H.— ANTHROrOLOGY. 155 



and beliefs. It is concei'ned with wars only so far as these have pro- 

 iluced a change in the population or language of a region. It is interested 

 in kings only when tliese fanctio'naries 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 mass of the people; the acts ol politicians and diplomats 

 concern it not sO' much as do tlie everyday habits of the hun"il)ler folk. 



From some points of view anthropology may be considered as a 

 department of zoology, but whereas other branches, such as entomology 

 or ornithology, deal with classes containing innumerable species, 

 anthropology deals with one family only, and that containing but one 

 recent species; and, although this species has a number of varieties, 

 these are fertile inter sc. Many aspects of his subject, which occupy 

 much of the attention of the zoologist, such as taxonomy and phylogeny, 

 form but a small part of the anthropologist's inquiry; on the other 

 hand, though the zoologist, when dealing with the higher groups, 

 studies instinct, the nests and songs of birds, and the organisation of 

 bees and ants, such inquiries are slight as compared with the corre- 

 sponding problems which face the anthropologist. 



A century ago zoologists were largely engaged in studying the higher 

 groups of animals — vertebrates, insects, and the like — and for a time 

 neglected the 'radiate rnol).' Then there was a sudden change; all 

 interest was focused upon lowly forms, and the protozoa occupied a 

 disproportionate part of their attention. Lately, again, their work has 

 been more evenly distributed over the whole field, and attention has 

 been paid especially to those groups which most affect mankind for 

 good or ill. 



This choice of groups for special study was by no means due to 

 mere caprice ; there was a sound reason behind it. The more obvious 

 forms of life were first studied; then, as microscopes improved, atten- 

 tion was focused for a time upon the simpler organisms ; for, from the 

 study of these, the zoologist was better able to grasp the underlying 

 principles of life. These lessons learnt, he was able with greater 

 certainty to attack the problems affecting the welfare of mankind. 



So with the student of man. For many centuries historians, philo- 

 sophers, and theologians have been studying the ways of civilised 

 humanity, though not always quite by the methods of the modern 

 anthropologist. For, just as they were attracted by the higher groups 

 of men, so were they also fascinated by the more conspicuous indi- 

 viduals in those groups rather than by the general mass. During the 

 nineteenth century students were attracted towards the backward types 

 of humanity, partly, perhaps, because of their very unlikeness to our- 

 selves, and of recent years largely because they felt that the customs 

 of these primitive peoples formed most important scientific evidence 

 which was fast disappearing. But from a scientific point of view the 

 paramount reason was because it was felt that in such simple societies 

 we should find the germ from which human civilisation had begun, 

 and that we should there discover the ancestral form from which our 

 modern culture had developed. 



Much of the force of this last argument is disappearing as the 



