442 



NA TURE 



[Si 



22, 1923 



results of the study ot uu« n nl I'",ji\ ptiau remains, I 

 pinttci! niii Mil ;i iiiaj) the j.'i M;'ra[)hiral (iistril)Utiori of 



an ill' "I people with e.ri! 1 ((Ot'llisal >!(• (ii-t imt i\ e 

 i Mat he:.'a' 



' -'111 .^}oo 1:.'. . • 



ileliiiite part in 1\l;\'p 



^'' ' i 1' • ' '■ Mieaii. and t ; .■ • ,.,M ^ ■■! , ^i. ; . .. 



■I lidiit iiiiii !i <htri( iih \- til iami it! 



^■■1 ' !! leaihiil thi> siuge in uiter- 



pi'ii L:reatl\ perturbed to find tliat 



this same imim ■ii.ai'li t\pi was found widespread 

 throughout 1'. 1 iieaa, lla\in- failed to get any help 

 or encdura; ( iiH nt Inun anthropologists, either on the 

 physi( .il (u the ( nkural ^ide, to pursue this subject 

 further, I had no alternative than to resort to ethno- 

 logical studies to see whether I could not discover 

 cultural evidence to shed some light upon the un- 

 doubted facts of race, concerning which 1 was satisfied 

 that I had unshakable evidence of a widespread 

 migration of people. In Polynesia I found the same 

 general associations between the distribution of these 

 distinctive people and the practices of megalith- 

 building and mummification as I had previously found 

 in the Mediterranean area and Western Asia ; and 

 when the evidence came to be studied intensively it 

 seemed to establish upon unshakable foundations the 

 fact of the unity of civilisation and the world-wide 

 diffusion of culture in early times. This conclusion of 

 course has been warmly contested during the last ten 

 years, during which, however, its opponents have 

 repeatedly shifted their ground and taken up new 

 lines of defence. While there is not a scrap of doubt 

 as to the ultimate issue, it is clear that there will be a 

 prolonged conflict such as in the past was necessar}- 

 to convince people that the earth was not flat, or that 

 man was really evolved from a Simian ancestor. 



There are two points in connexion with this theory 

 that I want specially to mention : — (a) Its bearing 

 upon the problems of physical anthropology, and ip) 

 its relation to psychology. If it can be demonstrated 

 that at certain scattered localities widespread through- 

 out the world the germs of the common civilisation 

 were planted by immigrants, the recognition of the 

 presence of the latter at some places and not at others 

 is a fact of cardinal importance to the student who is 

 attempting to interpret the puzzling results of the 

 intensive study of race in localised areas. When one 

 is dealing with regions like Oceania, where the popula- 

 tion is the result of relatively recent immigrations, 

 probably none of them more than twenty centuries old, 

 such considerations are clearly the essence of the whole 

 problem. 



I need say no more in justification of the fundamental 

 importance of the close correlation of the work in 

 physical and cultural anthropology. They are parts 

 of one and the same problem, which cannot be solved 

 unless both classes of evidence are given their proper 

 value. 



One of the greatest obstacles that has barred the way 

 to such collaboration has been the persistent refusal 

 on the part of ethnologists to distinguish between 

 diffusion of culture and migration of people. The 

 confusion that has arisen from this issue has had far- 

 reaching effects not merely upon the interpretation of 



* " The Ancient EgypUans," 191 1 and 1923. 

 NO. 2812, VOL. I 12] 



the early liist(»ry nf ( ivilisation, but also by impli< atioii 

 in ( r( aiinL a bias in favour of tl !ile hypothesis 



thai tliere is a neceSSarv conn' ivn rare and 



I'""" '" " ...w^„j,.<..w .,, 



■' 'It ( iilti :.y thepositivt 



' It ''"' . in. .a. t that in *'- ■ 



' lit I ail knf)wle(li.'e in\aria: 



HI ih( way we pn-i ;!,iie. and has ever been Hit- ■. iaci 

 in( eniive to progn - in the new foci; and {c) bv the 

 psychoid' ' ; eiiii.,11. If I h« II. it is asked, the fact 

 of diffu i Mrt.iin. uhy is there .so intense nn 



opposition ,to its admission ? \\ hy do the 

 of anthropologists clintr to a tIk ory that is so «■ 

 false ? Their attitude ; ods of evasion become 



more intelligible if m . ai k three rcnmri.^ a^o 



and studies the a of the peoplt -»<] 



to admit the erroi ,, ... tlat-earth ' • • . . It it 



be urged that the oitpdHtiim in thai . -enliallv 



theological, it can be (laiiiud that meciuexa: • 

 has not a monopoly of do^^matism against the . 

 ment of science. The errors of ethnological doctrine 

 that still hold the field are largely the outcome of 

 certain im idenls in the sixties of the nineteenth 

 century, as the result of which {a) the terms used by 

 biologists in the Darwinian controversy were mis- 

 understood and misapplied, and (^) in the conflict with 

 such apologists as Archbishop Whately and the Duke 

 of Argyll ^ the ethnologists not only made claims that 

 recent research has shown to be wholly indefensible, 

 but also laid down these false doctrines with all the 

 pontifical air of infallibility which unconsciously they 

 seem to have adopted from their theological opponents. 

 In recent times the attempt has been made to bolster 

 up this false claim by certain specious psychological 

 arguments ; and the best hope for ridding anthropo- 

 logical science of so serious a hindrance to progress 

 is to be found in the adoption of serious psychological 

 methods in the investigation of customs and beliefs 

 and the interpretation of the histon* of civilisation. 

 Nor would the benefit of this closer correlation between 

 ethnology and psychology be one-sided, p- 'lorry 

 has at least as much to gain as ethnol< the 



investigation of the meaning of myth and loik-iure. of 

 custom and belief, is coming to play an increasing part 

 in the study of human behaviour. The further develop- 

 ment of this tendency is certain to be the chief factor 

 in ridding anthropological studies of the encumbrances 

 of error which still hamper their growth. 



Man's Distixctivk Attribute. 



The study of man can only become transtormed 

 into a real science when mans really distinctive 

 attribute, the nature of the human mind, is made the 

 chief subject of anthropological inquir}-. The value of 

 psychology as the great integrating factor in anthropo- 

 logy has recently been explained with great lucidity 

 by Dr. Malinowski, and in the rest of my address I 

 want to suggest that the extent of its possibilities for 

 effecting co-ordination is even much wider than the 

 claims he made for it. Psychology can become the 

 bond of union between all branches of anthrop"'"' '■ •' 

 inquiry and the medium whereby a distinc : 



' Andrew D. White, " .\ History o\ the Warfare of Science," etc, v™ a. , 

 p. 305 (1920 ed.). 



