2.34 



NATURE 



[October 21, 1920 



with those belonging tn oilurs. A tall but 

 bracliycephalic indixidual will combine Alpine 

 m^ritalitH' with blue eyes. Prof. Pearson also 

 referVed li> ilu- i asc* of Charles Darwin, whom he 

 took as a typical English individual, purely 

 English In mentality, and showed that his ancestry 

 contained elements from every race in Europe. 

 Even if at any time there had been association of 

 physical and mental characters, it would break 

 down by intermingling, except in cases specially 

 isolated by natural or social conditions, as, for 

 instance, in the non-intermarrying caste groups 

 of India. 



Having demonstrated the failure of the orthodox 

 school of anthropologists. Prof. Pearson put for- 

 ward three propositions as a basis of reform. 

 "Anthropologists must not cease," he said: 



"(i) To insist that our recorded material shall 

 be such that it is at present, or likely in the near 

 future to be, utile to the State. 



"(2) To insist that there shall be institutes of 

 anthropology . . . devoted to the teaching of 

 and research in anthropology, ethnology, and 

 prehistory. 



"(3)' To insist that our technique shall not con- 

 sist in the mere statement of opinion on the facts 

 observed, but shall follow^ if possible with greater 

 insight, the methods which are coming into use in 

 epidemiology and psychology." 



Anthropologists will agree, it may be assumed, 

 as to the desirability of the object set out in the 

 second of these propositions ; they mav even be 

 prepared to give to the third a qualified support. 

 But to confine scientific research to aims immedi- 

 ately recognisable as utilitarian, as Prof. Pearson's 

 first proposition would seem to suggest, is a limita- 

 tion which very few scientific workers, anthro- 

 pologists or others, would, and none should, 

 accept. Nor in this case is it necessary. The 

 study of ethnological problems on the lines at 

 present pursued by physical anthropologv does 

 not necessarily exclude the study of what Prof. 

 Pearson calls vigoriometry and psychometry — the 

 science of man is wide enough to embrace them 

 both. Is it not a little premature to condemn 

 anthropometrics? The study is not of great age; 

 it is still at the stage of gathering evidence, and 

 as this accumulates the problems change in char- 

 acter; methods are being tested and varied, and 

 data are re-examined continuously. Finally, 

 anthropologists themselves are convinced that the 

 problems they hope ultimately to solve are worth 

 while. 



On the other hand, anthropologists deplore the 

 fact that the State does not make greater use of 

 their results. The claims of the science as a basis 

 NO. 2660, VOL. 106] 



of legislation, and as an essential preliminary in the 

 training of those who have to administer the 

 affairs of, at any rate, our subject races, have 

 repeatedly been urged upon the Government. 

 There is, however, justice in Prof. Pearson's 

 criticism that ttie anthropologist too often has 

 omitted to show that his problems have a very 

 close relation to those of the statesman and re- 

 former. On this ground alone Prof. Pearson 

 deserves well of the science if, as a result of his 

 strictures, he should succeed in inducing anthro- 

 pologists to state from time to time the broad 

 issues involved in their research. In support of his 

 views, Prof. Pearson states that the Governments 

 of Europe have had no highly trained anthropolo- 

 gists at their command, and, as a consequence, 

 the Treaty of Versailles is ethnologically unsound. 

 Is this in accordance with the facts? It was 

 surely the case that when the terms of that treaty 

 were under consideration each country interested 

 in the settlement of international boundaries pro- 

 duced masses of facts based upon the researches 

 i of skilled ethnologists. Unfortunately, the facts 

 i were selected or distorted to suit the ends of the 

 parties interested. Where impartial conclusions 

 were available, as in the case of the Balkans, they 

 had to be set aside on political grounds. The 

 defects of the Treaty of Versailles are defects of 

 the politician, and do not lie by default at the door 

 of the man of science. 



The extensive political propaganda based upon a 

 distorted ethnology which followed the Armistice 

 illustrates one aspect of a flagrant misuse of scien- 

 tific data. Prof. Pearson refers with approval to 

 the manifesto of the German anthropologists, in 

 which is sketched a programme of study in 

 ethnology and folk-psychology of savage and 

 civilised peoples, by which they hope to aid their 

 country to recover its lost position in the world. 

 Science is made subservient to a purely political 

 en(/. Prof. Pearson himself speaks of speeding up 

 evolution as an outcome of anthropological studies, 

 and of breeding out the troglodyte mentality in 

 man. But by whom and on what grounds is the 

 direction of the evolutionary process to be deter- 

 mined? The end of science is truth, and its 

 function is the investigation of facts and their rela- 

 tions, and not the formulation of ideals. The past 

 history of anthropology teaches us that it has not 

 been to its advantage that it has meddled in 

 politics or in humanitarianism. To say that this 

 or that type is desirable, that this or that mentality 

 should be cultivated, is not the work of the 

 anthropologist, but of the social reformer. 



I 



