1000 REPORT— 1898. 



but only a Department, and it was presided over by Rolleston. There may be 

 some here who recollect the address he then delivered, informed from beginning to 

 end with that happy and playful wit which was characteristic of him ; but all will 

 know how great he was in anatomj', what a wide range of classical and other 

 learning he possessed, and how he delighted to bring it to bear on every anthro- 

 pological subject that was presented to his notice. In 1878 Huxley was the 

 Chairman of this Department. It is only necessary to mention the name of that 

 illustrious biologist to recall to your memory how much anthropology owes to him. 

 Eight years before, he had been President of the Association itself, and seven 

 years before that had publislied his ' Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature.' 

 Brilliant as his successes were in other branches of scientific investiyration, I cannot 

 but think that anthropology was with him a favourite pursuit. His writings upon 

 that subject possess a wonderful charm of style. In 188.J the Chairman was 

 Pengelly, who for many years rendered service to anthropology by his explora- 

 tion of Kent's Cavern and other caves, and who happily illustrated the close rela- 

 tion that exists between geology and anthropology. His biographj', recently 

 published, must have reminded many of us of the amiable qualities which adorned 

 his character. Finally, in 188G, two years after anthropology had become a Sec- 

 tion, its President was Sir George Campbell, a practical ethnologist, a traveller, 

 an administrator, a legislator, a geograplier, who passed tlirough a long career of 

 public lile with honour and distinction. All my other predecessors are, I am glad 

 to say, still living, and I make no mention of them. The few names I have cited 

 ■ — selected by the accidental circumstance that they are no longer with us — are 

 sufficient to show what varied gifts and pursuits are combined in the study of 

 anthropology. 



There is another side to the question. Great as is the diversity of the anthro- 

 pological sciences, their unity is still more remarkable. The student of man must 

 study the whole man. No true knowledge of any human group, any more than of 

 a human individual, is obtained by observation of physical characters alone. Modes 

 of thought, language, arts, and history must also be investigated. This simultaneous 

 investigation involves in each case the same logical methods and processes. It 

 will in general be attended with the same results. If it be true that the order of 

 the Universe is expressed in continuit}' and not in cataclysm, we shall find the 

 same slow but sure progress evident in each branch of the inquiry. We shall 

 find that nothing is lost, that no race is absolutely destroyed, that everything that 

 has been still exists in a modified form, and contributes some of its elements to that 

 which is. We shall find that this, which no one doubts in regard to physical 

 matters, is equally true of modes of thought. AVe may trace these to their germs 

 in the small brain of the paheolithic flint-worker ; or, if we care to do so, still 

 farther back. This principle has, as I imderstand, been fully accepted in geology 

 and biology, and throughout the domain of physical science — what should hinder 

 its application to anthropology '^ It supplies a formula of universal validity, and 

 cannot but add force and sublimity to our imagination of the wisdom of the Creator. 

 It is little more than has been expressed in the familiar words of Tennyson : — 



' Yet I doubt not thro" the ages rne increasing purpose runs. 

 And the thoughts of men are widen'd with the process of the suns;' 



and supports his claim to be ' the heir of all the age."), in the foremost files of 

 time.' 



I propose, in briefly drawing your attention to some recent contributions to our 

 knowledge, to use this as a convenient theory and as pointing out the directions in 

 which further investigation may be rewarded by even fuller light. 



Applying it, first of all, to the department of physical antliropology, we are 

 called upon to consider the discovery by Dr. Dubois at Triuil, in Java, of the re- 

 mains of an animal called by him l^t.hecmithropus erecfus, and considered by some 

 authorities to be one of the missing links in the chain of animal existence which 

 terminates in man. In his Presidential Address to this Association last year, 

 Sir John Evans said: ' Even the Pit/iecr/nthropiis erecius of Dr. Eugene Dubois 

 from Java meets with some incredulous objectors from both the physiological and 



