ON ETHNOLOGY. 
231 
coBStitutioE of human tribes in comparison with each other, as it appears to 
kTe been supposed, there would be an obvious propriety in making this 
study a subdivision of physiology or the science of organic nature. 
But those who have devoted their attention to that pursuit are well-aware 
that the objects of ethnology are very distinct from the study of organic 
nature or physiology'. Ethnology is, in fact, more nearly allied tti history 
than to natural science. Ethnology profewies to give un account, not of w hat 
nature prodnees in the present day, but of what «hc has protluced in timt^ long 
since past. It is an attempt to trace the history of tribes and races of men 
freai the most remote periods which arc within the reach of investigation, to 
discorer their mutual relations, and to arrive at conclusions, eiOicr certoin 
or probable, as to their affinity or diversity ot origin. All tliis belongs rather 
to oTc&fofejii/ than to the science of nature. It is true that mauy of the 
iubordinate investigations by means of which we collect data for ethnological 
inductionsare within the province of physiological science. "Hic facts and ana- 
li^es which natural history and physiology present, furnish m m^y instonces 
the data or the arguments on wliich the conclusions of the ethnologist are 
foomled. These contributions of natural history and natural wicnce are, how- 
mr, but a part of the resources of which the stndent of ethnology avails 
hioBelf, and we shall find that he borrows fully as mucli from other depart¬ 
ments of knowledge, quite separate from the study of nature jmd iier pro- 
duetioDs. The results, moreover, at which he arrives do not fail '[■‘*•'1'" 
department of natural science. They are arcliteological or histontai. it may, 
therefore, be contended that in strict propriety they scarcely find t icir place 
in the great system of scientific inquiries which are the objects ol tliu liritisu 
Association. ^ . r r n • 
But ethnology has at least one claim to be admitted in the list ol sue in- 
tiuirieg, since it stands, in these respects, precisely on the same gromid ^ 
one of the roost popular of the studios which are cultivated by the l5ritisu 
Aaociation. and it would be iinpossildo to deny a place to one of these pur- 
wiiiand concede it to the other without a iiianifost inconsistency. 
PMitig the position of ethnology to that of geology, we shall be to 
‘mvey in a dear point of view the relations which both of these studies near 
h) other branches of human knowledge. _ . « r.f 
Geology is, like ethnology, a history of the pant. It is an mvestiga lo 
We changes which the surface of our planet has undergone, wluic. trom 
^Qng a mass of inorganic matter, it became, through successive revo u ion , 
Nually fiue.l to be the birth-place of beings endowed with taculties wincft 
them to contemplate and adinirc the order of the universe and , 
■t8 Divine Maker. The arguments on wliich the student of geology 
“Phistheory, are facts collectctl by observation from various 
“f liWurai history and science. Ho inquires into the operations w nc 
^eson in the present day; but this is with the view of npi>ly«'tg . 
“ration so acquired to iuductious fw to what liappcned m p‘ 
M of tracing in the ilifibrent layers of the earth’s crust the . •_ 
•^fcphes and renovations which it has undergone. ’Ihis iparned 
belongs to archreology or to the history of A^socia- 
ntcr, whose name is recorded for ever in the annalsof the I . i 
Jw(lhe Reverend Dr. Whewcll), the appropriate epithet ^ 
5^“ a«>ig«fd to this department of knowleclgc- “ PoUtontologr,, ^ich 
J^yrnlmchmlag !,-a syminvm, includes both geology 
^«* former is the arolneologj^f the globe ; the latter that 
naii'^i^- ^ P‘“’t of their materials from diflere 
^ history. But ethnology, as 1 have remarked, obtains 
