June 14, 1907] 



SCIENCE 



929 



For this reason anthropological collec- 

 tions should be treated like collections of 

 artistic industry and art collections rather 

 than like collections illustrating natural 

 sciences. 



It is therefore clear, that, so far as the 

 public is concerned, the essential point of 

 view of the an^thropological collection and 

 that of the natural-history collection are 

 entirely distinct; and, if the attempt is to 

 be made to bring out coherently the ideas 

 underlying the anthropological exhibit, 

 there ought to be no necessity for th^ 

 visitor to come into contact with the 

 natural-history exhibits while passing 

 through the anthropological halls. On the 

 whole, this end is difficult to attain in a 

 large complex museum building; and the 

 question may therefore be very well raised, 

 whether it would not be better to separate 

 entirely anthropological collections from 

 those relating to natural history. 



Still another consideration may be men- 

 tioned here, which has an important bear- 

 ing upon the systematic arrangement of 

 anthropological collections. It has been 

 pointed out before that anthropology is 

 essentially an historical science, and con- 

 sequently not readily amenable to system- 

 atization; but, further than this, there is 

 so much disagreement among the best 

 anthropologists of our times in regard to 

 the significance of anthropological data in 

 a systematic presentation of the subject, 

 that it seems hardly justifiable for any 

 museum to assume to dictate by its 

 arrangement what the approved system of 

 anthropological science shall be. 



Before further discussing the question 

 of museum policy in regard to its relation 

 to the public and to schools, it may be 

 well to discuss the value of the museum 

 as an institution intended to serve the 

 progress of science. 



The objection which is raised against 



the concentration of the work of the large 

 museum in these lines rather than in edu- 

 cational lines is the old objection against 

 serving the few rather than the masses. 

 Serious educators have long since recog- 

 nized that the education of the masses 

 which we all desire is impossible without 

 the most thorough and painstaking educa- 

 tion of the teacher, and that the appli- 

 cability of a sound educational system can 

 not be confined to elementary schools, but 

 that without secondary schools, colleges, 

 universities and training schools for teach- 

 ers, the whole system of public education 

 falls to the ground. Therefore, we do not 

 at all agree with the popular illusion that 

 opportunities given to the few who ad- 

 vance science are opposed to the advance- 

 ment of the masses, but we rather recognize 

 in them an indispensable means of advan- 

 cing public education. 



I do not hesitate to say that the essential 

 justification for the maintenance of large 

 museums lies wholly in their importance 

 as necessary means for the advancement 

 of science. This is particularly clear in 

 the case of the United States National 

 Museum, which is the depository of all 

 the government surveys, and whose duty 

 it is to preserve the material on which the 

 work of the surveys is based. The educa- 

 tion of the masses can be infinitely better 

 subserved by small museums. 



What, then, is the function of the large 

 museum ? It is the only means of bringing 

 together and of preserving intact large 

 series of material which for all time to 

 come must form the basis of scientific in- 

 ductions. Every year shows more clearly 

 that the loss of old collections, due to the 

 lack of large museums until the middle of 

 the last century, is one of the serious 

 obstacles to the advancement of science. 

 Museums are the storehouses in which not 

 only must the material be preserved by 

 means of which deductions of scientists can 



