H.— ANTHROPOLOGY 149 



as sociology and psychology, so that except for an almost academic dis- 

 tinction it may be said that anthropology confines itself to primitive 

 man. It has two distinct branches — the one which examines man simply 

 as an animal, the other which studies him as a rational animal. With 

 the first of these, termed physical anthropology, which is really a branch 

 of zoology, our science has very little to do. It may accept and use its 

 results occasionally as a background, but with the same detachment that 

 it shows towards zoology or geology. For the interest of archaeology 

 is solely in those works which can only be produced by man when he 

 has become more or less sapiens. Even ethnology, which is physical 

 anthropology as applied to the developed races of man, has only a very 

 slight and limited usefulness for the archaeologist. 



From those branches of anthropology, on the other hand, which reveal 

 man in his religious, sociological and cultural relations, and those which 

 study his arts and crafts, archaeology derives the whole of its theoretical 

 structure. How intimately the two subjects are related is shown by such 

 a book as SoUas's Ancient Hunters, in which, if it were not for the headings 

 of the chapters, the reader could hardly tell at any given moment whether 

 it is an ancient or a modern people that is being described. Without 

 anthropology, in fact, archaeology would be blind of one eye and very 

 short-sighted of the other. For the only possible subject of archaeology 

 is the material output of man, the visible products of his hands, whether 

 these are shown in agriculture, building and other modifications of the 

 surrounding world, or in those manufactures, arts and crafts by which 

 man improves the conditions and amenities of his material existence. 

 What man has been thinking or feeling, or just why he did any of the 

 things that we find him doing, archzeology can never directly ascertain. 

 What it discovers is merely the bare fact ; it can never divine the essence 

 of the fact, that which gives it all its meaning and its interest. For the 

 whole interpretation of the inner meaning and rationale of man's life we 

 are necessarily dependent either on anthropology or on history — that is 

 to say, on records and observations of the thought, habits and behaviour 

 of men who could be actually studied as living and thinking beings. 

 Without the aid of these records archzeology would indeed be a musty 

 science ; but when it employs them it is able inferentially and by analogy 

 to construct the whole of man's story from his earliest beginnings to the 

 present day. And this reconstruction is not only a book, it is an illustrated 

 picture-book, richer than mere anthropology and richer than mere history. 



Of the two auxiliary sciences, anthropology and history, the former is 

 generally more useful to us, just because it deals with the primitive, and 

 ancient man is necessarily more or less primitive. Documentary history 

 is very limited in its range ; it gives only a few glimpses of the life of 

 ancient times, and covers only a very small section of the immense period 

 over which archaeology must range. Occasionally, however, it throws 

 a vivid searchlight on times which are especially interesting to us as 

 being comparatively near our own, and usefully supplements our anthro- 

 pological knowledge by information as to what civilised people, as distinct 

 from savages, thought, felt, and said. Its principal and indispensable 

 function, however, is that of providing a time-scale, which cannot be 



