35& 



NATURE 



[September 14, 191 1 



(3) The resistance to rolling is obtained by (a) electro- 

 magnets, the current to which is generated by the motion 

 of the model, (b) secondary electro-magnet, the current for 

 which is in the first magnet, (a) represents the resistance 

 due to the angular velocity, (6) represents the square of 

 that velocity. 



The variations in the lengths of the cranks and the speed 

 of revolution give the variation in the wave-form assumed. 

 The variation in the electric current by resistances in the 

 circuit gives the variation in the resistances to rolling of 

 the ship. For instance, the current necessary to represent 

 the resistance of a ship with bilge-keels is very different 

 from that for one without. 



It is hoped that sufficient has been said to direct atten- 

 tion to the possibility of extended study of the rolling of 

 ships at sea, so that some valuable work may be done in 

 this important subject. 



SECTION H. 



ANTHROPOLOGY. 



Opening Address by VV. H. R. Rivers, M.D., F.R.S., 



President of the Section. 



The Ethnological Analysis of Culture. 



During the last few years great additions have been 

 made to our store of the facts of anthropology — we have 

 learnt much about different peoples scattered over the 

 earth, and we understand better how they act and think. 

 At the same time we have, I hope, made a very decided 

 advance in our knowledge of the methods by means of 

 which these facts are to be collected, so that they may 

 rank in clearness and trustworthiness with the facts of 

 other sciences. When, however, we turn to the theoretical 

 side of our subject, it is difficult to see any corresponding 

 advance. The main problems of the history of human 

 society are little if at all nearer their solution, and there 

 are even matters which a few years ago were regarded 

 as settled which are to-day as uncertain as ever. The 

 reason for this is not far to seek ; it is that we have no 

 general agreement about the fundamental principles upon 

 which the theoretical work of our science is to be con- 

 ducted. 



In surveying the different schools of thought which guide 

 theoretical work on human culture, a very striking fact at 

 once presents itself. In other and more advanced sciences 

 the guiding principles of the workers of different nations 

 are the same. The zoologists or botanists of France, 

 Germany, America, our own and other countries, are on 

 common ground. They have, in general, the same prin- 

 ciples and the same methods, and the work of all falls 

 into a common scheme. Unfortunately, this is not so in 

 anthropology. At the present time there is so great a 

 degree of divergence between the methods of work of the 

 leading schools of different countries that any common 

 scheme is impossible, and the members of one school 

 wholly distrust the work of others, whose conclusions they 

 believe to be founded on a radically unsound basis. 



I propose to consider in this address one of the most 

 striking of these divergencies, but, before doing so, I 

 will put as briefly as possible what seem to me to be the 

 chief characters of the leading schools of different 

 countries. To begin with that dominant among ourselves. 

 The theoretical anthropology of this country is inspired 

 primarily by the idea of evolution founded on a psychology 

 common to mankind as a whole, and further, a psychology 

 differing in no way from that of civilised man. The efforts 

 of British anthropologists are devoted to tracing out the 

 evolution of custom and institution. Where similarities 

 are found in different parts of the world it is assumed, 

 almost as an axiom, that they are due to independent 

 origin and development, and this in its turn is ascribed to 

 the fundamental similarity of the workings of the human 

 mind all over the world, so that, given similar conditions, 

 similar customs and institutions will come into existence 

 and develop on the same lines. 



In France we find that, as among ourselves, the chief 

 interest is in evolution, and the difference is in the prin- 

 ciples upon which this evolution is to be studied. It is to 

 the psychological basis of the work of British anthropo- 

 logists that objection is chiefly made. It is held that the 

 psychology of the individual cannot be used as a guide to 



NO. 2185, VOL. 87] 



the collective actions of men in early stages of social evolu- 

 tion, still less the psychology of the individual whose 

 social ideas have been moulded by the long ages of evolu- 

 tion which have made our own society what it is. It is 

 urged that the study of sociology requires the application of 

 principles and methods of investigation peculiar to itself.' 



About America it is less easy to speak, because it is 

 unusual in that country to deal to any great extent with 

 general theoretical problems. The anthropologists of 

 America are so fully engaged in the attempt to record what 

 is left of the ancient cultures of their own country that 

 they devote little attention to those general questions to 

 which we, more unfortunately situated with no ancient 

 culture at our doors, devote so much attention. There 

 seems, however, to be a distinct movement in progress in 

 America which puts evolution on one side, and is inclined 

 to study social problems from the purely psychological 

 point of view, the psychological standpoint, however, 

 approaching that of the British Slhspl niore nearly than 

 that of the French. - 



It is when we come to Germany that we find the most 

 fundamental difference in standpoint and method. It is 

 true that in Adolf Bastian Germany produced one who was 

 thoroughly imbued with the evolutionary spirit, and 

 the Elementargedanke of that worker forms a most con- 

 venient expression for the psychological means whereby 

 evolution is supposed to have proceeded. In recent years, 

 however, there has been a very decided movement opposed 

 to Bastian and the whole evolutionary school. In some 

 cases this has formed part of that general revolt, not 

 merely against Darwinism, which is so prominent in 

 Germany, but it seems even against the whole idea of 

 evolution. In other cases the objection is less fundamental, 

 and has been not so much to the idea of evolution itself 

 as to the lines upon which it has been customary to 

 endeavour to study this evolution. 



This movement, which by those who follow it is called 

 the geographical movement, but which, I think, may be 

 more fitly styled " ethnological," was originated by Ratzel, 

 who was first led definitely in this direction by a study of 

 the armour made of rods, plates, or laths which is found 

 in North America, northern Asia, including Japan, and in 

 a less developed form in some of the islands of the Pacific 

 Ocean. 3 Ratzel believed that the resemblances he found 

 could only be explained by direct transmission from one 

 people to another, and was led by further study to become 

 an untiring opponent of the Elementargedanke of Bastian 

 and of the idea of independent evolution based on a com- 

 munity of thought. 4 He has even suggested that the idea 

 of independent origin is the anthropological equivalent of 

 the spontaneous generation of the biologist, and that 

 anthropology is now going through a phase of develop- 

 ment from which biology has long emerged. 



The movement initiated by Ratzel has made great pro- 

 gress, especially through the work of Graebner 5 and of 

 P. W. Schmidt.* It has resulted in an important series of 

 works in which the whole field of anthropological research 

 is approached in a manner wholly different from that 

 customary in this country.' I must content myself with 



1 I refer here especially to the work of the " sociological " school of 

 Durkheim and his followers. For an account of their principles and 

 methods see " L'Anne'e sociologique," which began to appear in 1898 ; Durk- 

 heim, " Les Regies de la Methode Sociologique," Paris ; and Levy-Bruhi, 

 " Les fonctions mentales dans les socie*tcs inferieures." Paris, 1910. 



2 See especially A. L. Kroeber, " Classificatory Systems of Relationship," 

 Journ. Roy. Anthr. Inst., 1909, xxxix., 77 ; and Goldenweiser, "Totemism: 

 An Analytical .Study." lourn. Amer. Folk-lore, 191c, xxiii. 



> Sitzicr. ,/. Akad. ,;'. Hiss. Milnchen, Hist. CI., 1886, p. 181. 



* See especially " Anthropogeographie," 1891. Th. ii., 705, and ''Die 

 geographische Methode in der Ethnographie," Gcograpk. Zeitsch.^ 1897, 

 iii.. 268. 



5 See especially " Metl-ode der Ethnnlogie," Heidelberg, ion. and 

 "Die melanesische Bocenkultur und ihre Verwandten," Anthropos, 1909, 

 iv., 726. The annual " Ethnologica," edited by W. Foy, is devoted to the 

 illustrations of this school of thought. 



11 See especially " L/origine de I'Idee de Dieu." Anthnpos, hi. -v., 1908- 

 10, and " Grumlliiiien einer Vergleichung der Religion u. Mythologie der 

 austronesischen Volker," Dcnksch. d. Akad. d. U'iss. Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl., 

 1910, liti. Schmidt differs from Graebner in limiting the application of the 

 ethnological method to regions with general affinities of culture. Otherwise 

 he remains an adherent of the doctrine of independent origin. (See ''Pan- 

 babylonismus und ethnologischer Elementargedanke," Mitt. d. anthrop. 

 Gcstlhch. in /(■;<•«, 1008, xxxviii., 73.) 



" It must not be understood from this account that all German anthro- 

 rologists are adherents to the ethnological school. There are still those who 

 follow the doctrines of Bastian, which have undergone an interesting 

 modification through the adoption of the biological principle of Convergence. 



