Hints to Craniographers. 
BY J. AITKEN MEIGS, M. D. 
Everywhere Ethnology, the youngest and most ambitious of the sciences, is 
at length beginning to receive that earnest attention which the grandeur, im- 
portance and acknowledged complexity of its problems demand. Treated at 
iirst as an eminently speculative and metaphysical study, it has come at lengtli 
to be considered as amenable chiefly, if not entirely, to the purely scientific 
methods of research emploj^ed by the naturalist. Long ago, the Ethnology of 
the so-called philosophical school was simply a meagre Anthropology, made up 
almost wholly of certain national, psychologic phenomena of uncertain value 
and unknown relations. In the metaphysical systems of this school physical 
characters and the working formulae of the naturalist found no place. But the 
attempt to separate the phenomena of mind from the physical conditions with 
which they are constantly associated in nature, proved as barren in results, as 
it was irrational in conception. 
Anterior to the time of Linnaeus the philosopliy oi man was everything, the 
science nothing. Of the latter, the great Swedish naturalist was himself the 
founder and first exponent. After Linnaeus, came BufFon, Daubenton, Camper, 
Soemmering, Blumenbach, Zimmerman, and others, who, by regarding, and 
therefore treating man, as falling legitimately within the scope of the zoological 
method, attracted serious attention to the study of Anthropology as one of the 
natural sciences. The labors of these savants formed the foundation of this 
study, and gave it an impetus which is felt even at the present day. It must 
be confessed, however, that since the days of Blumenbach, in whose hands it 
received its more exact and scientific form, the progress of the study has 
been both slow and irregular; and the facts collected neither so extensive, nor 
for the most part so thoroughly and satisfactorily established as could be 
desired. Buffon, Cuvier, Lawrence, Peron, Kombst, Davis, Wilson and others, 
have all, at different times, taken occasion to deplore and comment upon this 
evident neglect of an important investigation. 
Closely examined, the cause of this manifest neglect, and consequent slow pro- 
gress of the Ethnological branch of Anthropology, will be found to be two-fold. 
In the first place and for a long time, the study of man was by many entirely 
separated from that of the rest of creation. Barbangois, Marcel de Serres, Ray, 
Brisson, Pennant, Vicq d'Azyr, and other naturalists following Aristotle, the 
illustrious founder of philosophical natural history, have all in succession 
ignored the physical character of man, by excluding him in their classification? 
from the animal kingdom. Thus effectually isolated, he has been treated from 
a mental point of view only, and his zoological affinities and analogies com- 
pletely overlooked. Another class of observers, however, having a more com- 
prehensive conception of nature, and the unity of design which pervades it, 
have at length recognised the animality of man, and placed him accordingly 
among, and at the head, of the Mammalia, 
In the second place, the study has thus far been one of divided effort, under- 
taken by individuals who, at different times and in different places, widely 
separated from each other, have worked at and attempted to solve with varying 
success, each his own favorite problem, with little or no aid from, or corres- 
pondence with others interested in, and studying the same specialty. In a 
word, there has been little or no combination, or regularly systemized effort 
among the students of Ethnology. 
Attempts, it is true, have not been wanting to establish such combinations, 
and appeals have been made to the scientific and general public, from time to 
time, by enthusiastic archEeologists and ethnologists, in behalf of some of the 
objects of their respective sciences. As early as 181 7, Dr. HodgkiU; in an Essay 
on the Promotion of Civilization, pointed out the importance of preserving from 
annihilation the uncivilized races of men, that their physical characters, tradi- 
tions, &c., might be carefully studied. In 1837, an Aborm7ies Protection Society 
