94 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. IX. No. 212. 



lum quite recentl}^ For this reason I will 

 devote my remarks to a consideration of the 

 field that anthropological instruction is in- 

 tended to cover and of its relations to al- 

 lied sciences rather than to a discussion of 

 methods of instruction. 



According to purely theoretical defini- 

 tions, anthropology is the science of man 

 and might be understood to cover a vast 

 range of subjects. The physical as well as 

 the mental characters of man may be con- 

 sidered in a certain way as the proper field 

 of anthi-opology. But sciences do not grow 

 up according to definitions. They are the 

 result of historical development. The sub- 

 ject-matter of anthropology has been ac- 

 cumulated principally by travellers who 

 have made us acquainted with the people 

 inhabiting distant countries. Another part 

 of the subject-matter of anthropology is 

 due to the investigation of prehistoric re- 

 mains found in civilized countries. Only 

 after certain methods had developed which 

 were based largely on the information thus 

 collected was the white race made the sub- 

 ject of investigation. 



For this reason the aim of anthropology 

 has been largely to explain the phenomena 

 observed among tribes of foreign culture. 

 These phenomena are naturally divided 

 into three groups : (1) thej)hysical appear- 

 ance of man ; (2) the language of man, 

 and (3) the customs and beliefs of man. 

 In this manner three branches of anthro- 

 pology have developed : (1) somatology, or 

 physical anthropology ; (2) linguistics, and 

 (.3) ethnology. Up to this time anthropo- 

 logical investigation has dealt almost ex- 

 clusively with subjects that may be classed 

 under these three headings. These subjects 

 are not taken up by any other branch of 

 science, and in developing them anthro- 

 pology fills a vacant place in the system of 

 sciences. 



The treatment of these three subjects re- 

 quires close cooperation between anthro- 



jjolog}' and a number of sciences. The in- 

 vestigation of the physical characteristics 

 of man has also been taken up by anato- 

 mists, but the point of view of the an- 

 atomist and that of the anthropologist are 

 quite different. "While the former is pri- 

 martly interested in the occurrence of cer- 

 tain modifications of the hurflan form and 

 in their genetic interpretation, the anthro- 

 pologist is interested in the geographical 

 distribution of varieties of form, in the 

 variability of the human species in differ- 

 ent areas and in their interpretation. The 

 thorough study of physical anthropology, 

 or somatology, requires the combined train- 

 ing of the anatomist and of the anthropol- 

 ogist. 



In the study of linguistics the anthropol- 

 ogist deals with a subject that has been 

 partially taken up by the student of special 

 linguistic stocks. The study of the struc- 

 ture of the Aryan languages, of the Semitic 

 languages and of the Mongol languages has 

 been carried on with great success by phil- 

 ologists ; but the anthropological problem 

 is a wider one — it deals with the general 

 question of human language. 



In the study of ethnology the field of 

 investigation of the anthropologist adjoins 

 that of the field of research of the psychol- 

 ogist and of the sociologist. The develop- 

 ment of a truly empirical psj'chology makes 

 it necessary to draw largely upon material 

 furnished \>y anthropological studies. On 

 the other hand, sociologists have found that 

 the analysis of the culture of civilized so- 

 ciety cannot be carried out successfully 

 without a comparative study of primitive 

 societj', which is the subject-matter of an- 

 thropological research. 



The method of anthropology is an in- 

 ductive method, and the science must be 

 placed side by side with the other inductive 

 sciences. Our conclusions are based on 

 comparisons between the foi-ms of develop- 

 ment of the human body, of human Ian- 



