September 29, 1898] 



NATURE 



527 



THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION. 

 SECTION IL 



ANTHROPOLOGY. 



Opening Address by E. W. Brabrook, C.B., F.S.A., 

 President of the Section. 

 I AM very sensible of the honour of presiding over this Section 

 at a Bristol meeting. Bristol, from its association with the 

 memory of J. C. Prichard, may be regarded as the very birth- 

 place of British anthropology. 



In submitting to this Section some observations on the past 

 progress and the present position of the Anthropological 

 Sciences, I use the plural term, which is generally adopted by 

 our French colleagues, in order to remind you that Anthro- 

 pology is in fact a group of sciences. There is what in France 

 is called pure anthropology or anthropology proper, but which 

 we prefer to call physical anthropology — the science of the 

 physical characters of man, including anthropometry and 

 craniology, and mainly based upon anatomy and physiology. 

 There is comparative anthropology, which deals with the 

 zoological position of mankind. There is prehistoric archeology, 

 which covers a wide range of inquiry into man's early works, 

 and has to seek the aid of the geologist and the metallurgist. 

 There is psychology, which comprehends the whole operations 

 of his mental faculties. There is linguistics, which traces the 

 history of human language. There is folk-lore, which investi- 

 gates man's traditions, customs, and beliefs. There are ethno- 

 graphy, which describes the races of mankind, and ethnology, 

 which differentiates between them, both closely connected with 

 geographical science. There is sociology, which applies the 

 learning accumulated in all the other branches of anthropfology 

 to man's relation to his fellows, and requires the co-operation of 

 the statistician and the economist. How can any single person 

 master in its entirety a group of sciences which covers so wide a 

 field, and requires in its students such various faculties and 

 qualifications .-' Here, if anywhere, we must be content to 

 divide our labours. The grandeur and comprehensiveness of 

 the subject are among its attractions. The old saying, " I am 

 a man, and therefore I think nothing human to be foreign 

 to me," expresses the ground upon which the anthropological 

 • sciences claim from us a special attention. 



I may illustrate what I have said as to the varied endow- 

 ments of anthropologists by a reference to the names of four 

 distinguished men who have occupied in previous years the 

 place which it falls to my lot to fill to-day— most unworthily, 

 as I cannot but acknowledge, when I think of their pre-eminent 

 qualifications. When the Association last met at Bristol, in 

 1875, Anthropology was not a Section, but only a Department, 

 and it was presided over by Rolleston. There may be some 

 here who recollect the address he then delivered, informed from 

 beginning to end with that happy and playful wit which was 

 characteristic of him ; but all will know how great he was in 

 anatomy, what a wide range of classical and other learning he 

 possessed, and how he delighted to bring it to bear on every 

 anthropological subject that was presented to his notice. In 

 1878 Huxley was the Chairman ol this Department. It is only 

 necessary to mention the name of that illustrious biologist to 

 recall to your memory how much anthropology owes to him. 

 Eight years before, he had been President of the Association 

 itself, and seven years before that had published his " Evidence 

 as to Man's Place in Nature." Brilliant as his successes were 

 in other branches of scientific investigation, I cannot but think 

 that anthropology was with him a favourite pursuit. His 

 writings upon that subject possess a wonderful charm of style. 

 In 1883 ihe Chairman was Pengelly, who for many years 

 rendered service to anthropology by his exploration of Kent's 

 Cavern and other caves, and who happily illustrated the close 

 relation that exists between geology and anthropology. His 

 biography, recently published, must have reminded many of us 

 of the amiable qualities which adorned his character. Finally, 

 in 1886, two years after anthropology had become a Section, 

 its President was Sir George Campbell, a practical ethnologist, 

 a traveller, an administrator, a legislator, a geographer, who 

 passed through a long career of public life with honour and 

 distinction. All my other predecessors are, I am glad to say, still 

 living, and I make no mention of them. The few names I have 

 cited — selected by the accidental circumstance that they are no 

 longer with us — are sufficient to show what varied gifts and 

 pursuits are combined in the study of anthropology. 



NO. 1509, VOL. 58] 



There is another side to the question. Great as is the 

 diversity of the anthropological sciences, their unity is still more 

 remarkable. The student of man must study the whole man. 

 No true knowledge of any human group, any more than of a 

 human individual, is obtained by observation of physical 

 characters alone. Modes of thought, language,, arts and history 

 must also be investigated. This simultaneous investigation 

 involves in each ca.se the same logical methods and processes. 

 It will in general be attended with the same results. If it be 

 true that the order of the Universe is expressed in continuity 

 and not in cataclysm, we shall find the same slow but sure 

 progress evident in each branch of the inquiry. We shall find 

 that nothing is lost, that no race is absolutely destroyed, that 

 everything that has been still exists in a modified form, and 

 contributes some of its elements to that which is. We shall 

 find that this, which no one doubts in regard to physical 

 matters, is equally true of modes of thought. We may trace 

 these to their germs in the small brain of the palaeolithic flint- 

 worker ; or, if we care to do so, still farther back. This 

 principle has, as I understand, been fully accepted in geology 

 and biology, and throughout the domain of physical science — 

 what should hinder its application to anthropology ? It supplies* 

 a formula of universal validity, and cannot but add force and 

 sublimity to our imagination of the wisdom of the Creator. It 

 is little more than has been expressed in the familiar words of 

 Tennyson : — 



" Yet I doubt not thro' the ages one increasing purpose runs, 

 And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns ; "■ 



and supports his claim to be *' the heir of all the ages, in the 

 foremost files of time." 



I propose, in briefly drawing your attention to some recent 

 conlributions to our knowledge, to use this as a convenient 

 theory and as pointing out the directions in which further in- 

 vestigation may be rewarded by even fuller light. 



Applying it, first of all, to the department of physical 

 anthropology, we are called upon to consider the discovery by 

 Dr. Dubois at Trinil in Java of the remains of an animal called 

 by him Pithecanthropus erecius, and considered by some 

 authorities to be one of the missing links in the chain of animal 

 existence which terminates in man. In his presidential address 

 to this Association last year, Sir John Evans said, " Even the 

 Pithecanthropus erectns of Dr. Eugene Dubois from Java meets 

 with some incredulous objectors from both the physiological and 

 the geological sides. From the point of view of the latter the 

 difficulty lies in determining the exact age of what are 

 apparently alluvial beds in the bottom of a river valley." In 

 regard to these objections, it should be remembered that though 

 the skull and femur in question are the only remains resembling 

 humanity discovered in the site, it yielded a vast number of 

 tossil bones of other animals, and that any difficulty in settling 

 the geological age must apply to the whole results of the 

 exploration The physiological difficulties arise in two points — 

 do the skull and femur belong to the same individual ? are they 

 or either of them human, or simian, or intermediate ? As to 

 the first, it is true that the two bones were separated by a 

 distance of about fifty feet, but as they were found precisely on 

 the same level, accompanied by no other bones resembling 

 human bones, but by a great number of animal remains, 

 apparently deposited at the same moment, the theory that they 

 belonged to different individuals would only add to the difficulty 

 of the problem. With regard to the skull, a projection of its. 

 outline on a diagram comparing it with others of low type 

 belonging to the stone age shows it to be essentially inferior to 

 any of them. With regard to the thigh, you will recollect that 

 at the Liverpool meeting of this Section, Dr. Hepburn displayed 

 a remarkable collection of femora from the anatomical museum 

 of Edinburgh University, exhibiting pathological and other con- 

 ditions similar to those in the femur of Trinil. Though this 

 evidence tends to show that the bone is human, it is not incon- 

 sistent with, but on the contrary goes to support, the conclusion 

 that it belongs to an exceedingly low and ancient type of 

 humanity. Whether, therefore, we call the remains Pithecan- 

 thropus ercctus with their discoverer, or Homo pithecanthropus. 

 with Dr, Manouvrier, or Homojavanensis priviigenius'tiK'Cti'Dr. 

 Houze, we are in presence of a valuable document in the early 

 evolution of mankind. 



One element of special interest in this discovery is that it 

 brings us nearer than we have ever been brought before to the 

 time when man or his predecessor acquired the erect position. 

 I believe that it is acknowledged by all that the femur belonged 



