Note 1502 — XI THE REGULATION OF NUMBERS AMONG HISTORICAL RACES

Evidence has lately been brought forward to show that not only is war a custom but also that it is a custom of relatively late origin (Perry, ‘Ethnological Study of Warfare’, Mem. and Proc. Man. Lit. and Phil. Soc., vol. lxi). It is suggested that it is bound up with organization under kings and chiefs, and that it was introduced at a more or less definite time by a certain race. The evidence adduced would seem not to be adequate. The theory belongs to a series of attempts to show that very many customs and social institutions now widespread evolved in some one centre and spread thence. Though Professor Elliot Smith and his school may with justice insist on the fact that the multiple origin of similar customs has been too lightly assumed, it is equally unreasonable to insist upon tracing all similar customs and institutions to the same source. Those who are acquainted with the numerous and wonderful examples of convergence in the animal kingdom—the independent evolution of tracheae in the Arachnids and in the Insects, to take only one example—will have little difficulty in accepting the view that, in response to similar environmental conditions, similar customs may from time to time have been independently evolved. Other authors have urged that the apparent absence of weapons among the cultural remains of early races is evidence that they did not practise warfare (Havelock Ellis, Philosophy of Conflict, p. 49). But when so much doubt surrounds the question as to how the most common implements were used, it is dangerous to attribute much weight to this argument.