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.

    9/24 (page 7)
    knowledge (of course wdthin the limits of human understanding) for gradually establishing practical universal principles. If I am right in this, anthropology will not beat ethnology, but, like a hopeful child, will embrace and take care of its worthy mother.” But I need not go out of our own country to prove that ethnology is merely a department of anthropology; and, not to dwell further on such a topic, 1 will conclude this portion of my subject by commend¬ ing tlie following remarks* by Professor Huxley to the notice of the Ethnological Society and the British Association :— “Ethnology, as thus defined, is a branch of anthropology, the great science which unravels the complexities of human structure; traces out the relation of man to other animals ; studies all that is especially human in the mode in which man’s complex functions are performed; and searches after the conditions which have determined his presence in the world.” No one can deplore more than myself the position which has been taken by our ethnological brethren with regard to our admission to the British Association. It is quite impossible for us to see the logic of, or the reason for, the position they have there assumed with regard to our science. The only clue which, I believe, ethnologists have ever published as to their motives for opposing us is to be found in the columns of a recently published periodical,t in which we find these words ; “ If the new section is to bear the name of an¬ thropology, its government must necessarily devolve on the Anthro¬ pological Society, which far outnumbers the Ethnological. If the name ethnology is preserved, there is at least an additional chance that the minority in the amalgamated body will retain some moderate jx)ii:ion of the influence due to their intrinsic character.” If this jealousy of oiu* influence is the true cause for the opposition oftered to us by ethnologists, time has been wasted on verbal distinc¬ tions. We are glad, however, to know what the real cause is. If the logic of the above extract leads us to the true reason for the oppo¬ sition of ethnologists, we are willing to give them credit for acting in an intelligible manner, although we may not be able to admire such a spirit in men of science. As long as men are influenced by such petty jealousy as that dis¬ played in tlie extract I have quoted, it is not likely that they will be amenable to reason. We shall be glad to see wliether they will dis¬ claim such motives, and that in a practical manner, by joining wfith us to obtiiin a special section for the science of man in the Britisli Association. Had they told us before that they feared a loss of influ¬ ence if our name were used for the new section, we should liave been ready to reassure them on that point. At Binningliam, I officially declared that it was the thing we wanted —a special section for tlie science of man ; and that we were prepared to make the name entirely a secondary consideration. An alliance, however, had been entered into between the ethnologists and a section of the geographers, and we were opposed on all points. Exception * “ Fortnightly Review”, June 15th, 1865. t ‘'Ethnological Journal”, September 1865, p. 145. V