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.

    7/24 (page 5)
    pology. We also tiiid Nasso, in the ZeitscJirift fiir Anthropologic^ 1825, proposing to make two divisions under the titles 2diysiologicai and psychological anthropology. More than forty yciirs, ago we find him making the following remarks, whicli illustrate what was the meaning of anthropology to his mind at that time. “ The evolution and origin of language cannot be neglected by the anthropologist. How did the variations in the human species arise] The history of human nature from the earliest period to the present time presents questions which anthropology must endeavour to answer, or at least to elucidate. Has the human race degenerated or im]3roved 1 ... . Neither is ijliysiological anthropology an appendix to 2)sychology, nor the latter an appendix to the former. The relations of psychical to physiological life, and vice versd, belong neither to physiology nor psy¬ chology, but form an integral part of anthropology.” The (Germans possess a great advantage over English authors, inasmuch as they may, without subjecting themselves to the animad¬ versions of hypercritics, select expressive terms from the vernacular tongue. They liave thus for ethnography, Yolksheschreihung, folks- description; for ethnology, Volkerkuncle^ folks-knowledge; and for anthroj)ology, Menschenkeritniss^ i.e. man-knowledge, constituting, in a restricted sense, the science of man considered individually in all his aspects, physical, intellectual, and moral j and the science of mankind when viewed collectively. They look therefore upon ethnograjdiy and ethnology as subdivisions of anthropology. I am quite willing to admit that ‘‘folks-description” is as good a term as “ ethnography.” Folks-knoivledge'^ is also no doubt quite equal to ethnology in scientific exactness, although Prichard, tlie father of English ethnology, attached a different meaning to that word; but “folks-knowledge” is certainly not so ex2:)ressive as the term comparative anthropology, the suitability of which is becoming more appreciated every day. It has been interesting to watch the discussion which has been going on during the past year respecting tlie definition of the words anthropolog}^ and ethnology. A remarkable feature of tliis contro¬ versy in our own country is the curious forgetfulness on the joaid of some of the combatants, of the fact that certain words are doomed to extinction, while others, by an inherent law of “ selection”, live and l)ecome generally accepted. The use of the word anthropology, and the development of a gi-eat science under that name, is not tlie work of a few individuals, but is a j)ai’t of the intellectual develojiment of Europe. The British Association has ignored tliis fact, and from other quarters we have received credit which we do not deseiwe. Some words, like some existing species of plants, animals, and even men, appear doomed to become extinct. In Cleniiany I learn that the word ethnology has ceased to be used. Dr. Carl Vogt writes me ill a letter dated August 28, 1865, “Ethnology embraces a very secondary'and confined branch of anthropology; for the aim of the latter science is to study and know man in all his ])hases, and not merely as to the branches and peojiles, into which the human race