HUMAN HISTORY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1069, 5 September 1930, Page 14

HUMAN HISTORY

Ur. Elliot Smith's Study

THE FASCINATING science, or humanity—which you will —of anthropology has been an tin- ; conscionably long time in getting over I its growing pains. Its first faint stirrings were manifest something like four centuries ago, but they attracted little attention, and civilised man generally was much too credulous about some things beyond his own orbit, much too incredulous about others, I and, in any case, so concerned with j other, and fast-widening, branches of j human knowledge, to give much heed | 1o its significance, for a very long j time. Not until the nineteenth cen- ! tury did archaeology, which is prehis- j toiic anthropology, develop into a j science, and ethnology, or cultural an- j thropology, is barely 70 years of age L gs a scientific study. The greatest stimulus to what is j conveniently termed physical anthro- | pology was given by the researches j and conclusions of Charles Darwin. | whose views have been misunderstood so often, largely because they were j misinterpreted by people who were ; prejudiced by what Professor G. Elliot Smith calls the "crushing domination of ancient authority.” Darwin’s work opened the way for an understanding of man’s real status in the I world. The controversy over Darwin- j ism led eventually to a keener and j clearer scrutiny of principles and methods. As the dust of that conflict ! settled down, scientific inquiry Into j other aspects of anthropology, espec- ! ially ethnology, briskened and broad- i ened. This demanded a great deal of j systematic work by two classes of investigators—the field workers, who j gathered a great mass of data about different races, and the study-workers, who sifted and co-ordinated that data , and traced, or endeavoured to trace, definite principles of custom and coil- j duct. But a great deal of the earlier i work in this direction has had to he | revised. A good proportion of the j older data was obtained from missionaries, the reliability of whose information varied according to their prejudices and the facility, or otherwise, with which they spoke the languages of the people among whom they worked. It should be noted, though, that the field work of some of the older missionaries has stood tile test of later investigations very well indeed, and that to-day some missionaries are among the most reliable of ethnologists. Again, a large proportion of the earlier data came from travellers who had to conduct their inquiries through interpreters and whose information was scrappy. False interpretations of some data led to omissions in the prosecution of reip certain d l -eetions. Gradually, though, the method of field research in anthropology was improved immensely, not only by more systematic work by men whose occupations gave them opportunities in this direction, but also by the introduction of a number of inquirers specially trained for the purpose. The resulting increase in more reliable information has necessitated not only a revision of much of the work of earlier arm-chair anthropologists, but also an increase in the number of such workers. Incidentally, it has been demonstrated that whereas a good field-worker may become a good study-worker, a man who has spent years In the study is not likely to become a good investigator in the field, unless he has managed to keep himself free of preconceptions and generalisations, and unless he alw-ays fits theories to facts, not facts to theories moreover, the greater accumulation of reliable data and the emergence of factors that were only imperfectly recognised before have “necessitated a greater amount of specialism among the sifters and co-ordinators.

It is necessary to emphasise these points, because they hear on the question of authority in the__arguments befween different “schools” of armchair ethnologists, and also Jiecause they help to explain why ethnology and pre-liistory have not been correlated yet. Something has been done of late years toward bridging the gap between ethnology and prehistory, and one of the most brilliant efforts in this direction is that which Dr G. Elliot Smith. Professor of Anatomy in the University of London, has made in his recently-issued hook, “Human History,” a copy of which we have received from the publisher. Jonathan Cape, London. It is an attempt to Interpret the true character of primitive man and the critical phases of human history which have led to the creation of civilisation. The continuity of culture is insisted upon. “Human History” is a sizable book, compressing into about 500 pages an outline of pre-history, a study of human culture as tar as the diffusion of the Greek idea, and a documented statement of the natural state of man’s innocence. It is a book that cannot be reviewed adequately within the space that a newspaper can spare to It. There is much in it that the present writer is not disposed to accept, and it must be noted that Dr Elliot Smith ic a very ardent advocate of the theory of diffusion of culture, and is especially insistent on the theory—he would call it a fact that civilisation was an Egyptian inveni ion. Still, the book is fairly described as brilliant, for a great deal of it is undeniably sound, and the rest Is stimulating, it is a book that is definitely a forward step in anthropo logy, for even the parts of it which are least acceptable to adherents of other “schools” should, by arousing further discussion, make for progress in a field of knowledge that is much more valuable than is realised generally. It could be wished, though, that the bibliography appended to it had been longer, that the proportion or secondary authorities in it had been smaller, and the proportion of firs’ hand studies of primitive peoples listed had been corresponding!'greater. The index, too, is rather inadequate. Incidentally, a certain New Zealand writer who argued that Egyptian culture came into the Pacific by way of Central America should note that, while Dr Elliot Smith contends that the "most obtrusive factor in the cus toms and beliefs of the Maya civilisaHon is unquestionably Indian, he argues that that factor reached Central America by way of the Pacific. A. h. C. j