H.—ANTHROPOLOGY. 167 
its formative stages. But, on the other hand, its absence from the list of 
recognised university studies has stood very much in the way of its 
development. 
You will see that in this address I have been chiefly concerned with 
trying to indicate a new alignment of the studies which are grouped 
together under the name Anthropology. This new alignment is itself a 
natural growth, but should be recognised, and must ultimately be made 
the basis of any satisfactory co-ordination of studies in universities and 
elsewhere. 
First, there are the three studies that have been traditionally associated 
under the name anthropology—Physical Anthropology, Prehistoric 
Archeology and Ethnology. 
Physical Anthropology seems due to be absorbed in a wider study of 
Human Biology, which requires to be carried on in close association with 
the biological sciences. The present procedure by which Physical Anthro- 
pology is taught as part of Anatomy is not always quite satisfactory. It 
is liable to neglect the physiological study of man as a living organism. 
and to deal very perfunctorily with the important problems of human 
genetics. I should like to see Human Biology given recognition as an 
independent and very important subject. We have, of course, the Galton 
Laboratories as one centre for such studies in England. The widespread 
interest—not always, I fear, entirely scientific—in Eugenics and in race 
problems could be utilised to obtain sufficient support. On the other 
hand, there seems no particular advantage to Human Biology in being 
linked to Archeology and Ethnology. 
Prehistoric Archeology is now an independent subject with its own 
special technique and carried on by specialists. The archeologist, of 
course, requires to have a knowledge of Human Paleontology, but equally 
he needs a knowledge of general paleontology and geology. The natural 
affinity of Archeology, however, is with History. 
Ethnology, in so far as it attempts not merely to classify races, 
languages and cultures, but to reconstruct their history, must necessarily 
_ maintain a very close connection with archeology. It may, indeed, very 
well be treated as in a sense a branch or further development of archeology, 
as that is of history. Thus, Prehistoric Archeology (or Pale-ethnology 
as it is occasionally called) and Ethnology may well be regarded-as one 
subject pursuing the aims and methods of historical science. 
Over against the historical sciences there stand the three generalising 
sciences of Human Biology, Psychology and Comparative Sociology. 
The closest and most important relation for Comparative Sociology is 
with Psychology. There is no particular advantage to the comparative 
sociologist in acquiring more than an elementary knowledge of Prehistoric 
Archeology. A study of history, so far as it deals with culture rather 
than with the doings of kings, statesmen and soldiers, is of much greater 
value to him. Particularly at the present time it is desirable that the 
comparative sociologist should avoid becoming entangled in the con- 
jectural reconstructions of history which I have described above as 
belonging to Ethnology. 
As I see it, therefore, the subject of anthropology is dividing itself 
