Skptemiier 14, 1883.] 



SCIENCE. 



iioi) 



comes from such invostis!»tioiis, and how we can 

 make them subservient to human weal. 



As to the scope of anthropolojiy, we may be in- 

 structeil by tlie work of others. Tlie natural history 

 of any species, say of the domestic horse, includes 

 many inquiries, such a.s the time and place of its 

 origin ; its ancestry; its pristine size, appearance, and 

 mode of living. We should afterwards iiujuire con- 

 cerning the archeology or the paleontology of the 

 Equidae, their embryology, anatomy, physiology, 

 diseases, abnormalities, and external characteristics. 

 Mr. Komanes would have a chapter ou the intelli- 

 gence of the animal, as to its nature .and amount, 

 supplementing the discussion witli notes on the vari- 

 ous ways in wliich the liorse manifests its mind, its 

 wills, emotions, and opinions. Horses do not con- 

 struct elaborate houses like the ants and the beavers; 

 but the members of all species occupy their daily 

 lives in some habitual industries by means of which 

 they wear out the excess of muscle. Sir John Lub- 

 bock would lead us farther, and show us that horses 

 go in droves, follow a leader, plan migrations, at- 

 tacks, and defence, amuse themselves, enjoy one 

 another's ccmipany, improve in appearance, intelli- 

 gence, and usefulness by cultivation, — in a thousand 

 ways .sliow themselves to be social creatures. At last 

 Mr. Mivart would insist that the horse has its habi- 

 tude (ff'f), its manner of action, its economy (oecol- 

 ogy), and its mem bei-s are affected in a characteristic 

 manner by heat, light, moisture, winds, the kind and 

 quality and abundance of food and drink, by bene- 

 ficial or injurious animal neighbors, and by the vital, 

 procreative, inheritable energy with which they are 

 endowed. These and many other kindred inquiries 

 concerning this homogeneous group would constitute 

 the science of hippology. 



The conscientious devotee to this science would 

 frequently ask himself wliat practical good would re- 

 sult from all this expenditure of time, thought, and 

 resources necessary to collect specimens and facts, 

 and to formulate his science. Could they be em- 

 ployed on some subject more ennobling and profitable 

 to himself, better calculated to inform, enrich, and 

 beatify mankind? , 



Now, instea<l of horses, let us substitute the genvs 

 homo, laying aside all predilections; and, if possible, 

 let us imagine the student of anthropology to belong 

 to quite another genus than the subject of his re- 

 search. He would have, in the fourteen hundred 

 millions of human beings now living on the earth, 

 and the remains of their congeners slumbering in 

 its bosom, perhaps the best detined group of ani- 

 mals. Calling them a genus or a species, as you like, 

 they are so .well hedged off from all other animal 

 groups that not the least embarrassment has ever 

 disturbed the naturalist in distinguishing the an- 

 thropos even from the anthropoid. No one was ever 

 puzzled to tell, concerning any living thing, whether 

 or not it was a human being. The earth has never 

 yielded a bone concerning which the practical anato- 

 mist stood in doubt whether it had been once part of 

 a human body. 



Now, I<lakti it for granted that any inq\tiry what- 



ever which would be useful or entertaining respect- 

 in;^ another species wiuild be intensified in importance 

 having man for its object. Indeed, there are few 

 questions which naturalists are wont to propose to 

 their groups whic;i ought not to be carefully consid- 

 ered when we are studying man. Before entering 

 upon the weighing process, therefore, it may make 

 our task more easy if we consider the present scope 

 of anthropology, and briefly pass in review some of 

 tlie questions which are being propounded by an- 

 thropologists every day. 



When did man first appear on earth, — at what 

 time and in what geological horizon? 



Have all the individuals of our race descended 

 from a common human ancestry? in other words, are 

 we monogenists, or i)olygunists? 



Where was the birthplace of humanity? 



What manner of creature was that first man in 

 specific characteristics, in size, aspect, intelligence, 

 and social condition? and how did he get here? 



To all such queries, Hiieckel aptly gives the name 

 of anthropogeny: therefore, in order to be anthivpol- 

 ogists we must be anthropogcnists. 



Another set of questions relates to that stretch of 

 time which lies between the pristine man, or the 

 piistine condition, and the beginnings of recorded 

 liistory. 



Have we complete, irrefragable evidence that our 

 race has progressed from a brute-like condition, in 

 wliich it was devoid of all experience and apjiliances? 



What applieaticm must we make of Profes^or 

 Tylor's belief that civilization has progressed up- 

 ward like a column of vapor, some parts advancing 

 while other parts are being rolled downward, but, 

 on the whole, ascending and expanding? 



Granting Ihat there has been improvement, what 

 paths have been pursued ? 



Speaking of our own peculiar province, what is the 

 real import of such discoveries as those of Dr. Abbott 

 and Professor Wliitney in establishing the great an- 

 tiquity and early rudeness of the American savage? 



Who were the builders of the mounds, earthworks, 

 cliff-dwellings, and the stone structures of Middle 

 America? 



What were the functions of these various edifices ? 



What credence is to be given to the early historians 

 of American culture ? 



Already we have our schools of interpretation, 

 such as the Bancroft school and the Morgan school. 

 Where, among these opposing schemes, does the 

 truth lie? 



In the administration of this science, there is oc- 

 cujiation for the greatest diversity of talent. The 

 biologists of our time are entering into the minutest 

 inspection of the life-history of each ^ninial form. 

 With enthusiasm the embryologists trace the modifi- 

 cations of structure as they succeed one another in 

 the germ. Before their eyes the very play of creation 

 is dimly shadowed, and organic structure built up. 

 They pass their work on to the anatomists and physi- 

 ologists. Now, the anthropologist must endeavor to 

 comprehend the whole in its synthesis. As Newton 

 and Laplace grasped the unity and organization of 



