17 
them. Bat he does not say they have introduced outriggers before 
they had been visited again and again by races superior to them- 
selves. 
(3.) So the Bachapins had “ just commenced ” working iron. 
He does not tell us if without instruction ; though 
(4.) He does distinctly say the Wajiji had a recently learned 
to make brass.” 
(5.) I do not see the force of the statement as to the Queen's 
“ largest morai ” in Tahiti ; and the <c very, recent abandonment 
of cannibalism” is left also unexplained. We may remember, how- 
ever, recent instances in New Zealand, after cannibalism as we had 
imagined had been “ abandoned,” of its being reverted to upon 
occasion with considerable gusto. And as human flesh is not 
wholesome food, and “ does not agree” with those who eat it, I 
am not surprised to find its consumption may vary and be easily 
given up for a time ; but this can scarcely be regarded as any proof 
of a decided step from savagery. 
(6.) “ There are certain facts which speak for themselves. Some 
of the North American tribes cultivated the maize. Now the 
maize is a North American plant; and we have here, therefore, 
clear evidence of a step in advance made by these tribes.” I would 
not weaken this easy-going argument by the least modification of 
the words. But, suppose we put the same facts, granting them, in 
this way: — The maize is a North American plant; — The first 
wanderers on American soil, accustomed to the cultivation of other 
cereals, found the maize indigenous and cultivated it ; — Some of the 
descendants of these wanderers retained this knowledge and habit ; — 
Others driven away to the forest or less genial regions, and subsist- 
ing chiefly by the chase, had no means of continuing the cultivation 
of the maize, and after a time lost the memory of its usefulness. — 
Is not this the more natural supposition, or, to say the least, is not 
the one argument as good as the other ? “ Nay, as the maize is a 
North American plant,” and if advancement among savages is the 
rule, why should not all the North American tribes have cultivated 
it? Sir John does not hazard a reason. He does not seem even 
to have thought of this ! 
(7.) “ The Peruvians had domesticated the llama.” Let me ask, 
is not the llama domestic ” by nature ? Has any wild animal ever 
been domesticated ? It is very questionable ;* and this is a point 
Sir John Lubbock does not discuss. I have omitted an admission 
which he here imagines the deceased Archbishop of Dublin would 
make, — saying, he “ is sure ” that the Archbishop would have made 
it ! I can only say I am not sure ; and that I must deprecate 
discussing in this way, ad libitum , the imputed opinions of a great 
thinker not now alive ! 
* Vide Journ. of Trans, of Viet. Inst., vol. i. p. 410. 
VOL. VI. ‘ C 
