tt.— ANTHROPOLOGY. 



153 



flint iinplements, skeletons, and the ways ol savage men, and to many 

 students of the subject its boundaries are scarcely more ext-ensive. 

 Yet civilised people also are men, and if anthropology is the science 

 of man it should include these within its survey. That other 

 scientists, such as historians, geographers, sociologists, and economists, 

 study the doings of civilised man is no reason why the anthropologist 

 should fail to take them into account, for his point of view is in 

 many respects different 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. 



That anthi-opology is the study of man is a commonplace, but we 

 need a more accurate definition. A former occupant of this chair has 

 declared that ' Anthropology 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.'* 



Anthropology may, therefore, be defined as the study of the origin 

 and evolution of man and his works, provided that we realise that the 

 works of men's brains are as important to the anthropologist, even 

 more important than the works of men's hands. What, then, separates 

 anthropology from the other studies which are concerned with man and 

 his many activities is, that the anthropologist studies man 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 activities, 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, 

 to some extent at least, be arbitrary, but in the first instance we may 

 safely consider the subject as primarily divided into two main cate- 

 gories : ' man ' and ' his worlis.' 



But man himself, the human organism, cannot be considered from 

 one aspect only, and various partitions have been made by theologians 

 and philosophers. For his purpose it seems more fitting that the 

 anthropologist should consider the division as twofold, that man con- 

 sists of body and mind; the study of these is the special province of 

 the anatomist and physical anthropologist on the one hand and of the 

 psychologist on the other. 



Here, again, it may be asserted that anatomy and psychology are 

 distinct sciences, and in no way to be considered as parts of anthro- 

 pology, and in a certain sense this is true. But anatomy, in so far as 

 it helps us to understand the evolution of man from his simian ancestor, 

 and again as it helps us to trace the variations in the human frame, 

 and so to follow the movements of different types of men as they 

 mingle vv'ith one another in successive ages, is and always has been 

 reckoned a definite branch of anthropology. 



Again, in the case of psychology, which has made such immense 

 strides during the last few years, there is much which is not, strictly 



* :\rarett, R. R., Anthrojjologij, p. 1. 



