272 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLI. No. 1051 



hensive survey of the physical geography 

 has been supplied, do not the geographer's 

 duties, and even his rights, cease? If so, 

 and if we must leave the action of environ- 

 ment to the anthropologist, to what kind of 

 an anthropologist? The somatologist per- 

 haps. The somatologist studies the natural 

 history of the body. This is highly impor- 

 tant, but it is only one point of view. He 

 also studies man in his physiological devel- 

 opment, but this is also partial. Your 

 anthropologist may be primarily a psychol- 

 ogist, a philologist, or a student of early 

 arts or of comparative religion. Or he may 

 be an ethnologist studying the physical fea- 

 tures, mental traits, linguistics, practical 

 arts, legends and religions of a single tribe 

 or people. 



To which one of these will you look for 

 a world view of the influence of environ- 

 ment on early or half -developed man ? For 

 your answer go through all the reports and 

 books of the anthropologists, rich as they 

 are, and tell me the result. In the nature 

 of the case, the anthropologist, even if he 

 could command all the departments of his 

 own science, is not in a position to organ- 

 ize the principles of the influence of an 

 earthwide environment on man. He offers 

 indispensable materials and he may find 

 other unities in his field but the inclusive 

 bond of world environment belongs to the 

 geographer. 



Suppose we say that we do not need 

 anthropologists because there are anatom- 

 ists, physiologists, psychologists, philol- 

 ogists and students of art and religion. The 

 answer is that anthropology aims at the 

 natural history of man as a whole. The 

 specialists work indeed too often in small 

 and isolated fields and not always with the 

 causal land comparative principle in full 

 view. But man, the bond, is there, and the 

 science receives its justification. In like 

 manner, why should there be geographers. 



for there are geologists, meteorologists, 

 oceanographers, astronomers, botanists and 

 zoologists? We say because there is no 

 other to organize the data of all these sci- 

 ences in relation to the whole earth, as we 

 see it and know it. 



Taking the like case — there are anthro- 

 pologists of many sorts, historians of sev- 

 eral kinds, sociologists, economists and 

 technologists in ample variety. Why a 

 human geographer? Because there is no 

 other to exhibit the human kind (not now 

 but in some coming day) in its causal and 

 distributional relation to the earth and 

 its forces viewed as a unity. 



Professor Adams in his presidential ad- 

 dress before the American Historical Asso- 

 ciation manifests a little concern because 

 of the entrance of political science, geog- 

 raphy, sociology and certain other subjects 

 into the arena.^" But history, conceived 

 on the modern scientific basis, opens so vast 

 a field that collaborating sciences may well 

 be welcome in the task. Equally may the 

 geographer rejoice that every science of 

 man contributes to his own and that he in 

 turn has something to share. 



There need be no hoarding of opportu- 

 nity, where opportunity is infinite and no 

 quarreling over line fences where none can 

 exist. Professor Turner, referring to econ- 

 omist, geographer, sociologist and other 

 fellow-workers, has thus broadly expressed 

 the true attitude of the historian: 



The historian must so far familiarize himself 

 ■with the training of his sister subjects that he 

 can at least avail himself of their results and in 

 some reasonable degree master the essential tools 

 of their trade. 



No one would accuse Professor Turner of 

 advising over-expansion or superficial 

 endeavor, but he seems to think it possible 

 to be a historian and something more, by 

 virtue of which to be a better historian. 

 So say we of the geographer. Let him be 



ssAm. Hist. Bev., Vol. 14. 



