158 REPORT — 1872. 



discussions witliiu bounds, and direct the thoughts of the workers into useful chan- 

 nels. Antliropology is such a vast field of study, it is so impossible for any single 

 mind to comprehend the whole with the precision that is necessary for scientific 

 purposes, that it demands more than any other the subdivisions that are recognized 

 in the sister sciences, but which at the present time are absent in ours. Hence the 

 random range of om* discussions ; each speaker naturally wanders into the path that 

 is most familiar to him, and there is no sulEcient discipline to bring him back into 

 the line of march. 



Moreover, in dealing with anthropological subjects we are met with difficulties 

 arising from their closeness relatively to ourselves. The same impediment which 

 in the eye of the law incapacitates a man from judging or even from giving an 

 impartial evidence in his own case meets us at every turn. It is comparatively easy 

 to generalize when dealing with external nature ; but when the materials on which 

 we have to work are drawn from the reservoir of human thoughts and actions, we 

 cannot disengage ourselves sufficiently to take a comprehensive view of the subjects 

 we are stud3'ing. I presume that even the ablest amongst us must labour under a 

 sense of incapacity in dealing with anthropological speciilatious. We may be said 

 to stand in the position of molecules of paint upon the surface of a picture striving 

 to catch the artist's design. Is it sm-prising there shoidd be confusion of tongues 

 in such a Babel as we are building ? 



Since, then, our anthropological field of vision is so extremely limited, it behoves 

 VIS all the more in this branch of study to concern ourselves with the arrangement 

 of our subdivisions, in order that they may bear an harmonious relation to each other, 

 and whilst gi^nng fidl vent to individual thought and action, and limiting the sphere 

 of inquiry in each branch to such matters as may fall within the easy grasp of finite 

 minds, they may at the same time be rendered subordinate to those great general 

 objects which it is the intention of anthropological science to serve; for it cannot 

 be proclaimed too often that in this country and in this Association we have not 

 adopted the term antlirupology out of deference to any particular dogmas or sets of 

 opinions, or out of regard for any particular party or society, but because that term 

 appears to be etymologicallj^ the most accurate for embracing the whole of those 

 many studies which are included in the science of num. As one of those who for 

 some years past have taken part in those practical mea.sures which have been as yet 

 only partially and feebly instrumental in promoting the union of the anthropological 

 sciences, it occurs to me that the present occasion may be a fitting one for express- 

 ing some of the views which have suggested themselves to me in the course of my 

 experience whilst so engaged. I propose, therefore, after considering briefly the 

 existing phases of one or two of the more important questions with which anthro- 

 pology has to deal, and saying a few words on the relative value of certain classes 

 of evidence, to speak of the anomalies and misadj ustments in what may be called 

 the machinery of anthropological science, defects in the existing constitution of 

 some of the societies which either are or ought to be included amongst the branches 

 of our great subject. In the remarks which I shall oft'er upon this subject it is not 

 my wish that any undue weight should attach to the particular suggestions which 

 I may be called upon to make as in any way emanating from this chair. My object 

 is rather to draw the attention of anthropologists to the urgent necessity which exists 

 for better organization than to propound any particular schemes of my own ; indeed, 

 so rapidly do our views change in the infancj' of a science, that I should be sorry to 

 bind myself over to accept many of my own opinions a couple of years hence ; for 

 there is, perhaps, no branch of study to which we may more truly apply the dictum 

 of Faraday, that " the only man who ought really to be looked upon as contemptible 

 is the man whose ideas are not in a constant state of transition. 



Amongst the questions which anthropology has to deal with, that of the descent of 

 man has been so elaborately treated, and at the same time popularized by Mr. Bai-win, 

 that it would be serving no useful purpose were I to allude to any of the arguments 

 on which he has based his belief in the unbroken continuity of man's development 

 fi'om the lower forms of life. Nor is it necessai-y for one to discuss the question 

 of the monogenesis or poli/ffettesis of man. On this subject also Mr. Darwin has 

 shown how unlikely it is that races so closely resembling each other, both physi- 

 callv and mentallv, and interbreeding as thev invariablv do, should on the theorv 



