264 
Miscellanea 
permissible, but from this adjustment, or even without it, the following results are clearly 
obvious : 
[ (i) That up to the age of 68 the English expectation of life is greater, and in the earlier part 
I of life immensely greater, than that of 2000 years ago. 
In the course of those centuries man must have grown remarkably fitter to his environment, 
or else he must have fitted his environment immeasurably better to himself No civilised 
community of to-day could show such a curve as the civilised Romano-Egyptians of 2000 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 constitutionally fitter to 
survive to-day, or he is mentally fitter, i.e. better able to organise his civic surroundings. Both 
conclusions point perfectly definitely to an evolutionary progress. 
(ii) The Egyptian curve differs fundamentally from the English in exhibiting apparently 
three maxima instead of one. These maxima must arise from the mortality curve itself 
being nuiltinodal. 
The first maximum is at about 4'5 years of age and corresponds to the English at about 
4 years of age*. This is associated with the point where the especial dangers of infantile and 
childhood mortality have been surpassed. 
The second Egj'ptian maximum occurs between 26 and 27 and possibly marks the period 
where the dangers of youthful mortality have been surmounted. The mortality of youth in our 
English case is a rather small component (greater for the French) and is centred at 22'5 years, 
becoming insignificant at 35. 
I take it that this was much emphasised in Ancient Egypt, and reached its maximum 
considerably earlier. The third Egyptian maximum is less definite, because there are so few 
cases of extreme longevity to base the means upon. But it seems to me, looking at the points 
between 60 and 70, clearly impossible for the expectation of life curve to approach the axis 
without a point of inflexion and a maximum somewhere about 71 — possibly earlier, even as 
early as 65, but the data are not sufficient to determine the i^oint at all closely t. If this third 
maximum really exists, it would probably mean that the "mortality of middle life" which in 
the case of England is centred about 41 '5 and ceases about 70 was much more definitely marked 
in Egypt. [See my paper in the Phil. Trans., Vol. 186, p. 408, and especially Plate 16.] 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 emphasised 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 realise at a glance either the great physical progress of 
man, which enables him far more efiectually to withstand a hostile environment, or the 
great social and sanitary progress he has made which enables him to modify that environment. 
In either case we can definitely assert that 2000 years has made him a much "fitter" being. 
In this comparison it must be remembered that we are not placing a civilised race against a 
barbaric tribe, but comparing a modern civilisation with one of the highest types of ancient 
civilisation. 
That a man of 25 years to-day lives on an average 15 more years than a man of 25 years did 
2000 years ago is surely very strong evidence that man has progressed substantially in this 
period. 
K. PEARSON. 
* I have turned down the Egyptian curve in a perfectly arbitrary manner by a broken line to 
indicate to the reader, looking at the diagram, that the infantile mortality is practically unrecorded. 
t I am inclined to think the Egyptian curve for a considerable period must be concave to the 
horizontal axis, instead of throughout convex as in the case of the English. 
