day as for the illustration they afford of 
the theory of evolution. 
One great stumbling-block in the way of the student of 
culture is the extreme imperfection of the only records to 
which he has access. The comparative anatomist, how- 
ever, who is perhaps even more closely beset by the same 
difficulty, has pointed out the means by which it may to 
a great extent be effectually overcome. If analogy be as 
trustworthy in the one case as in the other, the historian 
of culture can study the past in the present with the same 
confidence as the anatomist, and can as readily recon- 
struct the shape of human society in primeval ages as his 
fellow-worker can restore the outward form of an extinct 
flora and fauna from their fossil remains. But is this 
analogy to be trusted? Can it be demonstrated that any 
such vital connection exists between antique and modern 
barbarism as will enable the inquirer to study prehistoric 
culture in that of still-existing races, savage, barbaric, or 
semi-civilised? Can it be proved that savage, barbaric, 
and civilised life are really correlated as various stages of 
growth and development? To these questions Mr. Tylor’s 
work suppliesa satisfactory answer. Carefully reviewing 
a number of the most important departments of culture, 
he proves the existence in all of innumerable relics—the 
fossils, as it were, of primeval thought and life—traces the 
modes of connecion of one age with another in progress, 
degradation, survival, revival, and modification, and de- 
monstrates the utter inadequacy of any theory but one of 
development to explain the complex and varied pheno- 
mena of civilisation. Survival in culture, the origin of 
language, the art of numbers, mythology, religion, rites 
and ceremonies, are each in turn discussed, and it is not 
too much to say that the extent of research, the rare feli- 
city of illustration, the breadth of view and signal origi- 
nality which Mr. Tylor has brought to bear on these 
subjects really render the appearance of his work an epoch 
in the annals of the philosophy of history. 
To follow Mr, Tylor through his entire argument, and 
the evidence he produces in support of it, would be to 
write a somewhat larger work than his own. We can 
here only indicate the general method he has pursued, 
and comment briefly on a few facts which he has collected. 
Commencing with a general survey of the science of 
culture, he proceeds to give a rough outline of the course 
of its development. In so doing, he necessarily touches 
H 
