5i'6 



NA TURE 



[October 14, 1922 



The Study of Man. 1 

 By H. J. E. Peake. 



A CHANGE has been creeping over our science. 

 Twelve years ago anthropologists were devoting 

 their energies to the tracing out of the evolution of 

 customs and material culture, assuming that, where 

 similarities were found in different parts of the world, 

 they were due to independent origins. It was assumed 

 that the workings of the human mind were everywhere 

 similar, and that, given similar conditions, similar 

 customs would originate. The evolution of civilisation 

 was looked upon as a single line of advance, conditioned 

 by the unalterable nature of the human mind, and that 

 barbarian and savage cultures were but forms of arrested 

 development, and indicated very closely past stages of 

 1 ivilised communities. 



But a fresh school of thought has come into promi- 

 nence. According to this new view discoveries are 

 made but once, and when resemblances are found 

 between the cultures of different communities, even 

 though widely separated, this is due to some connexion 

 between them. According to the new school, the 

 development of civilisation has been proceeding by many 

 different paths, in response to as many types of environ- 

 ment, but these various advances have frequently met, 

 and from the clash of two cultures has arisen another, 

 often different, more complex, and usually more highly 

 developed than either of its parents. 



The old school looked upon the advance of culture as 

 a single highway, along which different groups had been 

 wandering at varying paces, so that, while some had 

 traversed long distances, others had progressed but a 

 short way. The new school, on the other hand, con- 

 ceives of each group as traversing its own particular 

 way, but that the paths frequently meet, cross, or 

 coalesce, and that where the greatest number of paths 

 have joined, there the pace has been quickest. 



The older school, basing its views of the development 

 of civilisation upon the doctrine of Evolution, has called 

 itself the Evolutionary School. The newer, while 

 believing no less in Evolution, feels it a duty to trace 

 the various stages through which each type of civilisa- 

 tion has passed, rather than to assume that these stages 

 have followed the succession observable elsewhere ; thus, 

 as historical factors form a large part of its inquiry, 

 it has been termed the Historical School. 2 



The first note announcing the coming change was 

 sounded from this chair eleven years ago, 3 and during 

 the interval which has elapsed the new school has gained 

 many adherents. All will not subscribe to the dictum 

 that no discovery has been made twice ; nevertheless 

 there is a tendency not to assume an independent origin 

 for any custom until it has been proved that such could 

 not have been introduced from some other area. 



These tendencies have led the anthropologist to 

 inquire into the history of the peoples whose civilisation 

 he is studying, and to note, too, minute points in their 

 environment. At the same time geography began to 

 take special note of man and his doings. This anthropo- 

 geography concerned itself with inquiring into the re- 



1 From the presidential addre^ delivered to Section H (Anthropology) of 

 the Briti-.h Association at Hull on September 7. 



; Rivers, W. H. R., " History and Ethnology," History, v. 65-7, London 



3 Rivers, W. H. R„ " The Ethnological Analysis of Culture," Report of 



H , IQII, 490-2. 



NO. 2763, VOL. I IO] 



actions between man and his environment, and though 

 at first the environment was the main object of the 

 geographer's attention, he is now inclined to pay more 

 attention to its effect upon man. Thus anthropology 

 and geography have been drawing closer, and as the latter 

 is a recognised subject in our schools, no small amount 

 of anthropological knowledge has been instilled into the 

 minds of our boys and girls. 



It might have been expected that the historians 

 before the geographers would have been attracted to 

 the anthropological approach, but recent events have 

 up to now engrossed their attention. Signs have not 

 been lacking, however, that the study of peoples and 

 their customs, rather than of kings and politicians, is 

 gaining ground, and we may look with confidence 

 towards closer relations between the studies of history 

 and anthropology. 



Again, we may notice an increasing interest in our 

 subject among sociologists and economists. These have 

 focussed their attention upon the social organisation and 

 economic well-being of civilised communities, with the 

 view of presenting an orderly array of facts and principles 

 before the political leaders. There has, however, been 

 a tendency to trace these modern conditions back into 

 the past, and to use for comparison examples drawn 

 from the social organisation or economic conditions of 

 communities living under simpler conditions. While 

 these studies overlap those of the anthropologist, the 

 methods used are different. We are working from the 

 simple to the complex; they begin with highly developed 

 conditions and thence work back to the primitive. 



Lastly, we must not forget the students of the classical 

 languages. In spite of many advantages which they 

 possess at schools and universities, they have been losing 

 in popularity, and the reason is not far to seek. So long 

 as there were fresh works to be studied and imperfect 

 texts to be emended, there was no lack of devotees to 

 classical literature. Later, comparative philology gave 

 fresh life to such studies, and certain views current 

 among mid-nineteenth-century philologists gave also 

 an impetus to the re-study of Greek mythology. But 

 about 1890 such studies became unfashionable, and 

 many classical scholars turned to anthropology with 

 great advantage both to themselves and to us. 



It is doubtless as a result of these converging move- 

 ments that the general public is taking an interest in 

 anthropological studies, and that works of a general 

 nature, summing up the state of knowledge in its 

 different branches, are in great request. The educated 

 public wish to know more of the science of man, yet I 

 fear they are too often perplexed by the discordant 

 utterances of anthropologists, many of whom seem to be 

 far from certain as to the message they have to deliver. 



In their turn not a few anthropologists feel a like 

 uncertainty as to the ultimate purpose of their studies, 

 and are not clear as to how the results of their investiga- 

 tions can be of any benefit to humanity. These are 

 points well worthy of consideration ; for, as we were 

 reminded from this chair two years ago, 4 anthropology, 

 if it is to do its duty, must be useful to the State, 



4 Karl Pearson : Address to the Anthropological Section, Brit. Assoc, 

 Report, 1920, 140-1. 



