520 Evolution and Language 
few years or, at most, a few centuries when they have been observed 
by competent scholars of European origin. But, if we may judge by 
the history of geology and other studies, it is well to be cautious 
in assuming for the first stages of development forces which do 
not operate in the later, unless we have direct evidence of their 
existence. 
It is unnecessary here to enter into a prolonged discussion of the 
other views christened by Max Miiller, not without energetic protest 
from their supporters, the bow-wow and pooh-pooh theories of lan- 
guage. Suffice it to say that the former recognises as a source of 
language the imitation of the sounds made by animals, the fall of 
bodies into water or on to solid substances and the like, while the 
latter, also called the interjectional theory, looks to the natural 
ejaculations produced by particular forms of effort for the first 
beginnings of speech. It would be futile to deny that some words 
in most languages come from imitation, and that others, probably 
fewer in number, can be traced to ejaculations. But if either of 
these sources alone or both in combination gave rise to primitive 
speech, it clearly must have been a simple form of language and very 
limited in amount. There is no reason to think that it was otherwise. 
Presumably in its earliest stages language only indicated the most 
elementary ideas, demands for food or the gratification of other. 
appetites, indications of danger, useful animals and plants. Some 
of these, such as animals or indications of danger, could often be 
easily represented by imitative sounds: the need for food and the 
like could be indicated by gesture and natural cries. Both sources 
are verae causae; to them Noiré, supported by Max Miiller, has 
added another which has sometimes been called the Yo-heave-ho 
theory. Noiré contends that the real crux in the early stages of 
language is for primitive man to make other primitive men under- 
stand what he means. The vocal signs which commend themselves 
to one may not have occurred to another, and may therefore be 
unintelligible. It may be admitted that this difficulty exists, but it 
is not insuperable. The old story of the European in China who, 
sitting down to a meal and being doubtful what the meat in the dish 
might be, addressed an interrogative Quack-quack? to the waiter and 
was promptly answered by Bow-wow, illustrates a simple situation 
where mutual understanding was easy. But obviously many situations 
would be more complex than this, and to grapple with them Noiré 
has introduced his theory of communal action. “It was common 
effort directed to a common object, it was the most primitive 
(urdilteste) labour of our ancestors, from which sprang language and 
the life of reason’.” As illustrations of such common effort he cites 
' Noiré, Der Ursprung der Sprache, p. 331, Mainz, 1877. 
