H.— ANTHROPOLOGY. 151 



unnecessary to dwell upon it. There are, however, no accepted definitions 

 of the kinds of developmental changes or modifications, viewed either 

 objectively or subjectively. If the initial steps in the evolution of simple 

 artefacts are due to discovery alone, as already suggested, we have to 

 decide in what way such steps differ from those which can be called 

 inventive, if difference there is ; and also to enquire into the nature of 

 any other factors that may play a part in evolution. Moreover, if we call 

 all artefacts inventions, there is no term left for single inventive steps. If, 

 for example, the outrigger-canoe or the Chinese repeating crossbow is an 

 invention, what distinctive term can we ajjply to the steps by which it hag 

 evolved, assuming these can be identified as due to individual discoveries, 

 or to true inventions, whatever these may be ? There is also the possi- 

 bility- — or the certainty — that changes may occur which are due neither 

 to discovery nor invention, but to some slower and more gradual process. 

 If we are to have a clear understanding of the evolution of human artefacts 

 these points need clearing up, if only on a basis of hypothesis. I have put 

 forward elsewhere some tentative proposals, and although I must not 

 recapitulate in detail, it is necessary to cover some of the ground again. 



If we begin with implements which were amongst the first to achieve 

 an individuality of their own, those made of stone are for many reasons 

 the most convenient for our purpose. We can scarcely doubt that accident, 

 perhaps often repeated, led to the intentional breaking of stones for the 

 production of edged or pointed implements, which gradually evolved into 

 standardised forms. To summarise a sequence of events that arose out 

 of more than one discovery, we may say that the first artificially-shaped 

 stone implement was due to the application of a discovery, and since the 

 artificial shaping was a definite and decisive step, it may be called a 

 mutation. Since also it was the first intentional conversion of a particular 

 kind of natural object or material into a kind of artefact, it was a primary 

 mutation. From such a mutation, perhaps occurring more than once, 

 developed the many forms of stone implements with which we are familiar. 

 A mutation of this or any other type is an abrupt and discontinuous step, 

 contrasting with changes which are trivial in character, and which produce 

 their effect by a process of summation. For these the name of variations 

 is appropriate. 



In the shaping of the early types everyone agrees that forms such as 

 hand-axes and ' ovates ' were not preconceived as models to be aimed at ; 

 they must have been the end results of a gradual process of change, in 

 which the shapes emerged through an opportunist selection and imitation 

 of those which were most convenient and effective. This was in effect a 

 process of variation, casual at first but later becoming more selective and 

 adaptive. 



Simple stone implements are thus to be traced to a primary muta- 

 tion, a sudden jump, followed by variation, a gradual process. They 

 were in most cases made for hammering or crushing, for cutting, or for 

 piercing, three functional duties which lie at the root of a large part of 

 man's coercion of materials. They were evolved, not invented to serve 

 specific purposes. Similarly, beginning with a primary mutation in each 

 case, the fighting-stick became the club, with its immense variety of form ; 

 the digging-stick became the spade, and perhaps the spear, with its 

 derivative the arrow ; the pick became the hoe and finally the plough ; 



