thority and to quote him.' "Anthropology is in fact a group of sciences. There is . . . physical anthropology. . . including anthropometry and craniology, and mainly based upon anatomy and physiology [somatology in other words]. There is comparative anthropology, which deals with the zoological position of mankind. There is prehistoric archæology, which . . . has to seek the aid of the geologist and the metallurgist. There is psychology, which comprehends the whole operations of [the] mental faculties. There is linguistics, which traces the history of human language. [I need not refer here to special philology, epigraphy, paleography, and phonetics.] There is folk-lore, which investigates man's traditions, customs, and beliefs [of course demonology and mythology]· There are ethnography, which describes the races of mankind and ethnology which differentiates between them, both closely connected with geographical science. There is sociology, which applies the learning accumulated in all the other branches of anthropology to man's relation to his fellows, and requires the cooperation of the statistician and the economist."

To define archeology, one may turn to the title-page of the first number of the American Journal of Archæology; we find this superscription directly followed by the words, "For the study of the Monuments of Antiquity and of the Middle Ages." The contrast is striking and instructive. Men who were accustomed to minute and painstaking effort directed with convergent force toward the elucidation of some one circumscribed field of study, toward the driving of the drill-point of research one millimeter deeper into the rock of the ancient unknown, men who had been thus for years delving and probing under the definite ægis of archeology, bounded by but not identified with philology and history-such men were hardly ready to sink the individuality of themselves and their science in this new, swelling, indiscriminate tide of anthropology.

On the other hand, the young, constructive, synthetic scholar says (again with Brabrook), "the grandeur and comprehensiveness

1 See address of E. W. Brabrook, Pres. Sec. Anthropology, Rep. Sixty-eighth Meeting Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1898, p. 999–1010, London, 1899; also in Smithsonian Report, 1898, p. 621 ff, 1899.

2 Vol. I., no. 1, Jan., 1885.

of the subject are among its attractions. The old saying, 'I am a man, and therefore I think nothing human to be foreign to me,' expresses the ground upon which the anthropological sciences claim from us a special attention." He feels hampered, harnessed,

and harassed in the fetters of one single digging, in the clutches of one single science. To hook out a fact and hang it on the line to dry, and then allow others to coördinate it with its fellows, seems old fogy and stupid when wide realms of research and comparison lie open; in these we may work not only with the spade, but with the plough, the harrow, the reaper, and the winnowing machine.

The cumbersomeness of a definition of anthropology such as that in the nut-shell given above has been felt, and Professor Putnam, in consonance with his own simplicity, prefers "Man and his Works." While easier to handle and less subject to scoffing from those who are not "-ologiolators," it is yet too comprehensive, and the adherents of the older smaller but respectable sciences may retort that we can do away with all other names by inventing one new one and using three only-making all knowledge and activities, natural and supernatural, come under Theology, Anthropology, and Pragmatology. The name is or is not an asset to anthropologists according to their constructive or dispersive point of view, but it was not calculated to win the affections of those whom it proposed to swallow up. For at the time when this capacious science arose, Archeology laid hold of the skirts of Literature; while distinct from the printed word, it yet was its handmaiden. The illustrating of Greek and Latin texts, the unearthing of the steps up which the Panathenaic Procession took its way, the study of that romantic procession itself in the marbles of the Parthenon; still more, the corroboration and strengthening of biblical positions through biblical and oriental substrata all this tended toward the recognition of archeology as an art to be wielded by artists, literary, dialectic, or homiletic.

Anthropology might well be a bugaboo to frighten such. At the very beginning arises the sublime Boucher de Perthes; hear him bring constructive reasoning and sound science into his arche

1 Cf. A. Thieullen, Hommage à Boucher de Perthes, Paris, 1904, pp. 21 ff.

ology: "La première chose à faire, avant la discussion théorique, écrivait-il, c'est d'en venir a une vérification matérielle. Malheureusement, c'est ce qu'on ne fait presque jamais, et l'on préfère écrire pendant huit jours pour démontrer qu'une chose ne peut pas être, que d'employer une heure à se convaincre qu'elle est. . . . Les hommes pratiques . . . en avaient peur, ils craignaient de se rendre complices de se qu'ils appelaient une hérésie."

Then we have that most upsetting of beasts, the Pithecanthropus erectus evolution and its train. Again hark the sound of criminal anthropology; listen to Topinard's invitation to the columns of the Revue d'Anthropologie: "Nous accueillerons avec plaisir dans les colonnes de cette Revue les communications . . . ayant trait, non à la science toute entière de la criminalité . . . mais à la partie . . . qui traite des types de criminels, si types il y a ; surtout lorsque seront mises en usages les méthodes descriptives et anthropométriques précises . . . les méthodes rigoureuses d'analyse et de synthèse que cette Revue préconise." This suggests association with the Bertillon system of measurements, whereby one may be literally hung up by the thumb; handwriting experts and all their successes and failures. Under the same broad double or rather hierarchical wings may be grouped the following unified subjects: A fiercely scientific article on the inoffensive pretzel ; 2 such a title as "Das Fehlergesetz und seine Verallgemeinerungen durch Fechner und Pearson in ihrer Tragweite fur Anthropologie";3 "Craniologie pathologique de monstre exencéphalien"; "Climat de l'époque quaternaire"; "A Mazahua catechism in TesteraAmerind hieroglyphics."

6

To offset all this, the anthropologists, accustomed to gamboling lamb-like among pastures with no wire fences, shy at the narrow critical work of the old school of archeologists. The ditty the American students used to sing about Dörpfeld, the greatest of

94 ff.

1 Cf. Revue d'Anthropologie, 1887, p. 690.

2Cf. M. Höfler, Bretzelgebäck, Archiv f. Anthropologie, n. f., III (XXXI), 2, pp.

3 Cf. Ranke and Greiner, Archiv f. Anthropologie, n. f., II (XXX), 1904, pp. 295 ff. M. Giraldès, Bull. Société d'Anthropologie de Paris, 2o ser., 7, 1872, p. 648.

5 Cf. G. de Mortillet, ibid., 1874, p. 391.

6 Cf. N. León, American Anthropologist, n. s., II, p. 722 ff., 1900.

classical archeologists, illustrates this. The tune of Jonah and the whale fitted well the line, "Dörpfeld and the Riegellöcher." This sobriquet came from the anxious care with which Dörpfeld bases his reconstructions of both archeology and monuments on boltholes, foot-marks, and other minutest details. So too the exhaustion of all the methods, the invocation of the whole "barbara celarent" quatrain to determine the exact polygonal requirements of the Greek chlamys, seem to some to resemble the travail preceding the birth of a mouse. They may say with some reason, "Why such Sturm und Drang to secure metriculous accuracy when you can't even spell your own name?" We find "archaiology" (Grieb's English-German Dictionary), "archæology," and "archeology"; we find the diphthong @ and the two letters separate, and vigorous defenders of idiosyncratic spellings.

The anthropologists perhaps may look upon the cut-and-dried methods and dry-as-dust results with some contempt and deplore the extent to which German pedagogism may go. They point with some humor to the little torso in the Acropolis museum to which a head was added after careful study of the appropriate measurements of each, but which later was rudely decapitated and provided with a second head; this proved its appropriateness by quite upsetting the previous measurements.

The scope then, the methods, and the results, were such that at the beginning, in this country at any rate, Archeology could say of Anthropology that it was a sort of composite photograph, an impressionistic congeries of everything and everybody, loose and scattered application. Anthropology could say of Archeology that it was shackled to tradition, literature, and Teutonism; that it piled up solid grains of sand with little care as to the form or constancy which the heap assumed. The gulf thus created had yet features that caused it to yawn further. There is a certain jealousy between Art and Science. Here we shift our ground and the distrust of Anthropology and Archeology, one for the other, is quite the inverse of what we have just heard.

Classical archeology is a science dealing largely with the fine arts; no one should attempt Greek criticism save him who understands the Greeks, and the Greeks were artists. Outside of epig

raphy and topography, classical archeologists concern themselves mostly with architecture and sculpture. The man who scans the Riegellöcher, no matter what else he forgets, ought never to forget that every discovery is a stone in a structure of which beauty is the inspiration beauty, expressed as well as the artist inspired by beauty could express it. Every thesis written on a pair of broken stones should point by synecdoche to a whole of beautiful completion, a sum total of line, form, and proportion Hellenic in magnificence, or should point by metonymy to a certain stage in the progress of the expression of the beautiful among the Greeks. The pride of the broader minded archeologist, especially now-a-days, is that in sculpture, painting, numismatics, gems, basilicas, cathedrals, what you please, the terminus ad quem and a quo is beauty and the expression of the ideas of beauty.

Enters Anthropology, claiming authority over all human activities, threatening to absorb the beautiful in comparative statements of ethnological religions and conceptions, to drag the Hermes of Praxiteles into the net of dolichocephaly and the Aphrodite of Melos into an anti-corset hygienic diatribe what wonder archeology balks! Even the pure archeology of the new world is slurred as ugly and grotesque; the canon of Polycleitus would flee to his Argive mountains at sight of a stela from Quiriguá, and the grapes that Zeuxis painted turn to sour wine at sight of a Southwestern sand picture.

Between the upper and nether millstones of classical archeology and ethnology, pure archeology in this country has but a limited region of activity. So much is unknown, enigmatic - "problematical", as Professor Holmes puts it that ethnology rather lets it slip, and the majority of scholars flock to the living tribes, avoiding a science whose end seems to be a description of itself and its definitions to be in terms of the defined. Not content with the chasm thus separating the sciences, the personal equation takes a hand. There is the eternal revolt of the young against the old, the Ibsens, the D'Indys, the Rodins, versus Shakespeare, Beethoven, and— shall we say - Jean Goujon? Nothing so fascinatingly compelling to conservatism as Hellenic study; nothing more repelling to the explorer than the everlasting harking back to the