150 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



or alloy of iron with another metal, since they would in efEect be carrying on 

 a joint research with a common starting-point, and with the knowledge 

 that others had succeeded in researches of a like nature. But a belief in 

 the independent origin of bronze in the Old World and the New, in pre- 

 historic times, would seem to depend upon a faith in coincidence. The 

 discoveries of the nature and uses of copper, followed much later by the 

 production of bronze, turned out to be a critical event in the history of 

 man in the Old World, as we see on looking backward, but to those con- 

 cerned it was at first merely a matter of a glittering material for ornaments, 

 and later of slightly more efficient tools and weapons than those of stone. 

 Eventually new types were evolved, of still greater efficiency, but these 

 were not within the range of vision of the early metal-workers. There 

 was no environmental compulsion, and economic inducement only came 

 into play after the essential steps had been taken. It was as a malleable 

 stone that copper acquired an importance which made the discovery of 

 its fusibility a great event. The early metal-worker was not pushed along 

 the path of progress ; he did not know it was a path, and there were no sign- 

 posts to prevent him from straying from his course, nor had he any vision 

 of a metallurgical paradise, such as we inhabit. He was just as likely to 

 take the wrong turn as the right one, and never strike the route again — 

 he had no idea of where he was going, nor of any particular reason for 

 getting there. His desire to repeat or imitate a successful achievement 

 was conditioned by the appearance of new and better results arising out 

 of the chances of empiricism, and there is no evidence of any other directive 

 faculty or tendency. That bronze was ever produced at all is sufficiently 

 surprising, and if the evolutionary sequence in the Old "World was mirrored 

 in the New, our wonderment is more than doubled. 



I do not suggest that the sole factor in any case of assumed independent 

 evolution of technique must be coincidence, or that coincidence on a small 

 scale is unlikely, but I would argue that coincidence must have played a 

 predominant part, and that the further we get away from simple cases 

 and short sequences the bigger the draft on coincidence, until it becomes 

 of incredible magnitude. But incredulity is not enough, unless it rests 

 upon a knowledge of what it is that is incredible, and detailed analysis 

 alone can supply this knowledge. It must be remembered, also, that 

 discovery-complexes may depend very greatly for their development upon 

 the evolution of artificial means or inventions. As examples may be cited 

 the plough in agriculture, the kiln in pottery-making, and the loom in 

 weaving. Although there are many things the hand can do unaided, there^ 

 are others that it cannot do at all, and yet others that are better done 

 by the help of tools or mechanisms. The analysis of discovery-complexes 

 must therefore be made with reference to the inventions that have aided 

 the process of evolution, or have rendered it possible, and it must be borne 

 in mind that there are all grades of dependence upon artificial aids, simple , 

 or complex. Whilst distinguishing methods from means, that is to say, 

 the means must not be disregarded, even though they are the objects of 

 especial study as inventions, to which we may now turn. 



Inventions. 



The general recognition of the gradual character of the evolution of 

 human artefacts — so obvious even under modern conditions — makes it 



