"Prehistoric Times," and also Tylor in his "Beginning of Culture"
and in his "Early History of Mankind," take the opposite view of a progress
of mankind from the most uncultivated beginnings.

Archaeology, as a whole, seems to do no more than admit that its results can
be incorporated into the theory of an origin of the human race through
gradual development, _if_ this theory can be shown to be correct in some
other way, and that its results can just as well be brought into harmony
with a contradictory theory.

_Comparative ethnology_ gives us quite a similar result. It is true, there
are races of mankind in the lowest grades of human existence. It is well
known how Darwin, in his voyage on board the "Beagle," got one of his first
vivid impressions of the possibility of an evolution of man from the animal
world, by seeing the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego; and it is remarkable
that the arms, tools, and furniture, used by the lowest savages, are very
similar to the earliest remains of civilized races found on earth. The
conclusion lies extremely near, that the savages simply remained in earlier
stages of human culture; and an ethnographic picture of mankind {92} at
present would in a similar way give an approximately correct view of its
former development, as the natural zooelogical and botanical system of the
present fauna and flora must give us at the same time the key to their
pedigree; supposing the Darwinian theory to be correct.

If it were so, ethnology would be an altogether inestimable help for the
exploration of the descent and development of the human race. For the
extremely few and rare fossil remains of man--which, moreover, do not give
us any answer to the most important questions in regard to the mental and
moral quality of the primitive man--would be rendered complete by living
examples of the kind, which remained at the old stages of development.

But much is still wanting, before the followers of an evolution theory dare
to use ethnology directly as a primitive history of the development of
mankind, prepared and preserved for them. Especially the before-mentioned
objection of the Duke of Argyll--that the lowest savages of our time can
just as well be depraved as be men who remained stationary in the process
of development--has here increased weight. Moreover, even with the savages
of to-day, a rude state of their tools and a low condition of their mental
and moral life are not so nearly parallel as t