think it necessary to give any explanation of the nature of the subjects
brought under its cognisance, or to emphasise their importance among
other branches of study; but so general is the ignorance, or at all
events vagueness of information, among otherwise well-instructed
persons, that I will ask your permission to devote the short time
accorded to me before the actual work of the Section begins to giving
some account of the history and present position of the study of
Anthropology in this country, and especially to indicate what this
Association has done in the past, and is still doing, to promote it.
It is only ten years since the section in which we are now taking part
acquired a definite and assured position in the organisation of the
Association. The subject, of course, existed long before that time, and
was also recognised by the Association, though with singular
vicissitudes of fortune and position. It first appeared officially in
1846, when the “Ethnological sub-Section of Section D” (then called
“Zoology and Botany”) was constituted. This lasted till 1851, when
Geography parted company from Geology, with which it had been previously
associated in Section C, and became Section E, under the title of
“Geography and Ethnology.” In 1866 Section D changed its name to
“Biology,” with Physiology and Anthropology (the first occurrence of
this word in our official proceedings) as separate “Departments”; but
the latter does not seem to have regained its definite footing as a
branch of Biological Science until three years later (1869), when
Section E, dropping Ethnology from its title, henceforward became
Geography alone. The Department for the first two years (1869 and 1870)
was conducted under the title of Ethnology, but in 1871 it resumed the
name of Anthropology, given to it in 1866, and it flourished to such an
extent, attracting so many papers and such large audiences, that it was
finally constituted into a distinct Section, to which the letter H was
assigned, and which had its first session at the memorable meeting at
Montreal, exactly ten years ago, under the fitting and auspicious
presidency of Dr. E. B. Tylor.
The history of the gradual recognition of Anthropology as a distinct
subject by this Association is an epitome of the history of its gradual
growth, and the gradual recognition of its position among other sciences
in the world at large, a process still in operation and still far from
complete. Although the word Anthropology had certainly existed, but used
in a different sense, it was not till well into the middle of the
present century that it, or any other word, had been thought of to
designate collectively the scattered fragments of various kinds of
knowledge bearing upon the natural history of man, which were beginning
to be collected from so many diverse sources. Indeed, as I have once
before upon a similar occasion remarked, one of the great difficulties
with regard to making Anthropology a special subject of study, and
devoting a special organisation to its promotion, is the multifarious
nature of the knowledge comprehended under the title. This very
ambition, which endeavours to include such an extensive range of
subjects, ramifying in all directions, illustrating and receiving light
from so many other sciences, appears often to overleap itself, and give
a looseness and indefiniteness to the aims of the individual or the
institution proposing to cultivate it. The old term Ethnology, or the
study of peoples or races, has a limited and definite meaning. It treats
of the resemblances and modifications of the different groups of the
human species in their relations to each other, but Anthropology, as now
understood, has a far wider scope. It treats of mankind as a whole. It
investigates its origin and his relations to the rest of the universe.
It invokes the aid of the sciences of zoology, comparative anatomy, and
physiology, in its attempts to estimate the distinctions and
resemblances between man and his nearest allies, and in fixing his place
in the scale of living beings. In endeavouring to investigate the origin
and antiquity of man, geology must lend its assistance to determine the
comparative ages of the strata in which the evidences of his existence
are found, and researches into his early history soon trench upon
totally different branches of knowledge. In tracing the progress of the
race from its most primitive condition, the characteristics of its
physical structure and relations with the lower animals are soon left
behind, and it is upon evidence of a kind peculiar to the human species,
and by which man is so pre-eminently distinguished from all other living
beings, that our conclusions mainly rest. The study of the works of our
earliest known forefathers--“prehistoric archæology” as it is commonly
called--is now almost a science by itself. It investigates the origin of
all human culture, endeavours to trace to their common beginning the
sources of our arts, customs, and history. The difficulty is, what to
include and where to stop; as, though the term prehistoric may roughly
indicate an artificial line between the province of the anthropologist
and that which more legitimately belongs to the archæologist, the
antiquary, and the historian, it is perfectly evident that the studies
of the one pass insensibly into those of the others. Knowledge of the
origin and development of particular existing customs throws immense
light upon their real nature and importance; and conversely, it is often
only from a profound acquaintance with the present or comparatively
modern manifestations of culture that we are able to interpret the
slight indications afforded us by the scanty remains of primitive
civilisation.
It is considerations such as these that have caused the gradual
introduction of the term Anthropology as a substitute for Ethnology,
which I have traced in the history of this Association, and which is
seen in other organisations for the cultivation of our science.
The first general association for the study of man in this country was
founded in 1843, under the name of the “Ethnological Society” (three
years, therefore, before the Ethnological sub-Section of Section D of
this Association). It did excellent work for many years under that
title, but partly from personal considerations, and partly from a desire
to undertake a wider and somewhat different field of research, another
and in some senses a rival society, which adopted the name of
“Anthropological,” was founded in 1863. For some years these existed
side by side, each representing in its most active supporters different
schools of the science. This arrangement naturally involved a waste of
strength, and it was felt that the interests of the subject would be
promoted by an amalgamation of the two societies. Many difficulties,
chiefly, as is usual in such cases, of a personal nature, had to be
overcome, one of the principal being the selection of a name for the
united society. It was generally felt that “Anthropological” would be
most appropriate, but the members of the old Ethnological Society could
not bring themselves absolutely to sink the fact of their priority of
existence, and all that they had done for science for so many years, by
merging their society into that of their younger and active rivals; so
after much discussion a compromise was effected, and the new
organisation which arose from the coalescence of the two societies
adopted the rather cumbrous title of _Anthropological Institute of Great
Britain and Ireland_. This was in 1871, and since that period the
Society, as it is to all intents and purposes both in structure and
function, has pursued a peaceful and useful course of existence, holding
meetings at stated periods throughout the session, at which papers are
read, and subjects of interest to anthropologists exhibited and
discussed. It has also published a quarterly journal, which has been the
principal means in this country of communicating new information upon
such subjects. The Institute has for twenty-three years performed this
duty in a business-like and unostentatious manner, the only remarkable
circumstance connected with its history being the singular want of
interest taken by the outside world in its proceedings, considering
their intrinsic importance to society, especially in an empire like
ours, which more than any other affords a field for the study of man,
under almost every aspect of diversity of race, climate, and culture. At
the present time it numbers only 305 ordinary members, whose
subscriptions afford barely sufficient means to maintain the library and
journal in a state of efficiency. The kindred Geographical and
Zoological Societies have respectively 3775 and 2985 fellows, so far
greater is the interest taken in the surface of the earth itself, and in
the animals which dwell upon it, than in its human inhabitants!
Societies similar in their object to that the history of which I have
just sketched have sprung up, and are now in a more or less flourishing
condition, in every civilised country of the world. But confining our
retrospect to our own country, we may take a glance at what has been
done in recent years to promote the organised study of Anthropology
otherwise than by means of this Association (to which I shall refer
again later) or the Society of which I have just spoken.
One of the most potent means of registering facts, and making them
available for future study and reference, is to be found in actual
collections of tangible objects. To very considerable branches of
anthropological science this method of fixing the evidence upon which
our knowledge of the subject is based is particularly applicable. These
branches are mainly two, very distinct from each other, and each
representing one of the principal sides in which Anthropology presents
itself.
I. Collections illustrating the physical structure of man, and its
variations in the different races.
II. Collections showing his characteristic customs and methods of
living, his arts, arms, and costumes, as developed under different
circumstances and also modified by different racial conditions.
It is very rarely that these two are combined in one general
arrangement, and they are almost always studied apart, the
characteristics of mind, the general education and special training
which are required for the successful cultivation of either being rarely
combined in a single individual; and yet the complete history of any
race of mankind, especially with regard to its relation to other races,
must be based upon a knowledge both of its physical and psychical
characteristics, and customs, habits, language, and tradition largely
help, when anatomical characters fail to separate and define.
The anthropological museums of this country, as well as elsewhere, are
all of recent growth, and they are making progress everywhere with
steadily accelerating speed. This cannot be better illustrated than in
the place where we are at the present time. Many of those who are now in
this room can remember when the materials for the study of either branch
of the subject in Oxford were absolutely nonexistent. I can myself
recall the time when the site of the handsome building which now houses
the scientific treasures of the University was a bare field. All who
know the modern history of Oxford must be aware that it was mainly owing
to the enthusiastic zeal and steady perseverance in the cause of
scientific education of one who is happily still among us, the veteran
Regius Professor of Medicine, Sir Henry Acland, that that building was
erected. The possession of a well-selected and representative collection
illustrating the anatomical characters of the human species is chiefly
owing to the energetic labours of Professor Rolleston, one of the
brightest and noblest of Oxford’s sons, a man of whom I cannot speak
without feelings of the strongest affection and most profound regret for
his untimely loss to the University and the world.
The collection illustrating the arts and customs of primitive people the
University owes to the ingenuity and munificence of General Pitt-Rivers,
who not only provided the material on which it is based, but also the
original and unique scheme of arrangement, which adds so greatly to its
value as a means of education, and is so admirably calculated to awaken
an interest in the subject, even in the minds of the most superficial
visitor. In speaking thus of the method of displaying the Pitt-Rivers
collection, I must not be supposed to imply any disparagement of others
arranged on different plans. Provided there is a definite and consistent
arrangement of some sort, it is well that there should be a diversity in
the treatment of different collections, and for such a vast and
exhaustive collection as that under the care of Sir Wollaston Franks, at
the British Museum, the geographical system which has been adopted is
certainly the best. In it every specimen of whatever nature at once
finds a place, in which it can at any time be discovered and recognised.
In referring to our great national collection, I cannot refrain from
saying that there seemed till lately to be only one element wanting to
make it all that could be desired, and that was space, not only for the
proper preservation and exhibition of what it already contains, but also
for its inevitable future expansion. The provision in this respect was
totally inadequate to do justice to the importance of the subject.
Happily this consideration will be no longer a bar to the development of
the collection. The provident action of the authorities of the museum,
aided by the liberality of the Duke of Bedford, and the wisdom of Her
Majesty’s Government, has secured for many years to come the necessary
room for the expansion of the grandest of our national institutions.
More modern even than museums has been the introduction of any
systematic teaching of Anthropology into this country. This is certainly
most remarkable, considering that there is no nation to which the
subject is of such great importance. Its importance to those who have to
rule--and there are few of us now who are not called upon to bear our
share of the responsibilities of government--can scarcely be
overestimated in an empire like this, the population of which, as I have
just said, is composed of examples of almost every diversity under which
the human body and mind can manifest itself. The physical
characteristics of race, so strongly marked in many cases, are probably
always associated with equally or more diverse characteristics of temper
and intellect. In fact, even when the physical divergences are weakly
shown, as in the different races which contribute to make up the home
portion of the Empire, the mental and moral characteristics are still
most strongly marked. As the wise physician will not only study the
particular kind of disease under which his patient is suffering before
administering the approved remedies for such disease, but will also take
into careful account the peculiar idiosyncrasy and inherited tendencies
of the individual, which so greatly modify both the course of the
disease and the action of remedies, so it is absolutely necessary for
the statesman who would govern successfully not to look upon human
nature in the abstract and endeavour to apply universal rules, but to
consider the special moral, intellectual, and social capabilities,
wants, and aspirations of each particular race with which he has to
deal. A form of government under which one race would live happily and
prosperously may to another be the cause of unendurable misery. All
these questions then should be carefully studied by those who have any
share in the government of people belonging to races alien to
themselves. A knowledge of their special characters and relations to one
another has a more practical object than the mere satisfaction of
scientific curiosity; it is a knowledge upon which the happiness and
prosperity or the reverse of millions of our fellow-creatures may
depend. The ignorance often shown upon these subjects, even in so select
an assembly as the House of Commons, would be ludicrous if it were not
liable to lead to disastrous results.
Now let us consider what, amid all the complex, diverse, and costly
machinery of education in this country, is being done to satisfy the
demands for such knowledge. We may say at once, as regards all
institutions for primary and secondary education, absolutely nothing.
The inhabitants of the various regions of our own earth are treated with
no more consideration and interest in all such institutions than if they
lived on the moon or the planets. We must turn straight to the higher
intellectual centres in the hope of finding any anthropological
teaching. Here, at Oxford, if anywhere, we may expect to find it, and
here, first among the British Universities, have we seen, since the year
1883, among the list of the subjects taught the word “Anthropology,” but
the teacher, though one of the most learned of men in the subject the
country has produced, still only bears the modest title of “Reader.” A
professorship of Anthropology does not exist at present in the British
Isles, and even here the subject, though recognised as a “special,”
offers little field for distinction in the examinations for degrees, and
has therefore never been taken up in a thorough manner by students. Dr.
Tylor’s lectures must, however, have done much to have spread an
intelligent interest in some branches of Anthropology, and have proved
a valuable complement to the Pitt-Rivers collection, as have also the
courses which have been given by Mr. Henry Balfour upon the arts of
mankind and their evolution, one of which I am glad to see is announced
among the advantages offered to the University Extension students at
present with us. Physical Anthropology has also been taken up by
Professor A. Thomson, who, I understand, gives instructive lectures upon
it, open to the members of his class of human anatomy. At the opposite
end almost of the subject must be mentioned the extension and
organisation of the Ashmolean Museum under the care of Mr. Arthur Evans,
which has a bearing upon some branches of Anthropology, and the
foundation of the Indian Institute under the auspices of Sir Monier
Monier-Williams, which must give an impetus to the study of the
characteristics of the races of our great Empire in the East. Last, but
by no means least in its bearing upon the origin, divisions, and
diffusion of races, is the world-famous linguistic work of Professor Max
Müller and Professor Sayce, both of whom have presided over this Section
at former meetings of the Association.
Of the sister University I wrote thus in 1884: “In Cambridge there are
many hopeful signs. The recently appointed Professor of Anatomy, Dr.
Macalister, is known to have paid much attention to Anatomical
Anthropology, and has already intimated that he proposes to give
instruction in it during the summer term. An Ethnological and
Archæological Museum is also in progress of formation, which, if not
destined to rival that of Oxford, already contains many objects of great
value, and a guarantee of its good preservation and arrangement may be
looked for in the appointment of Baron Anatole von Hügel as its first
curator.”
Ten years have passed, and it is satisfactory to know that the teaching
of Anthropology has not only been fairly established, but the subject
has also found a place in the scheme of University examination. The
learned Professor of Human Anatomy continues to take a wide view of his
functions, giving a course during the Easter term on the methods of
Physical Anthropology and also museum demonstrations on craniometry and
osteometry, by the aid of a greatly increased and continually augmenting
collection of specimens. Those students who take anatomy as their
subject for the second part of the Natural Science Tripos have both
paper work and practical examination in Anthropology, each man having a
skull placed in his hands, of which he is expected to make a complete
diagnostic description. For the first part of the tripos each candidate
has one or more questions on the broad general principles of the
subject. Professor Macalister informs me that he has always at least six
men who go through a very thorough practical course with their own
hands. There has also lately been established a course of lectures on
the Natural History of the Races of Man, delivered during the Michaelmas
and Lent terms by Dr. Hickson, of Downing College, and Baron von Hügel
gives a course of museum demonstrations on the weapons, ornaments, and
other objects in the Ethnological Museum, which is open to all students,
and of which many take advantage.
In London, owing to the chaotic condition of all forms of higher
instruction, which has been brought so prominently into notice by the
universal demand for a teaching University (an aspiration which the
labours of the late Gresham Commission certainly seem to have brought
nearer to realisation than ever appeared possible before), all
systematic anthropological teaching has been entirely neglected. The
great collections to which I have already alluded, that of arts and
customs at the British Museum, and that of osteological specimens at the
Royal College of Surgeons, have by their steady augmentation done
valuable service in preserving a vast quantity of material for future
investigation and instruction, and students have at present all
reasonable facilities for pursuing their own researches in them.
Lectures have never formed any part of the official programme of the
British Museum, but at the College of Surgeons it is otherwise, and
though the contents of the collections are specially indicated as the
subject on which they should be delivered, for the last ten years at
least, Anthropology, notwithstanding the magnificent material at hand
for its illustration, has had no place in the annual syllabus. It is
also entirely ignored in the examination scheme of the University of
London, an institution which prides itself as being on a level with
modern educational requirements; and the managers of the new Imperial
Institute, casting about in all directions for some worthy object to
occupy their energies and their spacious buildings, do not appear to
have taken into serious consideration the value to the world and the
appropriateness to their original design of a great central school of
Anthropology, from which might emanate a full and satisfying knowledge
of the characteristics of all the various races of which the Empire is
composed.
In Scotland the recent Universities Commission has recognised Physical
Anthropology as a branch of human anatomy in their scheme for graduation
in pure science, the examination on this subject embracing a knowledge
of race characters as found in the skull and other parts of the
skeleton, in the skin, eyes, hair, features, and the external
configuration of the body generally; the methods of anthropometrical
measurement, both of the living body and the skeleton; the possible
influence of use and of external surroundings in producing modifications
in the physical characters of man, and an acquaintance with the “types”
of mankind and the structural relations of man to the higher mammals.
These regulations came into operation in the University of Edinburgh in
1892, and in accordance with them Professor Sir William Turner delivers
a special course of twenty-five lectures on Physical Anthropology, and
in addition ten practical demonstrations on osteometry. The museum under
his charge has greatly increased of late in number and value of the
specimens. But “Human Anatomy, including Anthropology,” being only one
of a series of nine subjects in any three or more of which a final
science examination on a higher standard has to be passed, there is not
at present any considerable number of students who take it up, and the
other Scotch Universities have not yet thought it necessary to establish
distinct courses of Physical Anthropology, although it is becoming more
and more a regular part of the anatomical teaching to advanced students.