534 REPORT OF NATIONAL MUSEUM, 1903. 



advantaji'eoiis from many points of view, and especiall}' to students of 

 comparative ethnology, as showing at a ghmce the condition of culture 

 to be found in any tribe, race, or district. In the i^itt Rivers Museum, 

 on the other hand, the primary basis of classification which is adopted 

 and which distinguishes it from other kindred museums, is one like 

 that employed in the arrangement of most natural-history museums, 

 the objects being grouped according to their morphological affinities 

 and resemblances (as it were), all objects of like form and function being- 

 brought together into groups, which again are subdivided into smaller 

 groups — into genera and species, as one might almost say." (See Bal- 

 four's remarks in Report Museums Association, 1897, p. 51.) There is 

 only one larger natural-history museum that is arranged geographic- 

 all}^ and that is the Agassiz Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cam- 

 bridge, in the United States, which on that account became famous 

 during the life of its originator. Its reputation can not now be 

 claimed to so great an extent, since, although it is otherwise so 

 impoi'tant in the scientific world, it has not in this one respect kept 

 abreast with the times. There is, however, an example on a small scale 

 of geographic classification of a zoological collection, which I shall 

 mention beyond under Dublin. It is therefore possible to study in the 

 Oxford collection, so to speak, the natural history and the phylogeny 

 of the various arts and industries of mankind. To this end Pitt 

 Rivers, so far as possible, associated in groups all like objects from 

 the various parts of the world in which they occur. By means of 

 such synoptic series, when fairly representative, geographical distri- 

 bution of any class of implements, weapons, etc., may be seen and 

 the relative condition and local variations of kindred or similar objects 

 may be studied and views formed as to the important question of the 

 monogenesis or polygenesis of certain widely distributed arts. The 

 probable lines of dispersal where they have apparently emanated from 

 one center, may be determined upon incidentally, of course, helping to 

 throw light upon the migrations of races themselves. Moreover, by 

 arranging the specimens in each group in progressive series — that is, 

 by commencing with those objects which appear to be the most primi- 

 tive and general in their class, and by leading gradually up to the 

 higher and more specialized forms, the developmental history of the 

 higher forms may be at any rate suggestively illustrated and material 

 be supplied for the stud}^ of the growth of culture. We are enabled 

 to form some conclusions as to the variations by which progress in any 

 given art or industry has step by step been afl'ected." Inasmuch as 

 the prehistoric status of civilized peoples, corresponding to that of 

 our present lowly-cultured races is included, one learns to understand 

 better the relics of former times that have remained to cultivated 



« Report Museums Association, 1897, p. 52. 



