_ \NovEMBER 2, 1916] 
_ that embraces a considerable complex of studies At 
_ Oxford we term this branch of the subject social 
anthropology, and I do not think that there is much 
amiss with such a title. Among the chief topics that 
it comprises are kinship- and marriage-organisation, 
religion, government, law, and morals. Further, 
economic and zsthetic developments have to be 
_ examined in their reference to the social life, as apart 
_ from their bearing on technology. ' In one aspect all 
_ these subjects lend themselves to a sociological method 
_ of treatment; and, though no one is more concerned 
than myself to insist on the paramount importance 
of psychology in the equipment of the perfect anthro- 
pologist, 1 would concede that the sociological aspect 
ought so far as possible to be considered first, as 
lending itself more readily to direct observation. To 
reveal the inner workings of the social movement, 
however, nothing short of psychological insight will 
suffice. Indeed, all, I hope, will agree that the 
anthropologist ought to be so trained as to be able to 
fulfil the functions of sociologist and psychologist at 
once and together. 
It remains to add that no training in social anthro- 
logy can be regarded as. complete that does not 
include the study of the development of language. On 
the theoretical side of his work the stident should 
acquire a general acquaintance with the principles of 
_ .comparative philology, and, in particular, should pay 
; attention to the relations between speech and thought. 
_ On the practical side he should be instrutted in 
Z 
; 
. 
phonetics as a preparation for linguistic researches in 
the field. But detailed instruction in particular 
languages, more especially if these are not embodied 
in a literature, is scarcely the business of a school of 
anthropology such as every university may aspire to 
possess. ... ; 
So much, then, for the multiplicity which an anthro- 
ological curriculum must involve if it consist, as has 
en suggested, of physical anthropology, technology 
with prehistoric archeology, and social anthropology 
with linguistics.. And now what of its unity? How 
best can these diverse studies be directed to a common 
end? I would submit that there are two ways in 
which the student may most readily be made to realise 
the scope of anthropology as a whole, the one way 
having reference to theory and the other to practice. 
The theoretical way of making it plain that the 
special studies among which the student divides his 
time can, and must, serve a single scientific purpose is 
to make his work culminate in the determination of 
problems concerning the movement of peoples and the 
diffusion of culture—in a word, of ethnological problems 
(if, as is most convenient, the term ‘“ethnology”’ be 
taken to signify the theory of the development of the 
various ethnic groups or “ peoples’? of the world). A 
great impetus was given to the investigation of such 
matters by Dr. Rivers in a now famous presidential 
address to this section, followed up, as it was shortly 
afterwards, by a monumental work on the ethnology 
of the Pacific region. But it would be quite a mistake 
to suppose that anthropologists were not previously 
alive to the importance of the ethnological point of 
view as a unifying interest in anthropological theory. 
So far back as 1891, when the second Folklore Con- 
gress met in London, under the presidency of the late 
Andrew Lang, the burning question was how far a 
theory of diffusion and how far a theory of independent 
origins would take us in the explanation of the. facts 
with which the science of folklore is more particularly 
concerned. It is true that there has been in the past 
a tendency to describe the theory of independent origins 
as the ‘‘anthropological’’ argument; but such a mis- 
nomer is much to be regretted. Anthropology stands 
not for this line of explanation, or for that, but for 
the truth, by whatever way it is reached; and ethno- 
NO. 2453, VoL. 98] 
NALTURE 
181 
logy, in the sense that 1 have given to the term, is so 
far from constituting the antithesis of anthropology 
that it is rather, as | have tried to show, its final 
outcome and consummation. Recognising this, the 
Oxford School of Anthropology from the first insisted 
that candidates for the diploma should face an exam- 
ination paper in ethnology, in which they must bring 
the various kinds of evidence derived from physical 
type, from arts, from customs, and from language. to 
bear at once on the problem how the various ethnic 
individualities have been formed. ‘The result, I think, 
has been that our students have all along recognised, 
even when most deeply immersed in one or other of 
their special studies, a centripetal tendency, an orienta- 
tion towards a common scientific purpose, that has 
saved them from one-sidedness, and kept them loyal 
to the interests of anthropology as a whole. Let me 
add that, as our anthropological course ends in ethno- 
logy, so it begins in ethnography, by which I mean 
the descriptive account of the various peoples con- 
sidered mainly in their relation to their geographical 
environment. Thus, from the beginning to the end of 
his work, the student of anthropology is reminded that 
he is trying to deal with the varieties of human life in 
the concrete. He must first make acquaintance with 
the peoples of the world in their unanalysed diversity, 
must next proceed to the separate consideration of the 
universal constituent aspects of their life, and then, 
finally, must return to a concrete study of these peoples 
in order to explain, as well as he can, from every 
abstract point of view at once how they have come to 
be what they are. If this theoretical path be pursued, 
I have little fear lest anthropology appear to the man 
who has really given his mind to it a thing of rags 
and tatters. 
The second way in which the unity of anthropology 
may be made manifest ‘is, as I have said, practical. 
The ideal university course in anthropology should aim 
directly and even primarily at producing the field- 
worker. I cannot go here into the question whether 
better work is done in the field by large expeditions 
or by small. For educational purposes, however, I 
would have every student imagine that he is about to 
proceed on an anthropological expedition by himself. 
Every part of his work will gain in actuality if he 
thinks of it as something likely to be of practical ser- 
vice hereafter ; and, to judge from my own experience 
as a teacher, the presence in a class of even a few 
ardent spirits who are about to enter the field, or, 
better still, have already had field-experience and are 
equipping themselves for further efforts, proves in- 
finitely inspiring alike to the class and to the teacher 
himself. Once the future campaigner realises that he 
must prepare himself so as to be able to collect and 
interpret any kind of evidence of anthropological value 
that he comes across, he is bound to acquire in a 
practical way, and, as it were, instinctively, a com- 
prehensive grasp of the subject, such as cannot fail to 
reinforce the demand for correlation and unification 
that comes from the side of theory... . 
The conclusion, then, of the whole matter is that, 
for practical and scientific reasons alike, our “universi- 
ties must endow schools of anthropology on a liberal 
scale, providing funds not only for the needs of teach- 
ing, but likewise for the needs of research. Money 
may be hard to get, but nevertheless it can be got. 
We must not hesitate, as organisers of education, to 
cultivate the predatory instincts. For the rest, it is 
simply a question of rousing public opinion in respect 
to a matter of truly national importance. If anything 
that I have said to-day can help in any way to improve 
the position of anthropology among university studies, 
I shall be satisfied that, trite as my subject may have 
seemed to be, I have not misused the great. opportunity 
afforded to every holder of my present office. 
