1896. CASUAL THOUGHTS ON MUSEUMS. 185 



inferences we cannot do better than base our inductions more and 

 more on man, of whom we know much, and meanwhile always keep 

 before us as a warning the fruitful proverb, omne ignotnmpro magiiifico. 



Even in regard to more critical problems, the study of anthropo- 

 logy in its proper inductive way, by bringing together types from 

 various localities, promises much. If we are to be logical and con- 

 sistent we must apply the same kind of differentict to distinguish men 

 that we do to distinguish butterflies and birds, and give them the 

 same value. Are not Esquimaux and Bushmen, Samoyedes and 

 AustraHans, American Indians and Fantis, much further apart than 

 any two species of monkeys, of larks, or of butterflies ? That these 

 various human species may have had a common ancestor who was 

 human may be the case or may not. I am bound to say I know of 

 very little evidence on the subject. 



We know that in the caves of Brazil Lund found under the 

 stalagmite the skulls of men whose facial type was like that of the 

 American Indian, associated with the remains of the Megatherium and 

 other extinct so-called Pleistocene beasts. In Europe we have found 

 abundant remains of man also associated with the extinct beasts 

 under the stalagmite of our c'averns. Hence in so-called Pleistocene 

 times it is clear that man existed both in the Old and the New World, 

 and apparently differentiated as he is now differentiated on each side 

 of the Atlantic. Further back than this we cannot at present go. 

 We are told that the problem is one that is not to be measured by 

 centuries, but, perhaps, by millions of years. I protest, not from any 

 a priori prejudice, theological or otherwise, but simply because, having 

 devoted a great deal of time and thought to archaeology, I can see 

 literally no evidence to justify such a conclusion, A great many 

 thousand years ago, the types of man were apparently precisely 

 what they are now. The Egyptian Fellah, the Hadandowah, and 

 the Negro are all represented on the earliest monuments. Language 

 also seems to get no nearer a common origin as we get further back, 

 but rather the reverse. Sanscrit and Chinese, Babylonian and Egyp- 

 tian, at the earhest stage to which we can trace them, are quite as 

 far apart, if not farther, than any modern languages ; on the other 

 hand, when we get to the outskirts of human tradition and the records 

 of language, we also get into a region of inquiry, where our archaeo- 

 logical evidence becomes very scanty, and I see no traces in it to 

 justify these magnificent postulates of hundreds of thousands of years, 

 which seem to me born of a science closely akin to charlatanry. 

 What then is the key ? I am bound to say I know not at present, 

 and I see no harm in saying so. I will also say, however, that that is 

 why, like many others, I am desperately anxious to see anthropology 

 made the subject-matter of closer study by a larger number of serious 

 students, and to see a part of our great Museum devoted to its 

 illustration. Hence these tears, and hence all this impudence. 



Henry H. Ho worth. 



