556 ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS. 



althougb there was no variance between tliem_and ns. Individual mem- 

 bers — as I most gratefully admit, (among- whom our president, Baron 

 von Andrian, is one,) often expressed tbeir regret at our lack of uuion. 



In 1881, the flrst attempt to bring about a union was made when the 

 German and the Austrian anthropologists held their general meetings 

 successively atEegensburg and Salzburg, both attendiug each other's 

 sessiou. Since that time the idea of union gained strength until it 

 was realized in our present joint meeting; and may a sentiment of 

 union be developed that shall complete the work which we began. 



You all understand that this question of nationality is a very impor- 

 tant one in an anthropological sense. 



We must always start from w*bat is known ; our question is that of 

 habitat. And here we differ from the zoologist, who is only to a limited 

 degree concerned about this question. Not until we know whence a 

 person came and where he lived is he a legitimate subject of anthropo- 

 logical investigation. This holds true also with respect to a human 

 skull. An unknown skull may be momentarily of some interest, but 

 from a scientific stand-point it is of no importance until its habitat has 

 been determined. 



Ti<; r.oOov slq uvdpwv is a question which not merely concerns our every 

 day life, but is an important one for the anthropologist. It is a very 

 difficult matter to make collectors of skulls understand that not merely 

 skulls, but skulls of persons or tribes are needed, that can be identified 

 as regards their habitat. Then only are they of any anthropological 

 value to the investigator. 



A skull per se is of very little account to us, but when its nationality 

 is known it begins to exist, so to speak. We must not forget more- 

 over that our conceptions of nationality are largely based upon our 

 present relationships, and that these become of less value the ftirther 

 back we go, and that they are of no value at all when we reach the 

 jieriod in which clearly defined nationalities are not known. 



Every evidence of nationality ceases in pre-historic times; it is then 

 a mere abstraction. There nationality has to be made up and a no- 

 menclature adopted which can be at best only a designation for a cer- 

 tain period, valueless in itself and unintelligible to future times. To 

 be sure, to talk about a race of Canustatt or of Cro-Magnon may sound 

 very learned, but I hope that ere long such a phraseology will be dis- 

 carded. 



At i>resent questions of nationality can be settled only with great 

 difficulty. We may be sure of being tolerably successful, if we select 

 some island of the Pacific Ocean. There nationality is fully develoj>ed 

 and its people are tangible; every one of them is easily recognized as 

 belonging to a distinct nationality, and our experience is similar to that 

 of the geologist who can construct a whole species from a single, or at 

 most only from a few skulls of animals, or who at any rate can determine 

 from a single skull the craniology of the whole species. It would be very 



