426 
the whole of anthropology; by others they 
are combined as physical anthropology and 
regarded as including only-the animal side 
of man, but excluding nearly the whole of 
the essentially human side—nearly, but not 
quite, the whole, since the field of psychol- 
ogy is common ground. This is the view 
of several modern anthropologists, and is 
that held in this writing. 
VI. 
Passing from that portion of the domain 
of anthropology which deals with man as 
an animate genus, there is found another 
and still broader portion occupied by that 
which man does as a sentient, volitient and 
intelligent being; it is true that this portion 
of the domain is less definite than the 
other, yet, in the light of intellectual prog- 
ress, its limits and subdivisions also may 
be outlined, albeit in some measure provi- 
sionally. 
The early explorers who came home 
laden with travelers’ tales sometimes 
brought also more tangible cargo in. the 
form of strange wares; and so the handi- 
work of the world gradually came under 
the observation of students, and in time 
museums were built largely to accommodate 
the constantly increasing collections of 
primitive and alien arts. Meantime ob- 
servant persons in many countries were at- 
tracted by relics of archaic culture in the 
form of implements, weapons, ornaments, 
apparel and habitations, as well as burial 
places sometimes containing the bones of 
the ancient artisans, and these, too, were 
collected, and museums were built to ac- 
commodate them in connection with the 
artificial material gathered among the liv- 
ing peoples of distant lands. As collectors 
and collections multiplied, the work was 
organized ; and, although the initial stimu- 
lus came from observation in remote coun- 
tries, the interest grew inward—as is the 
way of advancing knowledge—and the local 
SCIENCE. 
[N. 8S. Vou. VI. No. 142, 
research for the rare relics of past ages was 
the first to receive name and character as 
the science of Archzology. As observa- 
tions multiplied, resemblances were found 
between the culture-products of remote 
times and remote places; the arts of prim- 
itive peoples were found to vary in a man- 
ner corresponding more or less closely to 
race, and thereby ethnic research gained 
new impetus and served in turn to guide 
research in the prehistoric. So archeology 
and ethnology became mutually helpful and 
grew apace and came to be intimately asso- 
sociated in most minds, despite the fact 
that the one is concerned primarily with 
what man is, the other with what man 
does; and in some circles these branches of 
inquiry came to be regarded as constituting 
the whole of anthropology. 
At first the products of ancient and alien 
handiwork were accepted at their token 
value, much like the chemic elements be- 
fore Avogadro, the planetary movements 
before Newton, our sun and others before 
the doctrine of the persistence of motion, 
the organic species before Darwin; but 
within a generation or two it has come to 
be realized that they possess an innate 
value as exponents of intellectual activity 
—as medals of human creation collectively 
attesting the birth and growth of discovery 
and invention, design and motive, and all 
other human faculties. Perhaps the time 
has not come for defining this stage in the 
progress of anthropology; it may be that 
the transition is not yet complete, or that 
the relations are too complex for easy grasp; 
yet it seems clear that when the anthro- 
pologist first saw in the implement of shell 
or stone an index to the mental operations 
of the implement-maker hardly less definite 
than the written page to the thought of the 
writer, the Science of Man rose to a higher 
plane with a bound comparable to those 
marking great epochs in the development 
of the other sciences. 
