286 swanton: anthropology and provincialism 



ANTHROPOLOGY. — Anthropology as a corrective of provin- 

 cialism. John R. Swanton, Bureau of Ethnology. 



Anthropology is distinctly the study of man in society. It is 

 by its attention to the group or social idea that physical an- 

 thropology differs from anatomy and physiology, comparative 

 philology from the mere study of vocal expression, and culture 

 history from psychology. And it is apparent that the well being 

 of the individual depends, always and in an ever increasing degree, 

 upon the well being of the group of which he forms a part and the 

 harmonious relations between himself and that particular group. 

 Of course anthropology is not the only science which considers 

 man primarily as a social being. The same is true of history, 

 sociology, economics, and various others. But history, at least 

 that of the older orthodox type, limits itself for the most part to 

 those peoples and those periods of which there are scriptorial 

 records, sociology places its emphasis on mankind in the so-called 

 civilized nations, and economics and similar sciences consider 

 man with particular reference to his material environment or else 

 some special phase of his social relations. In particular it is to 

 be observed that each of these sciences is concerned with the 

 peoples of that one great culture center, which, beginning in the 

 immediate neighborhood of the eastern Mediterranean, gradually 

 spread westward until it came to be represented by the so-called 

 civilized nations of today. Anthropology, considering ethnology 

 and ethnography as subordinate branches, is the only science 

 w^hich, professedly and from the very beginning, has taken cog- 

 nizance of all human societies whether they be conventionally 

 called "civilized" or "uncivilized." 



The importance of this fact appears when it is known that what 

 we call civilization has sprung up independently at a number of 

 distinct points or "culture centers," and that no two of these 

 culture centers has consisted of the same elements, has undergone 

 the same institutional or psychical development, has enjoyed, or 

 suffered from, the same environment. Thus the history which 

 each center presents, the expression of its life, the social organi- 

 zations and institutions which have developed within it are 

 different, and the peculiar outlook on life which an inhabitant of 



