August i6. 1894] 



NA TURE 



587 



which otherwise we would have worked out on paper. Perhaps 

 it is also our misfortune — or it maybe only our thickheadedness 

 — to believe that in consequence of this we are quite able to 

 judge for ourselves what units it is most convenient for us to 

 work in, what nomenclature satisfies our requirements, and that 

 we are as capable of getting our "^'s" in their right places 

 as even some of our distinguished critics. But this is the 

 end of the nineteenth century ; philanthropy fills our breasts. 

 May not our misfortunes call out some pity and not alone 

 contempt ? In spite of solemn warnings which I have lately 

 received in the press against the monstrous idea that a presi- 

 dential address should contain any individual opinions, I 

 venture to repeat here what I had lately an opportunity of say- 

 ing before a Royal Commission, that in cases where a University 

 or University College takes in hand the preparation of 

 engineers (and I hope that such cases will grow in number) 

 they should provide for them special training in mathematics, 

 and probably also in physics, distinct from the general training 

 in these subjects most suitable for Degrees. I say this with 

 the full knowledge that I may be accused of wishing to degrade 

 the purity of scientific work, and, at the same time, with the 

 full knowledge that I have no such wish. On the contrary, 

 this special training is the only means by which the rank and 

 file of us will ever know any mathematics at all. And I can 

 say from my own knowledge that, if only we can be made 

 what I may call mathematically articulate beings, we shall be 

 able to repay the kindness by placing before the man of pure 

 science problem after problem of transcendent difficulty, of 

 immense interest, and having no single drawback whatever 

 except that its solution may really be "useful '' ; and, after all, 

 this need not be brought too prominently under his notice. 



This digression has turned out a long one. I have only 

 further to say that my main object in this address has been to 

 indicate, as well as I could, the general attitude which the 

 engineer must of necessity take up towards much of his 

 work, — the point of view from which he must look at it. I 

 shall be extremely glad if anything which I have said should 

 cause this attitude, this, — this point of view, — to be more 

 clearly kept in mind in the period of training than probably 

 h.is been hitherto the case. 



SECTION H. 



ANTHROPOLOGY. 



(MENiNG Address by Sir W. H. Flower, K.C.B., LL.D., 

 Sc.D., F.R.S., President of the Section. 



It is not usual for the President of a Section of this Associa- 

 tion to think it necessary to give any explanation of the nature 

 of the subjects brought under its cognisance, or to emphasise 

 their importance among other branches of study ; but so general 

 is the ignorance, or at all events vagueness of information, 

 among otherwise well-instructed persons, that I will ask your 

 permission to devote the short time accorded to me before the 

 actual work of the Section begins to giving some account of the 

 history and present position of the study of Anthropology in 

 this country, and especially to indicate what this Association 

 has done in the past, and is still doing, to promote it. 



It is only ten years since the Sectiqn in which we are now 

 taking part acquired a definite and assured position in the 

 organisation of the Association. The subject, ol course, existed 

 long before that time, and was also recognised by the Associa- 

 tion, though with singular vicissitudes of fortune and position. 

 It first appeared officially in 1846, when the " Ethnological 

 sub-Section of Section D" (then called "Zoology and 

 Botany") was constituted. This lasted till 1851, when 

 Geography parted company from Geology, with which it had 

 been previously associated in Section C. and became Section 

 E, under the title of "Geography and Ethnology." In 1S66 

 Section D changed its name to "Biology," with Physiology 

 and .\nthropology (the fir-t occurrence of this word in our 

 official proceedings) as separate " Departments ' ; but the latter 

 does not seem to have regained its definite footing as a 

 branch of Biological Science until three years later (1869'), when 

 Section E, dropping Ethnology from its title, henceforward 

 became Geography alone. The Department for the first 

 two years (1S69 and 1870) was conducted under the title of 

 Ethnology, but in 187 1 it resumed the name of Anthropology, 

 given it in i865, and it flourished to such an extent, attracting 

 so many papers and such large audiences, thai it was finally 



NO. 1294, VOL. 50] 



constituted into a distinct Section, to which the letter H was 

 assigned, and which had its first session at the memorable meet- 

 ing at Montreal, exactly ten years ago, under the fitting and 

 auspicious presidency of Dr. E. B. Tylor. 



The history of the gradual recognition of Anthropology as a 

 distinct subject by this Association is an epitome of the history 

 of its gradual growth, and the gradual recognition of its position 

 among other sciences in the world at large, a process still in 

 operation and still far from complete. .-Mthough the word 

 Anthropology had certainly existed, but used in a different sense, 

 it was not till well into the middle of the present century that it, 

 or any other word, had been thought of to designate collectively 

 the scattered fragments of various kinds of knowledge bearing 

 upon the natural history of man, which were begin- 

 ning to be collected from so many dii'erse sources. 

 Indeed, as I have once before upon a similar occasion 

 remarked, one of the great difficulties with regard to making 

 Anthropology a special subject of study, and devoting a special 

 organisation to its promotion, is the multifarious nature of the 

 knowledge comprehended under the title. This very ambition, 

 which endeavours to include such an extensive range of subjects, 

 ramifying in all directions, illustrating and receiving light from 

 so many other sciences, appears often to overleap itself, and 

 give a looseness and indefiniteness to the aims of the individual 

 or the institution proposing to cultivate it. The old term Eth- 

 nology, or the study of peoples or races, has a limited and 

 definite meaning. It treats of the resemblances and modifica- 

 tions of the diflferent groups of the human species in their rela- 

 tions to each other, but Anthropology, as now understood, has 

 a far wider scope. It treats of mankind as a whole. It 

 investigates his origin and his relations to the rest of the 

 universe. It invokes the aid of the sciences of zoology, com- 

 parative anatomy and physiology, in its attempts to estimate 

 the distinctions and resemblances between man and his nearest 

 allies, and in fixing his place in the scale of living beings. In 

 endeavouring to investigate the origin and antiquity of man, 

 geology must lend its assistance to determine the comparative 

 ages of the strata in which the evidences of his existence are 

 found, and researches into his early history soon trench upon 

 totally different branches of knowledge. In tracing the pro- 

 gress of the race from its most primitive condition, the cha- 

 racteristics of its physical structure and relations with the lower 

 animals are soon left behind, and it is upon evidence of a kind 

 peculiar to the human species, and by which man is so pre- 

 eminently distinguished from all other living beings, that our 

 conclusions mainly rest. The study of the works of our earliest 

 known forefathers — " prehistoric archaeology " as it is commonly 

 called — is now almost a science by itself. It investigates the 

 origin of all human culture, endeavours to trace to their commoa 

 beginning the sources of our arts, customs, and history. The 

 difficulty is, what to include and where to stop ; as, though 

 tne term prehistoric may roughly indicate an artificial 

 line between the province of the anthropologist and 

 that which more legitimately belongs to the archse- 

 ologist, the antiquary and the historian, it is perfectly evident 

 that the studies of the one pass insensibly into those of the 

 others. Knowledge of the origin and development of par- 

 ticular existing customs throws immense light upon their real 

 nature and importance ; and conversely. It is often only from a 

 profound acquaintance with the present or comparatively 

 modern manifestations of culture that we are able to interpret 

 the slight indications afforded us by the scanty remains of 

 primitive civilisation. 



It is considerations such as these that have caused the gradual 

 introduction of the term Anthropology as a substitute for 

 Ethnology — a change which I have traced in the history of this 

 Association, and which is seen in other organisations for the 

 cultivation of our science. 



The first general association for the study of man in this 

 country was founded in 1843, under the name of the 

 "Ethnological Society" (three years therefore, before the 

 Ethnological subSection of Section D of this .'Vssociation). It 

 did excellent work for many years under that title, but partly 

 from personal considerations, and partly from a desire to under- 

 take a wider and somewhat different field of research another 

 and in some senses a rival society, which adopted the name of 

 "Anthropological," was founded in 1863. For some years these 

 existed side by side.cach representing in its most active supporters 

 different schools of the science. This arrangement naturally in- 

 volved a waste of strength, and it was felt that the interests of 



