September i, 1904] 



NA TURE 



439 



this science ever being allowed to occupy a similar position 

 in the educational curricula and examination systems of this 

 country as that to which the older sciences have for the 

 most part been admitted. For my own part, I cannot but 

 consider the validity of this argument as open to question. 

 The term Anthropology, used in its unrestricted and, as I 

 venture to think, proper sense, does, I readily admit, 

 embrace a vast and varied field, and it inevitably overlaps, 

 and even wanders far and at times freely into the domains 

 of, other sciences. How should it and how can it be other- 

 wise? We, surely, would be guilty of grievously under- 

 valuing and paying scant respect to our genus were we 

 to imagine that the science devoted to its comprehensive 

 study could be otherwise than far-reaching — call it diffuse 

 if you will — and that it could be expected to avoid driving 

 its roots deeply into other sciences the chief practical interest 

 of which lies, after all, in their adaptability to the service 

 of Man. 



In admitting the partial justice of the accusation as re- 

 gards difTuseness, Anthropology, it seems to me, is really 

 pleading guilty to the possession of an educational quality 

 of which it may rather boast than feel ashamed. A science 

 which is so far-reaching, and yet the nucleus or focussing 

 point of which is so well defined, seems of itself to furnish 

 the materials in great part for a liberal education, if properly 

 handled, and to lend itself to the preparation of the in- 

 evitable syllabuses, adapted to the different grades both of 

 general education and of higher scholarship. 



I readily admit that the word Anthropology is un- 

 fortunately cumbersome ; but it would seem to be inevitable, 

 since no one has yet provided the science with a compact 

 general name which may serve as an efficient substitute ; 

 and, since we must retain it, we may at least expect the 

 word to work for its polysyllabic existence, by covering a 

 wide area and serving as the most general term denoting 

 the study of Man in a wide and all-embracing sense. 



It is not my purpose to discuss here the educational value 

 of .\nthropology, but frankly and even gladly to admit that 

 Anthropology, in spite of its late recognition as a distinct 

 science worthy of encouragement, has in recent years pro- 

 gressed with rapid strides, and has already reached a stage 

 of developmental progress at which it is necessary to 

 differentiate the several branches of study which are in- 

 cluded under the general science, and to adopt a classifi- 

 cation which is ever becoming more complex as the various 

 divisions become unwieldy and require subdividing. An 

 extensive terminology has been growing up for the purpose 

 of assigning appropriate names to the already fairly 

 numerous divisions of the main subject. Anthropology is 

 passing through the developmental stages which have been 

 followed by the older sciences, and is merely following 

 normal routine in advancing from the simple to the complex. 

 With the increase of knowledge the elements which together 

 constitute a given science necessarily develop individually 

 as well as collectively, and the original science loses its 

 primitive unity by becoming an ever-increasing aggregation 

 of sub-sciences. This process of subdivision or branching 

 is inseparable from the life-history of an active and pro- 

 grpssive science. 



The genesis, growth, and maturity of Section H reflects 

 to some extent the development of the study of Anthropology. 

 If we look back nearly sixty years, to a meeting of the 

 Association held in Cambridge in 1845, we see that 

 Ethnology was not mentioned at all in the programme and 

 list of Sections, though one ethnological paper does certainly 

 figure amongst those of the Zoological-Botanical group. 

 We may, however, assume that at this meeting a start 

 was made, and give to Cambridge due credit for having 

 a distinct claim to the parentage of Section H. For, in the 

 following year, 1846, we find in the list of Sections a definite 

 sub-Section of Ethnology. Indeed, were we in doubt as to 

 the parentage of the infant sub-Section, there is circum- 

 stantial evidence clearly indicating this ancient University 

 citv, in the subtle influence apparently exercised upon the 

 mind of the parent by overpowering leanings towards 

 applied mathematics, as manifested by the interesting and 

 otherwise unaccountable fact that the " sub-Section of 

 Ethnology " was in that year humbly parasitic upon 

 Seiction G. which was then, as now, devoted to 

 ■" Mechanics " I 



From 1S47 to 1850 the Ethnological sub-Section came 

 NO. 1 818, VOL 70] 



under Section D (Zoology, Botany, and Physiology). In 

 1851 Ethnology appears in conjunction, and, apparently, on 

 nearly equal terms, with Geography ; and so It remained in 

 the year 1862, when the Association again had the privilege 

 of meeting in Cambridge, that profound and ingenious 

 student of Man, Mr. Francis Galton, being president of 

 the dual Section. The Geographico-Ethnological combin- 

 ation lasted until 1868, after which, and until 1880, we find 

 the prospective Section H replaced under the charge of 

 Section D — Biology (which included Zoology, Botany, 

 Anatomy, and Physiology). 



The steadily growing vitality of the study of Man is very 

 evident through all these years, from the list of papers read, 

 and one may gather, from the way in which the sub-Section 

 was transferred from Section to Section, that the infant was 

 rapidly outgrowing its nurses, and becoming a troublesome 

 handful. U ypographical signs of adolescence, coupled with 

 a yearning for independence, appear in 1S83, when, glancing 

 at the list of Sections, we see that, although Anthropology 

 is still a " Department of Biology," not only is it the only 

 " department " specially announced under Section D, but 

 the heading is printed in type of the same magnitude as 

 that used for the Section itself. The printer proved to be 

 a good prophet ; for in the following year, 1884, at the 

 meeting in Montreal, the inevitable occurred, and Anthrop- 

 ology blossomed out into the adult stage, and received the 

 emancipation afforded by the assignment of an entire Section 

 to itself, the " Section H," which has, I venture to think, 

 thoroughly justified its existence ever since. 



It may be doubted whether we have as yet reached the 

 limit of expansion. The time is likely to come when 

 Section H will be the parent of one or more vigorous sub- 

 Sections, which, again, may repeat the developmental 

 sequence, reaching at length maturity and discretion, and 

 being perhaps allowed to set up for themselves as semi- 

 independent Sections. The original title of a Section of the 

 British .Association may disappear entirely as such, after 

 the sub-Sections comprised under it have received their full 

 emancipation. This has happened in the case of Biology, 

 which for some thirty years gave its name to Section D, 

 but which finally gave way before the growth of its enter- 

 prising and very progressive offshoots (Zoology, Anthrop- 

 ology, Physiology, and Botany), which one after the other 

 developed into independent Sections. With this segreg- 

 ation of the various component elements of Biology, the 

 old generalised title ceased to appear on the list of the 

 British Association. This, perhaps, will be the fate of the 

 term " Anthropology," as the growth of the subjects which 

 have developed under the wing of this very comprehensive 

 science gradually causes, for the sake of practical con- 

 venience, a number of subordinate titles to replace the time- 

 honoured and inclusive term. Should it thus happen, in 

 response to the growth of the science, that this term is 

 destined to follow the far wider term " Biology " into a 

 position of dignified ease, we shall be wise to bear continually 

 in mind that Anthropology is the main stem from which 

 the various branches have sprung, and to the nourishment 

 and growth of which it should be the principal aim of their 

 individual activities to contribute. In an age of ever- 

 increasing specialisation we may from time to time require 

 a reminder of the fact that the true value of researches in 

 the special fields of a science must be estimated by the 

 degree to which their relationship to the whole can be and 

 is rendered manifest. The work of specialists will 

 necessarily lose half its value if there is a dearth of 

 generallsts who will gather together the threads and weave 

 them into a substantia! fabric, which shall show the import- 

 ance of each individual piece of work to the progress of the 

 science as a whole. 



Once Anthropology became recognised as a definite 

 science, and one worthy of encouragement, the number of 

 its devotees increased steadily and apace, and the range of 

 its work widened rapidly. Indeed, it would appear as 

 though there were an almost feverish desire to make up 

 for time lost through the phenomenal tardiness of the dis- 

 covery of a seemingly obvious fact, which is that " Man " 

 is in very truth a " proper study for mankind." Energy is 

 not wanting, though this feverishness is kept in rigid sub- 

 jection by the chilling and reducing effect of starvation for 

 want of funds. The lack of adequate financial support is 

 painfully apparent in Great Britain when we compare the 



