PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS TO THE SECTION OF ANTHROPOLOGY[43]

It is not usual for the President of a Section of this Association to 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.

For the following account of what is being done to further the knowledge of our subject in the sister isle I am indebted to Professor D. J. Cunningham. The only place in Ireland where anthropological work is done is Trinity College. For many years those in charge of the museum have been collecting skulls, and they were fortunate in obtaining the greater part of Sir William Wilde’s collection. To these great additions have been recently made, principally in the form of Irish crania from different districts. All the anthropological specimens are lodged in one large room, which is also used as an anthropometric laboratory. Though there has never been any systematic teaching of Anthropology in Trinity College, Dr. C. R. Browne (Professor Cunningham’s able assistant), who takes charge of the laboratory, attends for two hours on three days a week, and gives demonstrations in anthropological methods to any students who are interested in the subject. The laboratory was opened in June 1891, the instruments being provided by a grant from the Royal Irish Academy, and about 500 individuals have already been measured, the greater number of them students of the College. This is, however, only part of the work carried out by the laboratory. Every year the instruments are taken to some selected district in Ireland, and a systematic study of the inhabitants is made. The Aran Islands, and also the islands of Inishbofin and Inishshark, have been already worked out, and this year excursions are organised to Kerry, to a district in Wicklow, and to another in the west of Ireland. The Academy makes yearly grants to the Committee for carrying on this work, the results of which have been published in admirable memoirs by Professor A. C. Haddon and Dr. C. R. Browne. The Science and Art Museum in Dublin, under the direction of Dr. V. Ball, contains a small collection, arranged with a view to general instruction, showing by means of skulls and casts the physical characteristics of the different races of man, those of each race being explained by a short printed label, and its range shown on a map.

Though the development of anthropological science has thus not been greatly advanced, in this country at least, by means of endowments, or by aid of the State, or, till very recently, by our great scholastic institutions, but has been mainly left to the unorganised efforts of amateurs of the subject, its progress in recent years has been undeniably great. I will give an instance of the strides that have been made in one of its most important branches.

Physical or Anatomical Anthropology, or the study of the modifications of the human body under its various aspects, the modifications dependent upon sex and age, the modifications dependent upon race, and those dependent upon individual variability, studied not many years ago in a vague and loose manner, has gradually submitted to a rigorous and, therefore, strictly scientific method of treatment. The generalities which were formerly used to express the differences that were recognised between the various subjects compared with each other have been replaced by terms conveyed in almost mathematical precision. No one acquainted with the history of the development of this branch of Anthropology can fail to recognise how much it was accelerated by the genius of Broca, and the school which he established in France, although all cultivated nations are now vying with each other in the practice of exactitude in anthropological research, and the time seems rapidly approaching when a common agreement will be arrived at, by which all the observations which may be made, under whatever diverse circumstances, and by whatever different individuals, will be available for comparison one with another.

This branch of our science has received the name of “Anthropometry.” Although, as the name implies, measurement is one of its principal features, it includes such other methods of comparison as can be reduced to a definite standard, or to which definite tests can be applied, such as the colour of the hair, eyes, and complexion, the form of the ear and nose. The great desiderata that have been sought for, and gradually attained, in measuring either the skeleton or the living person have been two in number: 1. Exact definition of the points between which the measurements should be taken. 2. Exact methods and instruments of measurement. In both these cases the object looked for has been not only that the measurements taken by the same observer at different times and under different circumstances should coincide, but also that those taken by different observers should be comparable. These requirements seem so simple and natural at first sight that the majority of persons whom I am addressing will wonder that I should allude to them. Only those who are seriously occupied, or perhaps I should rather say, only those who were seriously occupied a few years ago with the endeavour to solve these problems can have any idea of their difficulty. The amount of time and labour that has been spent upon them is enormous, but the result has, I think, been quite commensurate with it.

We have attained at last to methods of measurement and standards of comparison which, in the hands of persons of ordinary intelligence, and with a moderate amount of training, will give data which may be absolutely depended upon. From these we hope to be able to formulate accurate information as to the physical conformation of all the groups into which mankind is divided, and so gradually to arrive at a natural classification of those groups, and a knowledge of their affinities one to another.

But the exact methods of modern Anthropometry are not only important on account of the aid they give in studying the race characteristics of man. As has so often happened when scientific observation has been primarily carried out for its own sake, it ultimately leads to practical applications undreamt of by its earlier cultivators. The application of Anthropometry not to the comparison of races, but to elucidate various social problems--as the laws of growth, of heredity, of comparative capacities of individuals within a community, and the effects of different kinds of education and occupation, as worked out first by Quetelet in Belgium, and subsequently by Francis Galton, Roberts, and others in this country, and its still more concrete application as an aid in administering justice by methods perfected by Bertillon in France, are striking illustrations of the practical utility of labours originally undertaken under the influence of devotion to science pure and simple.

The importance of being able to determine the identity of an individual under whatever circumstances of disguise he may be presented for examination has, of course, long been apparent to all who have had anything to do with the administration of the criminal law, and rough and ready methods of recognition, depending mainly upon the more or less acute faculty of perception and recollection of differences and resemblances, possessed by the persons upon whom the duty of identification has devolved, have long been in operation. The general conformation, height, form of features, and colour of complexion, hair, and eyes, have also been noted. Much additional assistance has been obtained by the registration of definite physical characteristics, the results either of natural conformation, or of injury, such as mutilations, tattoo-marks, and scars, inflicted by accident or design. The application of one of the most important scientific discoveries of the age, photography, was eagerly seized upon as a remedy for the difficulties hitherto met with in tracing personal identity, and enormous numbers of photographs were taken of persons the peculiarities of whose career led them to fall into the hands of the police, and who were likely to be wanted again on some future occasion. No doubt much help has been derived from this source, but also much embarrassment. Even among photographic portraits of one’s own personal friends, taken under most favourable circumstances, and with no intention of deception, we cannot often help exclaiming how unlike they are to the person represented. With portraits of criminals, the varying expression of the face, changes in the mode of wearing the hair and beard, differences of costume, the effects of a long lapse of time, years perhaps passed in degradation and misery, may make such alterations that recognition becomes a matter at least of uncertainty. That photographs are extremely valuable as aids to identification, when their true position in the process is recognised, cannot be doubted, but as a primary method they have been found to be quite inapplicable, owing partly to the causes just indicated, but mainly to the difficulty, if not impossibility, of classifying them. The enormous expenditure of time and trouble that must be consumed in making the comparison between any suspected person and the various portraits of the stock which accumulates in prison bureaus may be judged of from the fact that, in Paris alone, upwards of 100,000 such portraits of persons interesting to the police have been taken in a period of ten years.

The primary desideratum in a system of identification is a ready means of classifying the data upon which it is based. To accomplish this is the aim of the Bertillon system. Exact measurements are taken between certain well-known and fixed points of the bony framework of the body, which are known not to change under different conditions of life. The length and breadth of the head, the length of the middle finger, the length of the foot, and the length of the forearm, are considered the best, though others are added for greater certainty, as the height, span of arms, length of ear, colour of eyes, etc. All these particulars of every individual examined are recorded upon a card, and by dividing each measurement into three classes, long, medium, and short, and by classifying the various combinations thus obtained, the whole mass of cards, kept arranged in drawers in the central bureau, is divided up into groups, each containing a comparatively small number, and therefore quite easily dealt with. When the card of a new prisoner is brought in, a few minutes suffice to eliminate the necessity of comparison with any but one small batch, which presents the special combination. Then photographs and other means of recognition, as distinctive marks and form of features, are brought into play, and identification becomes a matter of certainty. On the other hand, if the combination of measurements upon a new card does not coincide with any in the classed collection in the bureau, it is known with absolute certainty that the individual being dealt with has never been measured before.

One of the most striking results of the introduction of this system into France has been that, since it has been brought fully into operation, a large proportion of old offenders, knowing that concealment is hopeless, admit their identity at once, and save a world of trouble and expense to the police by ceasing to endeavour to conceal themselves under false names.

Various representations upon this subject have been addressed to the Home Secretary of our own Government during the last few years, and among others one from the Council of this Association, which originated in a resolution of this Section, adopted by the General Committee at the meeting at Edinburgh in 1892, to this effect:

“That the Council be requested to draw the attention of Her Majesty’s Government to the Anthropometric Method for the measurement of criminals, which is successfully in operation in France, Austria, and other continental countries, and which has been found effective in the identification of habitual criminals, and consequently the prevention and repression of crime.”

In consequence of these representations a Committee was appointed on 21st October 1893 by Mr. Asquith, consisting of Mr. C. E. Troup, of the Home Office, Major Arthur Griffiths, Inspector of Prisons, and Mr. Melville Leslie Macnaghten, Chief Constable in the Metropolitan Police Force, with Mr. H. B. Simpson, of the Home Office, as Secretary, “to inquire (_a_) into the method of registering and identifying habitual criminals now in use in England; (_b_) into the ‘Anthropometric’ system of classified registration and identification in use in France and other countries; (_c_) into the suggested system of identification by means of a record of finger marks; to report whether the anthropometric system or the finger-mark system can with advantage be adopted in England either in substitution for or to supplement the existing methods; and, if so, what arrangements should be adopted for putting them into practice, and what rules should be made under Section 8 of the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, for the photographing and measuring of prisoners.”

The Report of this Committee, with minutes of evidence and appendices, was issued as a Parliamentary Blue-book in March last, and not only contains a lucid and concise description of the methods of identification already in use in this country, but also most striking testimony from impartial but well-qualified persons to the value of a more scientific mode of dealing with the subject. No pains seem to have been spared to obtain, both by personal observation and by the examination of competent witnesses, a thorough knowledge of the advantages of the Bertillon system as practised in France, and the result has been the recommendation of that system, with certain modifications, for adoption in this country, with the addition of the remarkably simple, ingenious, and certain method of personal identification first used in India by Sir William Herschel, but fully elaborated in this country by Mr. Francis Galton--that called the “finger-mark system,” about which I shall have a few more words to say presently.

With the concluding words of the Committee’s Report I most fully concur: “We may confidently anticipate that, if fairly tried, it will show very satisfactory results within a few years in the metropolis; but the success of its application in the country generally will depend on the voluntary co-operation of the independent county and borough police forces. This, we feel sure, will not be withheld. When the principles of the system are understood and its usefulness appreciated, we believe it will not only save much time and labour to the police in the performance of an important duty, but will give them material assistance in tracing and detecting the antecedents of the guilty, and will afford, so far as its scope extends, an absolute safeguard to the innocent.”

It is very satisfactory to be able to add that in the House of Commons on 26th June, in answer to a question from Colonel Howard Vincent, the Home Secretary announced that the recommendations of the Committee have been adopted; and that, in order to facilitate research into the judicial antecedents of international criminals, the registers of measurements would be kept on the same plan as that adopted with such success in France, and also in other continental countries.

I have just mentioned the “finger-mark system,” and of all the various developments of Anthropology in recent times none appears to me more interesting than the work done by Mr. Galton upon this subject; for though, as indicated above, he is not quite the first who has looked into the question or shown its practical application in personal identification, he has carried his work upon it far beyond that of any of his predecessors, both in its practical application and into regions of speculation unthought of by any one else. Simple and insignificant as in the eyes of all the world are the little ridges and furrows which mark the skin of the under-surface of our fingers, existing in every man, woman, and child born into the world, they have been practically unnoticed by every one until Mr. Galton has shown, by a detailed and persevering study of their peculiarities, that they are full of significance, and amply repay the pains and time spent upon their study. It is not to be supposed that all the knowledge that may be obtained from a minute examination of them is yet by any means exhausted, but they have already given valuable data for the study of such subjects as variation unaffected by natural or any other known form of selection, and the difficult problems of heredity, in addition to their being one of the most valuable means hitherto discovered of fixing personal identity.

As an example of the importance of some ready method to prove identity, apart from its application to the detection, punishment, and prevention of crime, to which I have already referred, I may recall to your recollection that remarkable trial which agitated the length and breadth of the land rather more than twenty years ago; a trial which occupied so many months of the precious time of our most eminent judges and counsel, and cost the country, as well as several innocent persons--I am afraid to say how many--thousands of pounds, all upon an issue which might have been settled in two minutes if Roger Tichborne, before starting on his voyage, had but taken the trouble to imprint his thumb upon a piece of blackened paper. It is wonderful to me, on reading again the reports of the trial, to see how comparatively little attention was paid by counsel, judge, or jury, to the extremely different physical characteristics of the two persons claimed to be identical, but which were so strongly marked that they ought to have disposed of the claim, without any hesitation, at the very opening of the case. It was not until the 102nd day of the first trial that the attention of the jury was pointedly called to the fact that it was known that Sir Roger Tichborne had been tattooed on the left arm with a cross, anchor, and a heart, and that the Claimant exhibited no such marks. When this was clearly brought out and proved, the case broke down at once. The second trial for perjury occupied the court 188 days, the Lord Chief-Justice’s charge alone lasting eight days. The issues were, however, more complex than in the first trial, as it was not only necessary to prove that the Claimant was not Tichborne, but also to show that he was some one else. I feel convinced that at the present time the greater confidence that is reposed in the methods of Anthropometry or close observance of physical characters, and in the persistence of such characters through life, would have greatly simplified the whole case; and I would strongly recommend all who have nothing about their lives they think it expedient to conceal to place themselves under the hands of Mr. Galton, or one of his now numerous disciples, and get an accurate and unimpeachable register of all those characteristics which will make loss of identity at any future period a sheer impossibility.

Partly with this object in view, the Association has, for several years past, during each of its meetings, opened, under the superintendence of Dr. Garson, an Anthropometric Laboratory, on the plan of the admirable institution of the same name which has been carried on in the South Kensington Museum since the beginning of the year 1888, under the direction and at the sole cost of Mr. Francis Galton, in which up to the present time more than 7000 complete sets of measurements have been made and recorded. The results obtained at the British Association meetings have been published in the Annual Reports of the Association, and though on a smaller scale than Mr. Galton’s, the operations of the laboratory have been most useful in diffusing a knowledge of the value of anthropometric work, and of the methods by which it is carried on.

For many years an “Anthropometric” Committee of the Association, in which the late Dr. W. Farr, Mr. F. Galton, Mr. C. Roberts, Dr. Beddoe, Sir Rawson Rawson, and others, took an active part, was engaged in collecting statistical information relating to the physical characters, including stature, weight, chest-girth, colour of eyes and hair, strength of arms, etc., of the inhabitants of the British Isles; and their reports, illustrated by maps and diagrams, were published in the annual volume issued by the Association. This Committee terminated its labours in 1883, although, as was fully acknowledged in the concluding report, the subject was by no means completely exhausted.

A great and important work which the Association has now in hand, in some sense a continuation of that of the Anthropometric Committee, though with a more extended scope of operation, is the organisation of a complete ethnographical survey of the United Kingdom based upon scientific principles. In this work the Association has the co-operation of the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Folk-lore Society, the Dialect Society, and the Anthropological Institute. Representatives of these different bodies have been formed into a Committee, of which Mr. E. W. Brabrook is now chairman. It is proposed to record in a systematic and uniform character, for certain typical villages and the neighbouring districts (1), the Physical Types of the Inhabitants, (2) their current Traditions and Beliefs, (3) Peculiarities of Dialect, (4) Monumental and other Remains of Ancient Culture, and (5) Historical Evidence as to Continuity of Race. The numerous Corresponding Societies of the Association scattered over various parts of the country have been invited to co-operate, and the greater number of them have cordially responded, and special local committees have been formed in many places to carry out the work.

The result of a preliminary inquiry as to the places in the United Kingdom which appeared especially to deserve ethnographic study, mainly on account of the stationary nature of the population for many generations back, was given in the first Report of the Committee presented at the Nottingham meeting of the Association last year, in which it was shown that in the British Isles there are more than 250 places which, in the opinion of competent authorities, would be suitable for ethnographic survey, and in which, notwithstanding the rapid changes which have taken place during the last fifty years in all parts of the country, much valuable material remains for the Committee to work upon. Without doubt, as interest in the subject is aroused, this number will be greatly increased.

A most important step in securing the essential condition that the information obtained should be of the nature really required for the purpose, and that the records of different observers should be as far as possible of equal value and comparable one with another, has been the compilation of a very elaborate and carefully prepared schedule of questions and directions for distribution among those who have signified their willingness to assist, and as a guarantee that the answers obtained to the questions in the schedules will be utilised to the fullest extent, certain members of the Committee, specially qualified for each branch of the work, have undertaken to examine and digest the reports when received.

It may be remarked in passing that the Anthropological Society of Paris has within the past year formed a Commission of its members to collect, in a systematic manner, the scattered data which, when united and digested, shall form “une anthropologie véritablement nationale de la France,” and has issued a circular with schedules of the required observations. These are, however, at present limited to the physical characters of the population.

Among the many services rendered to the science of Anthropology by the British Association, not the least has been the aid it has afforded in the publication of that most useful little manual entitled _Notes and Queries on Anthropology_, of which the first edition was brought out exactly twenty years ago (1874), under the supervision and partly at the expense of General Pitt-Rivers. Since that time the subject has made such great advances that a second edition, brought up to the requirements of the present time, was urgently called for. A Committee of the British Association, appointed to consider the report upon the best means of doing this, recommended that the work should be placed in the hands of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. This recommendation was approved by the Association, and grants amounting to £70 were made to assist in defraying the cost of publication. The Council of the Anthropological Institute appointed a Committee of its members to undertake the revision of the different subjects, with Dr. J. G. Garson and Mr. C. H. Read as editors respectively of the two parts into which it is divided. The work was published at the end of the year 1892, and is invaluable to the traveller or investigator in pointing out the most important subjects of inquiry, and in directing the observations he may have the means of making into a methodical and systematic channel.

Besides those I have already mentioned, the Association has aided many other anthropological investigations by the appointment of Committees to carry them out, and in some cases by the more substantial method of giving grants from its funds, and by defraying the cost of publication of the results in its journal. Among these I may specially mention the series of very valuable Reports upon the Physical Characters, Languages, and Industrial and Social Condition of the North-Western Tribes of the Dominion of Canada, drawn up by Mr. Horatio Hale, Dr. F. Boas, and others, the importance of which has been recognised by the Canadian Government in the form of a grant in aid of the expenses.

Another very interesting investigation into the Habits, Customs, Physical Characteristics, and Religion of the Natives of Northern India, initiated by Mr. H. H. Risley, and carried on under his supervision by the Indian Government, though it has received little more than moral support from the Association, may be mentioned here on account of the illustration it affords of the value of exact anthropometric methods in distinguishing groups of men. Although a practised eye can frequently tell at a glance the tribe or caste of a man brought before him for the first time, the special characters upon which the opinion is based have not hitherto been reduced to any definite and easily comparable method of description. In Mr. Risley’s examination, the nose, for instance (which I have always held to be one of the most important of features for classificatory purposes), instead of being vaguely described as broad or narrow, is accurately measured, and the proportion of the greatest width to the length (from above downwards), or the “nasal index,” as it is termed (though it must not be confounded with the nasal index as defined by Broca upon the skull), gives a figure by which the main elements of the composition of this feature in any individual may be accurately described. The average or mean nasal indices of a large number of individuals of any race, tribe, or caste offer means of comparison which bring out most interesting results. By this character alone the Dravidian tribes of India are easily separated from the Aryan. “Even more striking,” as Mr. Risley remarks, “is the curiously close correspondence between the gradations of racial type indicated by the nasal index and certain of the social data ascertained by independent inquiry. If we take a series of castes in Bengal, Behar, or the North-Western Provinces, and arrange them in the order of the average nasal index, so that the caste with the finest nose shall be at the top, and that with the coarsest at the bottom of the list, it will be found that this order substantially corresponds with the accepted order of social precedence. The casteless tribes--Kols, Korwas, Mundas, and the like--who have not yet entered the Brahmanical system occupy the lowest place in both series. Then come the vermin-eating Musuhars, and the leather-dressing Chamárs. The fisher castes of Bauri, Bind, and Kewat are a trifle higher in the scale; the pastoral Goala, the cultivating Kurmi, and a group of cognate castes--from whose hands a Brahman may take water--follow in due order; and from them we pass to the trading Khatris, the landholding Bábhans, and the upper crust of Hindu society. Thus, it is scarcely a paradox to lay down as a law of the caste organisation in Eastern India that a man’s social status varies in inverse ratio to the width of his nose.” The results already obtained by this method of observation have been so important and interesting that it is greatly to be hoped that the inquiry may be extended throughout the remainder of our Indian Empire.

But for want of time I might here refer to the valuable work done in relation to the natives of the Andaman Islands, a race in many respects of most exceptional interest, first by Mr. E. H. Man, and more recently by Mr. M. V. Portman, and for the same reason can scarcely glance at the great progress that is being made in anthropological research in other countries than our own. The numerous workers on this subject in the United States of America are, with great assistance from the Government, very properly devoting themselves to exploring, collecting, and publishing, in a systematic and exhaustive manner, every fact that can still be discovered relating to the history, language, and characters of the aboriginal population of their own land. They have in this a clear duty set before them, and they are doing it in splendid style. I wish we could say that the same has been done with all the native populations in various parts of the world which have been, to use a current phrase, “disestablished and disendowed” by our own countrymen. We are, however, now, as I have shown, not altogether unmindful of what is our duty to posterity in this respect,--a duty, perhaps, more urgent than that of any other branch of scientific investigation, as it will not wait. It must be done, if ever, before the rapid spread of civilised man all over the world, one of the most remarkable characteristics of the age in which we live, has obliterated what still remains of the original customs, arts, and beliefs of primitive races; if, indeed, it has not succeeded--as it too often does--in obliterating the races themselves.