October 14, 1922J 



NA TURE 



5i7 



or to humanity in general. Even the scope of the 

 science is by no means clear to all, and would be 

 differently defined by various students. It may not be 

 out of place, therefore, to consider in detail the scope 

 and content of anthropology, then its aims and the 

 services it may render to mankind. 



To the outside world anthropology seems to consist 

 of the study of flint implements, skeletons, and the ways 

 of savage men, and to many students of the subject its 

 boundaries are scarcely more extensive. Yet civilised 

 people also are men, and anthropology should include 

 these within its survey. That other scientific workers, 

 historians, geographers, sociologists, and economists, 

 study civilised man is no reason why the anthropologist 

 should fail to take him into account, for his point of 

 view differs in many respects from theirs. I would 

 suggest, therefore, that all types of men, from the most 

 civilised to the most primitive, in all times and in all 

 places, come within the scope of anthropology. 



Anthropology is the study of man, but we need a 

 more accurate definition. A former occupant of this 

 chair has declared that " anthropologv is the whole 

 history of man as fired by the idea of evolution. Man 

 in evolution — that is the subject in its full reach." He 

 adds : " Anthropology studies man as he occurs at all 

 known times. It studies him as he occurs in all known 

 parts of the world. It .studies him body and soul 

 together." 5 



Anthropology may. therefore, be defined as the study 

 of the origin and evolution of man and his works. 

 What, then, separates anthropology from the other 

 studies which are concerned with man is, that the 

 anthropologist studies him from all points of view — 

 that his is a synthetic study ; above all, that evolution 

 is his watchword ; that his study is, in fact, not static 

 but dynamic. 



If, then, we grant that anthropology is the synthetic 

 study of the evolution of man and his manifold activi- 

 ties, we are dealing with a subject so vast that some 

 subdivision becomes necessary if we are to realise what 

 the study involves. Such divisions or classification 

 must be arbitrary, but we may consider the subject as 

 divided primarily into two main categories : " man " 

 and " his works." 



But man himself cannot be considered from one 

 aspect only, and it seems fitting that the anthropologist 

 should consider that man consists of body and mind ; 

 the study of these is the special province of the anatom- 

 ist, the physical anthropologist, and the psychologist. 

 Here, again, it may be asserted that anatomy and 

 psychology are distinct sciences, but anatomv. in so 

 far as it helps us to understand the evolution of man. 

 and again as it helps us to trace the variations in the 

 human frame, is and always has been reckoned a branch 

 of anthropology. Again, in the case of psychology, 

 there is much which is not, strictly speaking, anthropo- 

 logical. On the other hand, in so far as psychology 

 enables us to trace the development of the human mind 

 from that of the animal, and in so far, too, as it can 

 interpret the causes which have led to various forms 

 of human activity, it is a branch of our science. If. 

 too, it can help us to ascertain whether certain funda- 

 mental mental traits are normally associated with 

 certain physical types, psychology will provide anthro- 



6 Marett, R. R., ''Anthropology," p. i. 



NO. 2763, VOL. Iio] 



pologists with a means of interpreting many of the 

 phenomena which they have noted but cannot fully 

 explain. 



The works of man are so varied that it is no easy 

 task to classify them. We may, however, first dis- 

 tinguish the work of man's hands, his material culture, 

 from his other activities. Under this heading we 

 should include his tools, weapons, pottery, and textiles ; 

 his dwellings, tombs, and temples ; his architecture 

 and his art. 



Next, we have the problems concerned with language, 

 which we may consider as dealing with the means 

 whereby men hold intercourse with one another. This 

 heading might well include gesture at one end and 

 writing at the other. Hitherto anthropologists have 

 confined their attention too exclusively to the tongues 

 of backward tribes, and left the speech of more" ad- 

 vanced peoples to the philologists. I would plead, 

 however, that language is such an essential element in 

 human culture that comparative philologists might 

 well consider themselves as anthropologists. 



Lastly, we have social organisation and all that may 

 be included under the terms " customs " and " institu- 

 tions," a varied group, leading to the study of law and 

 religion. Here, again, we come in contact with other 

 studies — those of the lawyer, political economist, and 

 theologian ; but though the anthropologist is studying 

 the same facts, his range is wider and his outlook more 

 dynamic. 



Thus it will be seen that in the three divisions of 

 man's work, as well as in the two aspects of man him- 

 self, the anthropologist finds other workers in the field. 

 But whereas these other sciences are concerned only 

 with some part of man and his works, and are limited 

 frequently to recent times and civilised communities, 

 it is the province of the anthropologist to review them 

 as a whole, in all times and in all places, and to 

 trace their evolution from the simplest to the most 

 complex. 



If we accept the views of the historical school, 

 anthropology becomes a new method of treating 

 historical material. It is, in fact, the history of man 

 and his civilisation, drawn not so much from written 

 documents as from actual remains, whether of material 

 objects or of customs and beliefs. It is concerned with 

 wars only so far as these have produced a change in 

 the population or language of a region. It is interested 

 in kings only when these functionaries have retained 

 customs indicative either of priesthood or divinity. It 

 is interested less in legal enactments than in customary 

 institutions, less in official theology than in the beliefs 

 of the people ; the acts of politicians concern it not so 

 much as do the habits of humbler folk. 



From some points of view anthropologv may be 

 considered as a department of zoology. A centurv ago 

 zoologists were engaged in studying the higher animals, 

 and for a time neglected the " radiate mob." Then all 

 interest was focussed upon lowly forms, and the protozoa, 

 occupied a disproportionate part of their attention. 

 Lately, again, their work has been more evenly dis- 

 tributed over the whole field. This choice of groups 

 for special study was not due to mere caprice. The 

 more obvious forms of life were first studied ; then 

 attention was focussed upon the simpler organisms ; for 

 from the study of these, the zoologist was able to grasp 



