June 24, 1887.] 



SCIENCE. 



613 



The materials are derived from a variety of sources, 

 which may be briefly enumerated as follows. First, 

 those taken from the mounds. But we now know 

 that many tribes have erected mounds, and ofttimes 

 the same mounds have been occupied by different 

 tribes belonging even to different linguistic stocks. 

 Only a few mounds have been or can be relegated to 

 the Indians who built them. Second, another class 

 of materials has been found in stone graves, ossu- 

 aries, and other burial-places ; but it is rarely the 

 case that these burial-places can be referred to the 

 specific tribes that used them. Third, much of the 

 material is distributed on the surface of the earth, 

 and picked up in woods, fields, caves, etc. ; but it is 

 very rarely indeed that any of this material can be 

 referred to specific tribes. Then there is a vast body 

 of material in the ruins of the arid regions of the 

 west, very little of which can be relegated to specific 

 tribes. Again, collections have been made from 

 time to time, in the years and centuries past, from 

 the Indians themselves ; but as these tribes have 

 been ever changing, as heretofore remarked, and as 

 the names of tribes change from time to time, so that 

 the synonymy is exceedingly complex and difficult, 

 the same names being used for different tribes, 

 and the same tribe being known by different names, 

 there is no historical collection of any magnitude in 

 the land that could with confidence be affirmed as 

 coming from definite, specified tribes. Again, very 

 many of the articles which are brought together in a 

 large archeologic museum are the materials of barter 

 from tribe to tribe. This barter has been on a scale 

 so extensive, that, if there were no other difficulties 

 in the way of determining the inventors and makers, 

 this would be sufficient to cast a doubt upon nearly 

 all collections made. There is yet another source 

 that contaminates much of the material collected, 

 and puzzles the student of archeology to the highest 

 degree. Stone implements, shell ornaments, copper 

 implements, utensils, etc. , were, in the early history 

 of the country, manufactiired on a large scale by 

 traders, to be bartered with the Indians for peltries. 

 A vast amount of this material was thus manufac- 

 tured ; and, because it was more or less superior to 

 the work of the Indians themselves, it intrudes its 

 way before all other objects into the collections of 

 the country. 



It will be seen, that, taking all things together, a 

 tribal arrangement of the archeologic museum of 

 North America is an impossibility by reason of its 

 nature. 



But the tribal museum as suggested by Dr. Boas 

 would, in practical affairs, be an impossibility by 

 reason of its magnitude. In the many thousand 

 groups of which it would be composed, the objective 

 material would be duplicated over and over again, 

 and to the observer would be monotonous and mean- 

 ingless. 



But may not the tribes be classified ? The so- 

 called ' ethnic ' classifications of mankind have usu- 

 ally been based upon physical characteristics, found 

 in the relative proportions of the parts of the body, 

 which has led to a high development of anthropome- 

 try : in the characteristics of the cranium, which 

 has led to a high development of craniology ; and in 

 the color of the skin, the texture of the hair, the at- 

 titude of the eyes, etc.; but no thorough classifica- 

 tion of mankind on these characteristics has ever 

 been established. This only has been done : a 

 greater or less number of varieties have been de- 



scribed as types ; but, whenever the attempt has been 

 made to relegate the peoples of the world to these 

 varietal types, the task has been found impossible. 

 Mankind cannot be classified into races thoroughly 

 inclusive and exclusive. Very much more has been 

 done in the classification of languages ; but this 

 furnishes a very imperfect classification of peoples. 

 In fact, it does not properly mean an ethnic classifi- 

 cation. I know of no attempt to classify mankind by 

 arts, or by institutions, or by opinions, worthy of the 

 mention ; yet arts may be classified, institutions may 

 be classified, and opinions or philosojjhies may be 

 classified, but the results thereof are in no proper 

 sense a classification of peoples. 



In this connection it is sufficient to say, that, as 

 there is and can be no ethnic classification of the 

 tribes of America, so there can be no classification of 

 their arts on that basis. Yet we might classify their 

 arts in a museum on the basis of classes derived 

 from linguistic affinities ; but it would be wholly ar- 

 bitrary, and lead to no vahiable results. The Pai- 

 utes of Utah, the Comanches of the plains, and six 

 of the Pueblos of New Mexico, that are called by the 

 bureau of ethnology the ' Shinumos,' and included 

 in the ancient province of Tusayan, all belong to the 

 same linguistic family ; but their arts are most di- 

 verse, as will readily occur to any one familiar with 

 the subject. The Apaches of Arizona and New 

 Mexico would be thrown into a group with the Tinne 

 Indians in the region of Lake Athabasca. And like 

 illustrations might be extended to an indefinite 

 length. 



Dr. Boas suggests a geographic distribution in a 

 manner which makes it appear that he considers a 

 geographic classification to be essentially the same 

 as an ethnographic classification, but the two are 

 altogether different things. It is said that prairie- 

 dogs, owls, and rattlesnakes successively occupy cer- 

 tain underground habitations on the plains, but they 

 are not thereby classed as one group in systematic 

 zoology ; and he who supposes that the multifarious 

 tribes in one region of America are of the same 

 stock, or can in any proper way be classified as one, 

 has failed to understand the ethnology of the Ameri- 

 can races. But this leads to the consideration of a 

 classification by geographic provinces, as advocat- 

 ed by Bastian and referred to by Boas. If the 

 primary classification of the museum should have 

 this basis, some very interesting facts would be 

 presented. It is well known that zoologic prov- 

 inces and botanical provinces have been defined 

 by various biologists, and the facts connected 

 therewith are of great interest. In like man- 

 ner the art provinces of North America are of great 

 interest. To this subject the bureau of ethnology, 

 under my charge, has given much attention, and 

 gradually we are reaching some interesting results ; 

 and at the present stage of this research, if we could 

 have a grand museum arranged on this basis, in- 

 vestigations would be made with greater ease, and 

 perhaps facts and ideas would be suggested which 

 will not be discovered in the lack of such a grand 

 museum. Yet I should hesitate to affirm that that 

 was the -best arrangement for the national museum 

 or any other great collection. 



The human activities which characterize mankind 

 may be classed as arts, institutions, languages, and 

 opinions or philosophies. Of these activities, the 

 arts only can be represented in a museum, and they 

 but in part. An anthropological museum, therefore. 



