H.— ANTHROPOLOGY. 159 



in India, if it is to be a success, should not be a Government institu- 

 tion, but should be founded and endowed by private benefactors of both 

 nationalities. It would be a centre around which would gather all 

 anthropological work in the peninsula, while it would enable the British 

 students to arrive at a truer understanding of Indian ideals and help 

 [lulians to grasp more fully the relations subsisting between Indian 

 and European civilisations. 



Lastly, we come to that great area which I have termed the Euro- 

 pean Region, extending southward from our continent to the southern 

 confines of the Sahara, and eastwards to Mesopotamia and beyond. 

 Throughout all this vast region the racial basis of the population is 

 similar, though the proportion of the elements varies. Also throughout 

 the region there has been, from the earliest days of which we have 

 evidence, free communication and no great barriers to trade and 



migration. 



Until the last fifteen hundred years the civilisation of this area 

 was fairly uniform, though its highest and earliest developments were 

 in the south-east, while the northern zones lagged behind and were 

 on the outer fringe. Still, with the possible exception of North Russia, 

 it formed from palaeolithic times one cultural region, and this became 

 more marked and homogeneous during the flourishing days of the 

 Roman Empire. Two forces from without, coming from the outer 

 fringe of this region, destroyed that mighty empire and divided the 

 region into two halves ; and as each of these forces adopted different 

 religious views, the European cultural region became divided into two. 

 For many centuries these sections were at war with one another, and 

 their boundary oscillated; the East pushed westward until 1500 a.d., 

 and since then has been in retreat. We have, therefore, during recent 

 centuries to treat the European cultural region as two, the civilisations 

 of Islam and Christendom. 



Though the separation of these two halves is relatively recent, their 

 ideals have grown more and more divergent, while the inhabitants of 

 both zones, though no longer in constant warfare, are no nearer to a 

 true understandiTig of one another. Political difficulties in the Near 

 East, which show no signs of diminishing but seem rather to be on the 

 increase, are the natural result of such misunderstandings, and the 

 remedy here, as elsewhere, is to achieve a truer appreciation of other 

 points of view, due to a divergence in the evolution of civilisation, due 

 in its turn to a different environment. A more thorough knowledge 

 of the anthropological factors of the case seems to be a necessary pre- 

 liminary to such mutual understanding, and since the League of Nations 

 and the Versailles Treaty "have seen fit to add to our responsibilities in 

 this area, it is an urgent necessity that some of our anthropologists 

 should pay a closer attention to the problems of the Near East. 



And now with regard to Christendom. Are we to consider that our 

 duties as anthropologists end with alien cultures? Is Christendom so 

 united that misunderstandings cannot arise within its borders ? At the 

 close of a great war, which divided this area into two hostile camps, we 

 can hardly claim that there is no room for our studies. 



As we have seen, there has been a tendency hitherto to regard 



1922 V 



