464 TRAJJSACTIONS OF SECTION H. 



The other department of Cultural Anthropology is one that embraces a 

 considerable complex of studies. At Oxford we term this branch of the subject 

 Social Anthropology, and I do not think that there is much ajiiiss with such a 

 title. Among the chief topics that it comprises are kinship- and marriage- 

 organisation, religion, government, law, and morals. Further, economic and 

 cEsthetic developments have to be examined in their reference to the social life, 

 as apart from their bearing on technology. In one aspect, all theee subjects 

 lend themselves to a sociological method of treatment ; and, though no one is 

 more concerned than myself to insist on the paramount importance of psychology 

 in the equipment of the perfect anthropologist, I would concede that the socio- 

 logical aspect ought as far as possible to be considered first, as lending itself 

 more readily to direct observation. To reveal the inner workings of the social 

 movement, however, nothing short of psychological insight will suffice. Jndeed, 

 all, I hope, will agree that the anthropologist ought to be so trained as to be 

 able to fulfil the functions of sociologist and psychologist at once and together. 



It remains to add that no training in Social Anthropology can be regarded 

 as complete that does not include the study of the development of language. 

 On the theoretical side of his work the student should acquire a general acquaint- 

 ance with the principles of comparative philology, and, in particular, should 

 pay attention to the relations between speech and thought. On the practical 

 side he should be instructed in phonetics as a preparation for linguistic re- 

 searches in the field. But detailed instruction in particular languages, more 

 especially if these are not embodied in a literature, is hardly the business of 

 a School of Antlu-opology such as evei'y University may aspire to possess. For 

 this reason I welcome whole-heartedly the creation of the London School of 

 Oriental Studies^ which obtained its charter of incorporation only some three 

 months ago. It is probably sufficient for the practical needs of the Empire 

 that the teaching of the chief vernacular languages of the East and of Africa, 

 when the object sought is primarily their colloquial use, should be concentrated 

 in a single institution, and this may appropriately have its place in the metro- 

 polis. The new School likewise proposes to give instruction not only in the 

 literature (where there ie a literature), but also in the history, religion, and 

 customs of the peoples whose languages are being studied. I do not speak 

 with any intimate knowledge of the full scheme contemplated, but would venture 

 to suggest that, if this additional task is to be adequately discharged, the new 

 institution must be organised on a twofold basis, comprising a School of Anthro- 

 pology with a specially trained staff of its own by the side of the school of 

 languages, whether these be living or classical. If, on the other hand, the 

 study of customs were to be subordinated to the study of languages, being 

 carried out under teachers selected mainly for their linguistic attainments, 

 I fear that this part of the training would prove little better than a sham. 

 Fortunately the University of London already possesses a School of Anthro- 

 pology, which under the guidance of an exceptionally brilliant staff has already 

 done work which we all know and appreciate. Other Universities, too, have 

 similar schools, and could not acquiesce in the centralisation of anthropological 

 studies in London, least of all in connection with an organisation that is primarily 

 concerned with the teaching of languages. But I have no doubt that a just 

 and satisfactory co-ordination of functions can be arranged between the different 

 interests concerned ; and, in the meantime, we, as anthropologists, can have 

 nothing but hearty praise for the enterprise that has endowed with actuality 

 the magnificent and truly imperial idea represented by this new School. 



So much, then, for the multiplicity which an anthropological curriculirm 

 must involve if it consist, as has been suggested, of Physical Anthropology, 

 Technology with Prehistoric Archreology, and Social Anthropology with Linguis- 

 tics. And now what of its unity? How best can these diverse studies be 

 directed to a common end ? I would submit that there are two ways in which 

 the student may most readily be made to realise the scope of Anthropology 

 as a whole, the one way having reference to theory and the other to practice. 



The theoretical way of making it plain that the special studies among which 

 the student divides his time can and must serve a single scientific purpose is 

 to make his work culminate in the determination of problems concerning the 

 movement of peoples and the diffusion of culture — in a word, of ethnological 

 problems (if, as is most convenient, the term ' ethnology ' be taken to signify 



