069. II. Time Of Man’s Origin.

II. Time Of Man’s Origin. The question of the antiquity of man could not fail of prominence in the discussions of modern science. As students of nature trace the marks of change in the spheres of cosmogony, geology, zoology, archaeology, the question of time must constantly arise. The division of geology into periods keeps the question ever present in that study. Period will be compared with period in respect to length of duration. A fuller knowledge of nature is possible only with some insight into the measures of time occupied in the processes of change. This question, so constantly present, could not fail of special interest in its application to man. Even for the extremest evolutionist his appearance must have an interest above every other event in the course of nature. Very naturally, therefore, the signs of his presence have been carefully traced, and deeply studied in connection with such other facts as might be helpful toward a proximate measurement of his time in the natural history of the world.

Scientists are agreed that, of all living orders in the world’s history, man came last. They are equally agreed that his origin is comparatively recent. But a comparative recency in geological time may be very long ago—so long as to dwarf the centuries of biblical chronology into mere hours. Such measurements are made. An issue thus arises, for the thorough discussion of which only a large volume would answer. We can do little more than state the question. It may be said here that these measurements of man’s time on earth vary almost infinitely, and that this fact denies to scientists infallibility on the question. Not only are they at such variance, but some measure a time in no serious issue with biblical chronology, on a permissible extension of its centuries.

1. In the View of Biblical Chronology.—It is well known that biblical chronology remains, as it has ever has been, an open question. Individuals may have been very positive respecting the exact years of the great epochal events in the world’s history, but there is no common concurrence in such a view. The profoundest students of the question find different measures of time, not varying so widely as between scientists, yet sufficiently to be of value in the adjustment of the seeming issue with facts of science. The leading views are well known and easily stated. The origin of man preceded the advent of our Lord by 4,004 years, as reckoned by Usher on the ground of the Hebrew Scriptures; by 5,411 years, as reckoned by Hales on the ground of the Septuagint Version. Here is a margin of 1,407 years, which might cover many facts of science respecting the presence of man in the world, and bring them into harmony with biblical chronology. The acceptance of this reckoning requires no cunning device. While through the Vulgate Version the shorter period gained ascendency in the Western Church, in the Eastern the longer period prevailed. With the whole Church it has been quite as common; and, while a lower estimate than that of Usher has rarely been made, a longer reckoning than that of Hales has not been rare. The uncertainty of biblical chronology is of special value in its adjustment to the reasonable claims of science respect. The time of man’s origin. That uncertainty is no recent assumption, no mere device which the exigency of an issue with science has forced upon biblical chronologists, but has long been felt and openly expressed. The many different and widely varying results of the most careful reckoning witness to the uncertainty of the data upon which that reckoning proceeds. The tables of genealogy are the chief data in the case, and their aim is to trace the lines of descent, not to mark the succession of years. Hence the line of connection is not always traced immediately from father to son, but often the transition is to a descendant several generations later—which answers just as well for the ruling purpose, however it may perplex the question of time. “Thus in Genesis 46:18, after recording the sons of Zilpa, her grandsons and her great-grandsons, the writer adds, ‘These are the sons of Zilpa, . . . and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.’ The same thing recurs in the case of Bilha, verse 25, ‘she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven,’ Compare verses 15, 22. No one can pretend that the author of this register did not use the term understandingly of descendants beyond the first generation. In like manner, according to Matthew 1:11, Josias begat his grandson Jechonias, and verse 8, Joram begat his great-grandson Ozias. And in Genesis 10:15-18, Canaan, the grandson of Noah, is said to have begotten several whole nations, the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgasite, the Hivite, etc. Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that, in the usage of the Bible, ‘to bear’ and ‘to beget ‘ are used in a wide sense to indicate descent, without restricting this to the immediate offspring.”^[355] It would be easy to give many other instances of a like presentation of facts. Such facts justify the prevalent uncertainty respecting biblical chronology. Indeed, the tables which furnish the chief data for its construction are purely genealogical, and in no proper sense chronological. With such uncertainty of data, no biblical chronology can have either fixed limits or doctrinal claim. It follows that the usual reckoning may be so extended as to meet any reasonable requirement of scientific facts respecting the time of man’s origin, without the perversion of any part of Scripture or the violation of any law of hermeneutics. Such are the views of theologians thoroughly orthodox in creed and most loyal to the Scriptures.^{[356] [355]} Green:The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of Bishop Colenso, p. 132.

^[356]Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. ii, pp. 40, 41; Pope:Christian Theology, vol. i, pp. 219, 434; Strong:Systematic Theology, p. 106.

2. Scientific Claim of a High Antiquity.—While scientists are agreed that man is the latest of living orders, and comparatively very recent, there is with them a wide range of opinion respecting the time of his origin. Many are agreed in assigning him a high antiquity. However, beyond this point of agreement the range is from a comparatively moderate reckoning, say 100,000 years, up to millions, and even hundreds of millions. Figures, however, are rarely given, but alleged facts are assumed to measure vast ages. Lyell thinks he can trace the signs of man’s existence up to the post-pliocene era, and anticipates the finding of his remains in the pliocene period.^[357] Only an immense reach of time can carry us back to that period. Again, he thinks that the facts of geology “point distinctly to the vast antiquity of paleolithic man.”^[358] After a review of some of the evidences of man’s antiquity Huxley puts the question of time thus: “Where, then, must we look for primitive man? Was the oldest Homo sapiens pliocene or miocene, or yet more ancient?”^[359] Without the “yet more ancient,” he had already gone back into the midst of the tertiary period. By so much does he transcend Lyell. On the truth of evolution Huxley is sure that “we must extend by long epochs the most liberal estimate that has yet been made of the antiquity of man.” Sir John Lubbock is quite up with Lyell; indeed, we may say, quite up with Huxley. The relative facts of geology “impress us with a vague and overpowering sense of antiquity. . . . But it may be doubted whether even geologists yet realize the great antiquity of our race.”^[360] Lubbock believes in miocene man, but rather as an implication of evolution than from any discovered sign of his presence in that ancient geologic age.^[361] Wallace is comparatively very moderate, but reaches out for a long time. “We can with tolerable certainty affirm that man must have inhabited the earth a thousand centuries ago, but we cannot assert that he positively did not exist, or that there is any good evidence against his having existed, for a period of ten thousand centuries.”^[362] We have given a few instances. Many scientists of like views might be added to the list.

^[357]Antiquity of Man, p. 399.

^[358]Principles of Geology, vol. ii, p. 570.

^[359]Man’s Place in Nature, p. 184.

^[360]Lubbock:Prehistoric Times, p. 419.

^[361]Ibid., p. 423.

^[362]On Natural Selection,p. 303

3. Review of Alleged Proofs.—The sources of evidence for a high antiquity of man are well defined, and appear with much uniformity in the fuller treatment of the question. However, the treatment is often partial, when the evidence from only a few sources, perhaps from only one, is adduced. This is the method of Huxley, who treats the question simply in view of fossil remains of man, particularly of fossil skulls.^[363] A summary of the sources of evidence in a comprehensive treatment is given by Southall,^[364] and also by the Duke of Argyll.^[365] These summaries, while varying in words, are much the same in their facts. The comprehensive discussions of the question by Sir Charles Lyell^[366] and Sir John Lubbock^[367] are substantially in the method of these classifications.

^[363]Man’s Place in Nature, p. 140.

^[364]The Recent Origin of Man, p. 86.

^[365]Primeval Man, pp. 76-78.

^[366]Antiquity of Man.

^[367]Prehistoric Times.

We may state the evidences of a high antiquity of man in the following order: 1. History, with special reference to the antiquity of nations. 2. Archeology, including many forms of fact which show the early presence and agency of Man 1:3. Geology, with special reference to drift deposits. 4. Language—the time necessary for its growth and multiplication into so many forms. 5. The distinction of races in color and feature. Our brief review cannot fully adhere to this order. The evidence from history centers in the proof of an early existence of separate nations or kingdoms. Contemporary with the earliest history of Abraham, twenty centuries before the Christian era, Chaldea and Egypt appear as strong and flourishing kingdoms. Kings with separate realms are already numerous, mostly with small dominion, but some perhaps, as appeared a little later in the case of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, with broad sway. So much may fairly be gathered from the Scriptures (Genesis 11-14).The evidence of history and archeology seems conclusive that in the time of Abraham Egypt was a strong kingdom, with a high form of civilization. Such a kingdom could not be the growth of a few years; and we may add an antecedent history of from five to seven centuries. Renouf would add many more,^[368] but the number named will suffice. There were other kingdoms and civilizations, the Babylonian, Persian, Indian, and Chinese, of about the same antiquity. They also came into history about the time of Abraham, but, with Egypt, required previous centuries of growth. “So far, then, we have the light of history shining with comparative clearness over a period of two thousand years before the Christian era. Beyond that we have a twilight tract of time which may be roughly estimated at seven hundred years—a period of time lying in the dawn of history, at the very beginning of which we can dimly see that there were already kings and princes on the earth.”^{[369] [368]} The Religion of Ancient Egypt, lect. ii.

^[369]Argyll:Primeval Man, p. 95.

It thus appears that history, with its clear implications, carries the existence of distinct nations back to the time of the flood—as that time is usually reckoned. We have three alternatives: either a narrow limitation of the flood, or a plurality of human origins, or an extension of our biblical chronology anterior to the call of Abraham. No sufficient limitation of the flood is permissible. If consistently with the Scriptures we might in this mode account for the existence of the distant nations of India and China, we could not so account for the equally early, rather earlier, nations in the regions of the Tigris and the Euphrates. These regions could not have escaped the flood. A plurality of human origins is contrary to the Scriptures and to the facts of science, and inconsistent with the deepest truths of Christian theology. The third alternative may be accepted without the slightest hesitation. There is no fixed chronology of the Scriptures before the time of Abraham. Hence there is nothing against the addition of all the time—say two or three thousand years—which the facts of human history may require.

Many facts adduced in evidence of a high antiquity of man may be grouped under the heads of archeology and geology. In some classifications the two terms represent distinct sets of facts. The distinction, however, is but slight, and may be omitted in our brief discussion. Under these headings we have several classes of facts, and many particulars of each class—altogether too many for present notice. We may name as classes—megalithic structures and tumuli; lake-dwellings; shell-mounds; peat-bogs; bone-caves; drift-deposits. The point of the argument in each is that the remains of man and the products of his agency appear in conditions which prove his high antiquity.^[370] This argument is fully elaborated by the authors named.

^[370]Lubbock:Prehistoric Times; Lyell:Antiquity of Man; Jeffries:Natural History of the Human Races; Quatrefages:The Human Species, pp. 139-153.

We shall give a very brief reply in the words of an eminent scientist. “The calculations of long time based on the gravels of the Somme, on the cone of the Tiniere, on the peat-bogs of France and Denmark, on certain cavern deposits, have all been shown to be more or less at fault; and possibly none of these reach further back than six or seven thousand years which, according to Dr. Andrews,^[371] have elapsed since the close of the bowlder-clay deposits in America. . . . Let us look at a few facts. Much use has been made of the ‘cone’ or delta of the Tiniere, on the eastern side of the Lake of Geneva, as an illustration of the duration of the modern period. This little stream has deposited at its month a mass of debris carried down from the hills. This being cut through by a railway, is found to contain Roman remains to a depth of four feet, bronze implements to a depth of ten feet, stone implements to a depth of nineteen feet. The deposit ceased about three hundred years ago, and, calculating 1,300 to 1,500 years for the Roman period, we should have 7,000 to 10,000 years as the age of the cone. But before the formation of the present cone another had been formed twelve times as large. Thus for the two cones together a duration of more than 90,000 years is claimed. It appears, however, that this calculation has been made irrespective of two essential elements in the question. No allowance has been made for the fact that the inner layers of a cone are necessarily smaller than the outer; nor for the further fact that the older cone belongs to a distinct time (the pluvial age already referred to), when the rainfall was much larger, and the transporting power of the torrent greater in proportion. Making allowance for these conditions, the age of the newer cone, that holding human remains, falls between 4,000 and 5,000 years. The peat-bed of Abbeville, in the north of France, has grown at the rate of one and a half or two inches in a century. Being twenty-six feet in thickness, the time occupied in its growth must have amounted to 20,000 years; and yet it is probably newer than some of the gravels on the same river containing flint implements. But the composition of the Abbeville peat shows that it is a forest peat, and the erect stems preserved in it prove that in the first instance it must have grown at the rate of about three feet in a century, and after the destruction of the forest its rate of increase down to the present time diminished rapidly almost to nothing. Its age is thus reduced to perhaps less than 4,000 years. In 1865 I had an opportunity to examine the now celebrated gravels of St. Acheul, on the Somme, by some supposed to go back to a very ancient period. With the papers of Prestwick and other able observers in my hand, I could conclude merely that the undisturbed gravels were older than the Roman period, but how much older only detailed topographical surveys could prove ; and that taking into account the probabilities of a different level of the land, a wooded condition of the country, a greater rainfall, and a glacial filling of the Somme valley with clay and stones subsequently cut out by running water, the gravels could scarcely be older than the Abbeville peat. . . . Taylor^[372] and Andrews^[373] have, however, I think, subsequently shown that my impressions were correct.

^[371]Transactions, Chicago Academy, 1871.

^[372]Journal of Geological Society, vol. xxv.

^[373]Silliman’s Journal, 1868.

“In like manner, I fail to perceive—and I think all American geologists acquainted with the prehistoric monuments of the western continent must agree with me—any evidence of great antiquity in the caves of Belgium and England, the kitchen-middens of Denmark, the rock-shelters of France, the lake-habitations of Switzerland. At the same time, I would disclaim all attempt to resolve their dates into precise terms of years. I may merely add that the elaborate and careful observations of Dr. Andrews on the raised beaches of Lake Michigan—observations of a much more precise character than any which, in so far as I know, have been made of such deposits in Europe—enable him to calculate the time which has elapsed since North America rose out of the waters of the glacial period as between 5,500 and 7,500 years. This fixes at least the possible duration of the human period in North America, though I believe there are other lines of evidence which would reduce the residence of man in America to a much shorter time. Longer periods have, it is true, been deduced from the delta of the Mississippi and the gorge of Niagara; but the deposits of the former have been found by Hilgard to be in great part marine, and the excavation of the latter began at a period probably long anterior to the advent of man.”^{[374] [374]} Dawson:Story of the Earth and Man, pp. 292-296. In this brief survey instances of the several classes of archaeological and geological facts adduced in proof of a high antiquity of man are reviewed. Among them are instances regarded as most decisive of the question. The criticism of Dawson at least places their conclusiveness in uncertainty; and if it is not proved beyond question that the time of man’s presence in the world must be limited to from 8,000 to 10,000 years, neither is it proved that his time is greater. In his elaborate discussion of this question Southall reviews all these instances, and finds them inconclusive of a high antiquity of man.^[375] Such, likewise, is the conclusion of Winchell from the same facts.^{[376] [375]} The Recent Origin of Man.

^[376]Pre-adamites, pp. 421-426. The argument from the growth of language is far less in use than others. Argyll distinctly names it in his classification, as previously given by reference, but the use he makes of it is rather to prove the unity than the antiquity of man. He points out the now familiar fact that comparative philology furnishes a law by which widely diverse races may be traced back to a common ethnic unity.^[377] There is still an indirect argument for the high antiquity of man. With the unity of the race through a common parentage, there was originally but one language. Hence there must be time in the existence of the race for the formation of this original language, and of all the languages in the use of man.

^[377]Primeval Man, pp. 109-112. The doctrine of evolution requires a brutal character of primitive man, with the merest rudiment of that rationality which came with his higher development. Such a man might well be accounted speechless; and the creation of a language would indeed require a long time. But the evidence of such a brutal character of primitive man is still wanting. The facts in the case refuse to satisfy the exigency of the doctrine.

There is nothing in science to discredit the Mosaic account of man’s origin. In the sense of this account he was created in the maturity of manhood, and in respect to his whole nature. A mature body and an infantile mind would have made him a monstrosity, with the slightest chance of survival. His mind was created in the same maturity as his body, and with mental powers as ready for normal action as the physical. It is also entirely consistent with this account—indeed, we think it a rational requirement—that primitive man was supernaturally aided in his mental acquirements. He did not have to wait upon the slow process of experience, but by divine inspiration came quickly to a knowledge of nature and language. In this rational view, the original acquisition of language required no measure of time which must push back the origin of man into a high antiquity. The immediate offspring of Adam acquired language in the same manner as children of the present day, and in as brief a time. Such continued to be the law through all the antediluvian centuries. Under the same law the post diluvian race started anew. Language was already a possession, and continued to be a transmission from generation to generation. In all divisions into separate communities each division went out with a language. Hence the multiplication of languages was by variation, not by origination. There are no facts in the history of the race which require the pure originality of more than one. Comparative philology clearly traces many widely variant languages back to a few sources, and might reach a common source of all did not the marks of an ultimate unity become invisible in the dimness of antiquity. It thus appears that the assumption of a vast extent of time as necessary to the successive originations of many languages is utterly groundless.

Languages, however, are very many, and there must have been Time in the existence of the race for their formation. But m estimating the necessary time we must not overlook the distinction between origination and variation. In the former case we assume a speechless community in an infantile mental state. With such facts, the necessary time could hardly be measured. Even the possibility of a purely human creation of language in such a state is not yet a closed question. In the other view, which accords with Scripture and is without the opposition of scientific facts, language was a speedy acquisition through a divine inspiration, with such mental development as must go with the knowledge and use of language. All were thus early in the possession of rational speech. Henceforth the formation of new languages was by variation. This is often a rapid process, as the facts of history prove. There are exceptional cases. With a common education, a common literature, and a free intercourse in the use of a common speech, there may be little change through long periods of time. It is not under such conditions that languages have been multiplied. It is when a larger community, with a common language, separates into distinct communities, and each begins a new life under changed conditions, that through a process of variation the one language is soon multiplied into as many as these separate communities. The facts of history show that this process is often a rapid one. No long age is required for the formation of a new language. The formation of many may proceed at once. The relative facts are sufficiently presented by Lyell,^[378] and also by Southall.^[379] It is worthy of note that the two are in substantial agreement respecting these facts, though the former maintains a high antiquity of man, and the latter a recent origin. The material point in which they agree, and which the facts verify, is that under changed conditions new languages are rapidly formed. Thus on the breaking up of the Roman Empire and the distribution of the people into separate nationalities their common language was soon transformed into the Romance—such as the French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese. These languages, now spoken by so many peoples, are not a thousand years old, and only the fraction of a thousand was required for their formation. This is simply one instance out of many given by the authors named.

^[378]Antiquity of Man, chap, xxiii.

^[379]Recent Origin of Man, pp. 25-30. This rapid formation of new languages is the material fact of the question. It is the conclusion of Southall that of some five thousand languages now spoken only a half-dozen are a thousand years old. If such is the work of ten centuries, the formation of languages requires no stretch of time conclusive of a high antiquity of man.

Another argument is based on the distinction of races. It does not require a detail of all the facts open to its use, but may be given in its full strength on such general distinctions of race as the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro. The argument is in two alleged facts: first, that such distinctions appear with the dawn of history; second, that only a very long time could have produced them. Greater apparent strength must be conceded to this argument on the theory of a unity of the human race. With a plurality of origins such distinctions might have existed from the beginning, and no time would be required for their origination, while with the unity of the race the necessary time must be conceded. The early date of such distinctions cannot be disputed. For instance, the Negro, with his clearly marked characteristics, appears in Egyptian archeology fifteen or twenty centuries before the Christian era. It must be agreed that many other facts are adduced which prove the first part of the argument—a very early appearance of race distinctions.^[380]

^[380] Lyell:Antiquity of Man, pp. 385, 386; Lubbock:Prehistoric Times, pp. 587, 588; Argyll:Primeval Man, pp. 97-102; Winchell:Pre-adamites, chap. xiii. The second part, that only long ages could produce such variations, is disputed. Many facts in natural history prove the contrary. Fortunately, such facts have fallen within historic times, particularly in the settlement of America, where the process of change could be more accurately measured. “In the domesticated races of animals, and the cultivated tribes of plants, the phenomena of variation have been most remarkably displayed.”^[381] Dr. Prichard cites many instances which illustrate and verify his position. The discussion runs through many pages. ^[382]The force of these facts is not affected by their limitation to domesticated animals and cultivated plants. The domestication and cultivation merely furnish the new conditions under which these changes naturally arise. Further, such instances are more readily open to observation; and their selection is for this reason and not because they exemplify any peculiar susceptibility to change.

^[381]Prichard:Natural History of Man, p.

^[382]Ibid., pp. 23-50.

It is a rational inference, and one supported by the strongest analogies, that under new conditions man is subject to like change, and in many respects, as the new conditions may greatly vary. “Races of men are subjected more than almost any race of animals to the varied agencies of climate. Civilization produces even greater changes in their condition than does domestication in the inferior tribes. We may therefore expect to find fully as great diversities in the races of men as in any of the domesticated breeds. The influence of the mind must be more extensive and powerful in its operations upon human beings than upon brutes. And this difference transcends all analogy or comparison.”^{[383] [383]} Prichard:Natural History of Man, p. 75. Nor could the conditions of physiological variation be wanting in the earlier state of man. As the race multiplied, broader territories would be required for its occupancy. Besides, the natural disposition of many would anticipate this exigency and push them out into new and distant regions. It appears, accordingly, in the beginning of history, and back of this in the relative facts of archeology, that at a very early day men occupied extensive readies of territory. With this wide distribution there were great changes of climate and new habits of life. Thus at a very early day there were all the new conditions necessary to the variations which appear in the distinctions of race.

Physiological changes have occurred in historic times, and in comparatively brief periods.^[384] There are many such instances, They do not equal some of the deeper race distinctions, but, with the brevity of their own period, are sufficient to discredit the assumption of vast ages as necessary to such variations. Hence we need no vast time to account for the distinctions of race which appear in the early history of man. A permissible extension of biblical chronology to eight or ten thousand years will suffice for the whole account.

^[384]Southall:Recent Origin of Man, pp. 20-28.

4. Relation of the Question to Theology.—The antiquity of man concerns the Scriptures in the matter of chronology. The question might thus become one of exegesis or apologetics. However, with the uncertainty of the earlier data for a biblical chronology and the absence of any authoritative doctrine, there is little occasion for such a question, except in issue with extreme assumptions respecting the antiquity of man. The question mostly concerns doctrinal theology through its relation to the unity of the race. Theology is deeply concerned in this question, and, therefore, in the question of antiquity with which it is very closely connected. With a limit of six thousand years for the time of man on the earth, the unity of the race cannot be maintained. This is rendered impossible specially by the very early appearance of some of the deepest variations of race. Only a plurality of origins could account for these early distinctions. It is hence fortunate that the data of biblical chronology do not commit us to a period so limited. The higher the antiquity of man, the more certain is the unity of the race. This position will scarcely meet with any scientific dissent. Therefore the evidences of a higher antiquity than the usual reckoning of biblical chronology, instead of causing anxiety, should be accepted with favor. It thus appears that the antiquity of man is specially related to theology through the unity of the race. “And precisely in proportion as we value our belief in that unity ought we to be ready and willing to accept any evidence on the question of man’s antiquity. The older the human family can be proved to be, the more possible and probable it is that it has descended from a single pair. My own firm belief is that all scientific evidence is in favor of this conclusion ; and I regard all new proofs of the antiquity of man as tending to establish it on a firmer basis.”^{[385] [385]} Argyll:Primeval Man, p. 138.