642 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIII. No. 591. 



explain the present types as the result of a 

 long-continued development from previous 

 forms. 



Owing to the peculiar conditions under 

 which it has grown up, American anthro- 

 pology has been devoted almost exclusively 

 to the study of North American problems. 

 As we have penetrated more deeply into 

 these problems we have observed that the 

 general laws for which we have been search- 

 ing prove elusive, that the forms of primi- 

 tive culture are infinitely more complex 

 than had been supposed, that a clear under- 

 standing of the individual problem can not 

 be reached without taking into considera- 

 tion its historical and geographical rela- 

 tions. 



As this new point of view becomes more 

 and more clearly established, the tendency 

 must increasingly develop of turning away 

 from the comparative methods of the nat- 

 ural sciences, and taking up more and more 

 systematically the methods of history. 

 While the first problem that presented 

 itself to the anthropologist was the puzzling 

 sameness of traits of culture in remote 

 parts of the world, and while his endeavor 

 was directed towards the discovery of the 

 psychological causes that bring about such 

 sameness, we begin to be inclined to view 

 each cultural trait not primarily in com- 

 parison with parallel traits found in re- 

 mote regions, but rather in connection with 

 the direction taken by the whole culture of 

 a tribe or a people. We begin to see that 

 sameness of cultural traits does not always 

 prove genetic relation, but that diverse 

 traits have often tended to converge, so as 

 to develop similar thoughts and activities; 

 while, on the other hand, other traits have 

 tended to diverge, and to assume in dif- 

 ferent regions different forms. 



With the appreciation of this fact, the 

 necessity of a much more thorough and 

 detailed knowledge of primitive culture is 

 recognized. While hitherto we have been 



satisfied with disconnected fragments of 

 observations on the customs of the various 

 tribes, we begin to see more and more 

 clearly that the student must have a full 

 grasp of all the forms of culture of the 

 people he studies, before he can safely 

 generalize. 



It would seem to me that the classical 

 archeologist or the classical philologist 

 must always have an indulgent smile 

 when he hears of serious anthropological 

 studies carried on by investigators, who 

 have neither the time, the inclination, nor 

 the training to familiarize themselves with 

 the language of the people whom they 

 study. According to the canons of philo- 

 logical research, would not the investigator 

 who is not able to read the classics be 

 barred from the number of serious stu- 

 dents? Would not the historian who in- 

 vestigates the history of the civilization of 

 the middle ages, and who can not read the 

 literature of that period, be excluded from 

 the number of investigators? Would not 

 the student of Oriental countries, who has 

 to rely for his information on the assist- 

 ance of interpreters, be considered an un- 

 safe guide in the study of these countries? 

 Still, this is the position which has con- 

 fronted anthropology up to the pi*esent 

 time. There are very few students who 

 have taken the time and who have con- 

 sidered it necessary to familiarize them- 

 selves sufficiently with native languages to 

 understand directly what the people whom 

 they study speak about, what they think 

 and what they do. There are fewer still 

 who have deemed it worth while to record 

 the customs and beliefs and the traditions 

 of the people in their own words, thus 

 giving us the objective material which will 

 stand the scrutiny of painstaking investi- 

 gation. I think it is obvious that in this 

 respect anthropologists have everything to 

 learn from you; that until we acquire the 

 habit of demanding such authenticity of 



