Anniversary address, delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt.
- James Hunt
- Date:
- 1866
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Anniversary address, delivered before the Anthropological Society of London, January 3rd, 1866 / by James Hunt. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
6/24 page 4
![cessity to divide archaic from historical anthropology ? It appears to me advisable that we should have a physical historical anthropolog}', and a psychological historical anthropology. If we call the former archaic anthropology', and the latter historical anthropology% we shall be simply following out the separation which for a long time has sub- sisted between archasology and history. The word archaeology' has been used in such a variety of senses, and also in such an extended sense as to be made to include eveiything old, and some things new. Church architecture and corpoi'ation seals now afford imich discussion to the archaeologist. The other day I heard it annoimced that the study of the postage staraj)s of different nations was an interesting branch of archaeology ! In using the term archaic anthropology we must guard against giving it such a vague meaning as archaeology has now acquired. Wo must also endeavour to di-aw a pretty clear division between what is to be resjDectively called archaic and historical anthropology. All forms of palaeography and ancient aii; should belong to historical anthropology'-. A cromlech would belong to ai'chaic anthropology', biit if inscriptions be found on it, that part will belong to historical an- thropology : and thus the one will be the handmaid of the other. Archaic anthropology will help to give us the history of ancient hu- manity' ; historical anthropology brings us into closer communion with them, and both will combine to enable xis to b\iild up a science of man in the past and the present. I have heard it remarked during the past y'car, that the tenns descriptive anthropology and comparative anthropology are defective, inasmuch as we cannot compare \intil we have described. '^I'o this objection, I reply, that wo may describe without comparing. De- scrijitive anthrojjology' is, like geography', no science in itself, because it only' describes. Eveiy traveller who describes the people with Avhom he comes in contact, whether conscious of the fixct or not, is a descriptive anthropologist, but not necessarily' a comparative anthro- 2)ologi.st. Homer, Herodotus, Pausanias, Strabo, Diodonis Siculus were rather descrijDtive anthropologists than comjjarative anthrojjolo- gists. Perhajis the first com])arative anthroi)ologist w'as TaciHis, and he was also a descriptive anthropologist. It is not, however, neces- saiy that the comparative anthroj^ologist should also bo a descriptive anthropologist, although it may be adA'isable that a man should learn to describe before he begins to compare. A man might be a veiy good comparative anthrojDologist on the coiTect obsei'\'ation of his brother, the descriptive anthropologist. A man may be a veiy good archaic anthropologist, without knowing any'thing of ancient inscrij-)- tions, art, myths, or traditions, and i>ice versd. Each bi'anch can be defined with sufficient exactness, but cannot in practice be sej^arated if we want to establish a veritable science of man. Attempts have frequently been made to divide the science of an- thropology into branches. Steffens, a distinguished anthrojjologist, who luiblished a work on the subject in 1822,'‘ jwoposed making flueo divisions of the science of anthro2)ology : 1. Geoloc{ical anthro- * “ Antbroiiologie”, Breslau, 1822, 2 vols.](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b22342151_0008.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
