3i6 



NATURE 



[September i, 1923 



The essay, it seems, was practically finished before 

 the War, and this explains why the work of Dr. Rivers 

 finds only a subordinate place, while the still more 

 radical and extremely interesting theories of Prof. 

 Elliot Smith and Mr. Perry are not even mentioned. 

 The work of Prof. A. R. Brown of Cape Town on the 

 Andaman Islanders, easily the best contribution of the 

 youngest generation of field anthropologists and very 

 important in its bearing on the Negrito culture, came 

 out too late to be considered. Had Dr. Graebner been 

 able to incorporate the views of these scholars in his 

 essay, this would have become of still greater value to 

 modem ethnology. 



Returning now to the question raised at the outset, 

 that, namely, of the unity of anthropology, it is clear 

 that this work reflects the present state of affairs as 

 well as the prevalent tendencies : a deep rent between 

 the physical and cultural branches ; a preponderance 

 given to the physical ones ; and, within the cultural 

 branches, an attitude of hostility to psychology and 

 evolution. 



On these lines, however, anthropology certainly will 

 never attain its desired unity. For, first of all, so- 

 called physical anthropology is not a new science or 

 a new method or a new point of view. " We have to 

 regard anthropology as nothing else but a comparative 

 anatomy of man " (Prof. Schwalbe, p. 227). Nor is it 

 easy to see how and where such comparative anatomy 

 can establish any direct connexion with the study of 

 human culture, or help in the understanding of social 

 organisation, custom, and tradition. The only point 

 where cultural anthropology needs the assistance of the 

 naturalist is in the classification of the several varieties 

 of mankind. Even here, comparative anatomy has 

 already given us apparently all it could, which has been 

 of great value indeed. But now, it is from biology, 

 mainly from theories of natural selection, variation, 

 and Mendelism, that we can hope for effective con- 

 tributions to progress. Thus physical anthropology is 

 not a new or independent science, but the application 

 of several natural studies to the problem of varieties 

 of man. Nor can physical anthropology ever be 

 capable of throwing light on the relevance of these 

 varieties. For a human race does not interest us as a 

 mere class of animals, but only in so far as it is a 

 substratum for a definite type of civilisation. 



The study of • civilisation — "cultural" or "social" 

 or " psychological anthropology " — is the only science 

 which can take the lead in the organising of anthro- 

 pological problems, for it studies that which is of 

 primary interest to us in Man : his mind, his creative 

 power, and his social tradition. Cultural anthropologj' 

 is, moreover, an entirely new branch of learning. Its 

 field-work, the observations on the customs, social 



NO. 2809, VOL. I I 2] 



organisation, and mentality of natives, must be done 

 by specialists possessing certain particular aptitudes 

 as well as an appropriate training. The theorv' of 

 cultural anthropology has also to elaborate its own 

 methods, which it can borrow from nowhere else itui 

 share with no other study. 



An empirical proof of this far wider scope of cultural 

 as against physical anthropology can be found in the 

 history of modem field-work and theory. Sir Baldwin 

 Spencer, a distinguished zoologist who took up field- 

 work late in life, was gradually drawn into exclusiveh 

 social and cultural studies, and in his latter research( 

 did not trouble about any measurements or somatt- 

 logical observations, while he concentrated exclusively 

 on his remarkable researches into the ideas and 

 institutions of the Australian aborigines. Dr. Rivers, 

 a neurologist, physiologist, and medical man, who in 

 his earlier field-work still made some anatomical and 

 physiological observations, gave them up entirely, as 

 irrelevant, in his latter explorations in Melanesia, in 

 which he has created a new type of cultural research. 

 In the work of Dr. Haddon and Prof. Seligman, again 

 one a zoologist and the other a medical man, physical 

 anthropology plays an entirely subordinate part 

 although neither of them has given up somatolop 

 altogether. Again in theory, we see how a distinguished 

 anatomist. Professor Elliot Smith, who became 

 interested in ethnology through anatomical observa- 

 tions, has been drawn, in his ethnological work, 

 entirely into sociological, cultural, and psvchological 

 research. 



Not that cultural anthropology should ever become 

 independent of the naturaUst's help or give up its 

 foundations of zoological science. Only it appears 

 that it w.U have to turn to the study of life and function 

 rather than that of bones, muscles, and structure. 

 The biometrical line of research, the work done by the 

 Eugenic Society, the applications of Mendelism to 

 anthropology seem all to be symptoms and promises 

 of extremely interesting results to follow. It is un- 

 doubtedly a pity that some of the results already 

 obtained by these studies could not be incorporated in 

 this manual. They certainly indicate much more 

 promising and important lines of junction between the 

 theory of organic nature and that of culture than those 

 on which was based the old loveless and sterile marriam 

 between anatomical description and psychological 

 guesswork. For the psychology which is needed in 

 modern anthropology is no more the old associationist 

 and introspective empiricism, but biological psychology 

 founded on a comparative study of instinct and largely 

 inspired by the study of animal behaviour, the child's 

 development, mental disorders, the analysis of dreams 

 and of the structure of language. 



