ETHNOLOGY: ITS SCOPE AND PROBLEMS 551 



ture are considerations that do not concern the ethnologist alone ; for 

 the effect upon society of a superior weapon, a canoe, or of a house 

 may be far-reaching, and all sociologists acknowledge the intimate 

 connection that exists between occupation and social conditions. 



On the other hand, the construction of a theory of the origin, 

 growth, and destiny of humanity, or the enunciation of principles 

 applicable to the ordering of social life are alien occupations to the 

 ethnologist as such. 



Probably the majority of ethnologists will admit that under their 

 science may be classed those cultural activities which are broadly 

 included under the arts, crafts, institutions, languages, opinions, 

 and beliefs of all peoples. But here the old difficulty reappears, 

 Where is the line to be drawn? Most sociologists appear to draw 

 this line at civilization; they reserve to themselves the right to 

 study the civilized states, while to the ethnologist they relegate the 

 uncivilized communities. 1 It may be desirable to call the latter 

 ethnical societies or ethnogenic associations, and the former demotic 

 societies or demogenic associations; 2 but in practice it is often 

 exceedingly difficult to determine whether a given community can 

 be designated as civilized or uncivilized. 



As a matter of fact, a distinction of this nature does obtain for 

 practical purposes. Implicitly, rather than explicitly, the ethno- 

 logist does mainly confine his attention to the less civilized peoples 

 or to the less cultivated classes of culture-peoples; but this is a 

 matter of convenience, and he considers himself quite justified in 

 making an occasional excursus into even the highest civilizations. 



The difficulty of discriminating between two allied subjects, such 

 as ethnology and sociology, is repeated when the field of history is 

 considered. 8 Historians themselves are divided in opinion concern- 

 ing the legitimate scope of their study; some claim it as a science, 4 

 others describe it as the artistic and emotional treatment of the 

 whole past of mankind. 5 The two views, whether history is to be 

 regarded as science or as literature, are irreconcilable only in their 

 extremes. Historical data require to be collected, authenticated, and 

 classified according to that method to which the term "scientific " 

 is often applied, but to which the designation " critical " is equally 



1 Lester F. Ward, Pure Sociology : A Treatise on the Origin and Spontaneous 

 Development of Society, 1903, pp. 15, 33. 



1 F. H. Giddings, The Principles of Sociology, 1896, pp. 157, 299; c/. also 

 pp. 26, 27, 33. 



"It is often asked, when should Ancient History be supposed to begin? Can 

 a practical line be drawn? Archeology overlaps what we can strictly call His- 

 tory, but it goes much farther back: it revels in the 'prehistoric.' So too An- 

 thropology, of which in its widest sense History is but a branch." W. E. Heit- 

 land, "The Teaching of Ancient History," in Essays on the Teaching of History, 

 Cambridge, 1901, p. 38. 



4 J. B. Bury, An Inaugural Lecture, Cambridge, 1903, pp. 7, 42. 



8 G. M. Trevelyan, "The Latest View of History," The Independent Review, 

 1904, i, p. 395. 



