Anniversary address delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt.

  • Hunt, James, 1833-1869.
Date:
1866
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Anniversary address delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    5/24 (page 3)
    another term for his physical history. The term “ human palaeontology” was formerly and is now used to denote this branch of our science; but although sufficiently explicit, it is not well suited to supplement the titles of the other three. I propose, therefore, to take the root of the word archaiology, and to include under the term “ archaic anthropo¬ logy” all subjects which illustrate man’s past physical history. Histo¬ rical anthropology Avill then be limited to man’s psychological history. Skulls, worked stones, tumuli, architecture, and all tangible things will be included in the former; mythology, history, creeds, supersti¬ tions, in the latter. Every writer on the antiquity of man has occa¬ sion to speak in some way of what has been called the archsoological evidence. Thus an author, whose loss we all deplore, the late eminent Dr. Hugh Falconer, observes, “ Geology has never disdained to draw upon any department of hiunaii knowledge what could throw light on the subjects which it investigates. Cuvier, in the Discours PrUimi- naire^ exhausted the records and traditions of every ancient people in search of arguments to support the opinion that the advent of man upon the earth dates from a comparatively late epoch. At the pre¬ sent time tlie whole aspect of the subject is transformed. The science is now intimately connected with archaiological ethnology in searching for evidence of the hands of man in the oldest quaternary fluviatile gi-avels of Europc.” '‘‘ The expression, “ Archseological Ethnology”, is, to say the least, a most infelicitous one. In the first place, it is not a question in any way connected with ethnology according to any definition wdiich I have ever heard given to that word; and in the second, there is cer- tiiinly no necessity for two “logos” terminations. To use the author’s own words, the search is for “ evidence of the works of man” and is not in any way connected with the cpiestion of race. I therefore beg to suggest that for the future it would be advisable (until a more suit- aide classification or expression is proposed) to use the term “aeciiatc anthropology” instead of the most indefinite word “ archa3ology.” l\'e shall then have :— 1. Archaic anthropology, or the past history of man, from his phy¬ sical remains and works. 2. Historical anthropology, or the past history of mankind, as de¬ duced from mythology, creeds, superstitions, language, traditions, etc. 3. Descriptive anthropology, or the description of man and man¬ kind. 4. Comparative anthropolog}”, or the comparison of different men and different races of men with one another in the first place, and a comparison of man with the lower animals in the second. The (piestions then arise; do tliese subdivisions all go to make up one science which has a centre within itself] Can any of these divisions be taken awav and a veritable science vet remain 1 Do V V these divisions include the whole science of man ? The first two treat of man’s past histoiy, and all must admit we ought to know all that can be known on this point in c»i’der to form a science of the present. But it may fairly be asked is there any ne- * “Journal of the Geological Society”, No. Ixxxiv, p. 383.