I20 



NATURE 



[March 24, 192 1 



The Royal Anthropological Institute. 



THE anniversary meeting of the Royal Anthropo- 

 logical Institute, which was held on January 25, 

 marks the completion of the fiftieth year of the insti- 

 tute's existence. The institute was founded in 1871 

 as the result of the amalgamation of two pre-existing 

 societies, the Ethnological Society and the Anthropo- 

 logical Society. The history of these two societies 

 throws a very interesting light on the development of 

 anthropological science in this country. The Ethno- 

 logical Society was founded in 1843 by Dr. Thomas 

 Hodgkin, of Guy's Hospital, Dr. Richard King, and 

 Dr. Thomas Cowell Prichard. Hodgkin, a prominent 

 member of his profession and a Quaker, had been in 

 1837 one of the founders of the Aborigines Protection 

 Society ; but with others, who, like himself, were 

 more interested in the scientific aspect of the problems 

 with which this society dealt, finding little scope for 

 their interests, he decided to found a society which 

 should deal only with the scientific side. In 1859 Dr. 

 James Hunt became secretary of this society. A 

 man of intensely active mind and tremendous energy, 

 Dr. Hunt was strongly of opinion that the society was 

 top narrow in its aims and lacking in energy. As a 

 result he, with others, seceded, and the Anthropo- 

 logical Society was founded in January, 1863, at a 

 meeting at which Sir Richard Burton took the chair. 



An ambitious programme was immediately drawn 

 up, including the popularisation of the subject by 

 means of lectures, the discussion of political and social 

 problems of the day, and the publication of trans- 

 lations of works by prominent Continental anthropo- 

 logists. Another of Hunt's projects was the founda- 

 tion of an anthropological college with full teaching 

 stafT, subsidised by the Government. Anthropological 

 questions were much in the air at this time, as the 

 result of the publication of "The Origin of Species" 

 and the archaeological discoveries of Boucher de 

 Perthes and Christy and Lartet in France. The 

 Neanderthal skull had been discovered in 1857. The 

 Ethnological Society still confined itself in the main 

 to the backward races, and was urging upon the 

 public the advantage of such studies to the nation 

 in its dealings with its Dependencies. But the 

 Anthropological Society was speculating on the in- 

 numerable questions which were then troubling the 

 political world, as well as on the wider pseudo- 

 scientific problems of the day. It not only dealt with 

 such topics as the Aryan question, but also discussed 

 race, nationality, and character as exhibited in the 

 "negro mind," the "Irish mind," and the like. 



The two societies, however, at the end of the 

 'sixties, found themselves in diflficulties. The Anthro- 

 pological Society, notwithstanding its popularity and 

 its very considerable membership, had become heavilv 

 indebted through its ambitious policy and lavish 

 expenditure on publications ; while the Ethnological 

 Society also found its income inadequate to meet its 

 expenses. The death of Hunt in 1869 paved the way 

 for an amalgamation. Negotiations were brought to 

 a successful termination by the two presidents, 

 Huxley on behalf of the Ethnological Society and 

 Beddoe on behalf of the Anthropological Society. At 

 a meeting held on February 4, 1871, a resolution 

 was passed foundinsf the Anthropological Institute of 

 Great Britain and Ireland, and Lubbock was elected 

 the first president. 



The amalgamation was not, however, a final re- 

 conciliation, and in 1873 a number of members, who 

 held that the interests of the Anthropological Society 

 were not sufficiently considered, seceded, and formed 

 the Anthropological Society of London. This society, 



NO. 2682, VOL. 107] 



however, lived for three years only, and in 1876 the 

 majority of the members returned to the institute. 



The history of the institute falls into three periods. 

 For the first ten or eleven years after its foundation 

 it was engaged in consolidating \\i position and in 

 defining its aims. The heavy debt of 1200Z. which it 

 had inherited from the parent societies was cleared 

 off, largely by private subscription. Notwithstanding 

 a declining membership and a diminishing income, a 

 quarterly Journal was published, which maintained a 

 high standard in quality of material and illustration. 



A clearer and more definite conception of the func- 

 tion of such a body as the institute in its relation to. 

 the needs of anthropological science was now in 

 process of formulation. The broad generalisations 

 based upon what we should now consider totally in- 

 adequate evidence, which had been characteristic of 

 one, if not of both, of the earlier societies, become 

 fewer and tend to disappear. Their place is taken by 

 communications which record the detailed results of 

 careful observation. Such generalisation as there is 

 is becoming cautious, tentative, and more strictly 

 conditioned by the character of the evidence. This 

 line of development was, no doubt, very considerably 

 influenced by the epoch-making work of two distin- 

 guished fellows of the institute ; in 1872 Evans pub- 

 lished his "Ancient Stone Implements," and in the 

 same year Tylor published the second edition of his 

 "Primitive Culture." But the guiding influence of 

 such men as Huxley, Galton, Flower, Busk, Pitt- 

 Rivers, Francks, and Lubbock (the first Lord Ave- 

 bury), to name a few only of those who were pro- 

 minent in the counsels of the institute in its early 

 years, could not fail to leave an indelible mark on its 

 character and history. 



It is interesting to glance through the volumes of 

 the Journal at this period and to note the names both 

 of fellows and of contributors. Darwin, Romanes, 

 Bagehot, Sir H. S. Maine, Sir J. G. Wilkinson, Sir 

 A. H. Layard, as well as two reigning monarchs, the 

 Emperor of Brazil and the King of Siam, appear in 

 the lists of fellows ; while among those contributing 

 to the Journal were Bishop Callaway, Sir R. F. 

 Burton, Owen, Barnard Davis, Herbert Spencer, 

 Col. H. Yule, Vamb^ry, Sir H. Bartle Frere, and 

 Lieut. D. J. Cameron, the African traveller who was 

 the first to give an account of the natives between 

 4° and 12° lat. 



The second period in the history of the institute 

 may be said to begin about 1880 and to extend to 

 1898. In the early 'eighties interest in anthropology 

 was growing rapidly. The foundation of the Folk- 

 lore Society in 1877 may possibly have been the earliest 

 manifestation of this movement. In 1883 the number 

 of fellows of the institute ceased to decline, and an 

 upward movement began, which has continued 

 steadilv, if slowlv, ever since. In 1883 the University 

 of Oxford founded a readership in anthropology, to 

 which Tylor was appointed. This was the beginning 

 of the svstematic teaching of the subject in our univer- 

 sities. In the same year the Pitt-Rivers Museum was 

 founded at Oxford, and the formation of the Archaeo- 

 logical and Ethnological Museum was begrun at Cam- 

 bridge, Baron A. von Hiigel being the curator. 

 Human crania had been admitted to the British 

 Museum zoological collections, and in the new build- 

 ing at South Kensington 407 skulls and 10 complete 

 skeletons were on exhibition. It is interesting to 

 note that at this date the collection of the Royal 

 College of Surgeons, which in 1853 had consisted of 

 18 skeletons and 242 crania, had grown to 89 com- 



