I. Definition.—Ethnography embraces the descriptive details, and ethnology the rational exposition, of the human aggregates and organizations known as hordes, clans, tribes, and nations, especially in the earlier, the savage and barbarous, stages of their progress. Both belong to the general science of anthropology or the natural history of mankind, being related to it as parts to a whole. Ethnography and ethnology, indeed, run up into anthropology as anthropology does into zoology, and zoology into biology. No very sharp line can be drawn between these two sciences themselves, their differences being mainly those between the particular and the general, between the orderly collection of local facts, and the principles according to which they may be grouped and interpreted. Ethnographists deal with particular tribes, and with particular institutions and particular customs prevailing among the several peoples of the world, and especially among so-called savages. Ethnologists bring simultaneously under review superstitions, legends, customs, and institutions which, though scattered in distant regions of the earth, have some common basis or significance. Ethnography and ethnology run as easily one into another, as the two sections of general anthropology, viz., (1) anthro-pology proper, as expounded by anatomists and physiologists, who deal with the different races of man, their elements, modifications, and possible origin; and (2) demography, which, as constituted by the researches of Quetelet and his friends and disciples, as Farr, Galton, Guillard, and Bertillon, treats of the statistics of health and disease, of the physical, intellectual, physiological, and economical aspects of births, marriages, and mortality.

Ethnography, ethnology, and anthropology are interwoven with philology, jurisprudence, archaeology, geography, and the various branches of history. A fact may require to be investigated successively bylinguists, anatomists, and mathe-maticians, In current language ethnography and ethnology are often used indiscriminately, but if a distinction is to be made between them, an instinctive perception teaches us to speak of ethnographic facts and ethnological theories, of ethnographic literature and ethnological science,— ethnology being related to ethnography as the wine to the grape.

II. Division.—Just as the lines which separate ethno-logy, anthropology, and history one from another are vaguely traced, so are the boundaries of the several provinces of ethnology themselves indefinite. We are obliged, for the sake of convenience, to draw up classifica-tions, but the more rigorous we make them the more arti-ficial they become. "Nature," as Lamarck has said, " recognizes neither kingdoms, nor classes, nor orders, nor genera, nor sub-genera; nature recognizes nothing but individuals." The older sciences may be tabulated to a degree which the younger sciences cannot allow, and ethnology is one of the youngest of all,—its existence, even its name, not dating further back than the present genera-tion. Ethnologists are pioneers in a new field of inquiry,— squatters in the Far West of learning. Intent on opening the first paths through the dark forest of prehistoric times, on driving the first plough through these virgin prairies, they erect no structures which pretend to more than a provisional character. They throw up now a log cabin, and now a wooden shanty, leaving to their successors the work of building substantial houses of brick, and in the far future stately edifices of enduring marble.

At first sight it might appear convenient to divide ethnology into two great branches :—(1) historic ethnology, comprising researches into the origin, the filiation, the customs and institutions of wild and barbarian tribes still existing, or of whom we have authentic records; (2) pre-historic ethnology, comprising similar researches into the early condition of man, but founded necessarily on deduc-tions, and not on positive testimony. But the fitness and the simplicity of this division are more apparent than real. The two sections as thus indicated cannot be treated apart, because so few or incomplete are the vestiges of prehistoric man that they cannot furnish a basis for sound theories unless these remains are studied in the light of the know-ledge which we possess of tribes existing in the non-civilized state, and who thus form the connecting link between historic and prehistoric man. Being a part of natural his-tory, anthropology deals principally with the question of the several races, their anatomy, physiology, and pathology. It seeks to determine which are the permanent varieties, by the crania, by the facial features, by the stature and proportion of the body, by the miscroscopic structure of the hair, by the colour of the skin. It analyses the great problems of evolution. It assigns to food, to climate, to what the French call the milieu, and the Americans "the surroundings,"—the share which each has had in producing or fostering the variations of human types. Ethnography does not discuss anew the solutions presented by anthro-pology, but accepts them as generally true, and observes if they fit and work satisfactorily in its department. The task, thus limited in order to secure its better execution, is still a gigantic one. Human development branches out into a multitude of ramifications, which may be brought under the following heads :
1. Material Development.
2. Family Development.
3. Social Development.
4. Intellectual Development
5. Religious Development.
6. Moral Development.

III. Method.—Astronomy starts from the principle that the laws of mathematics and those of light and matter are universal,—that they are true not only on the earth but throughout the universe. Ethnology takes its stand on the assumption that the laws of intelligence have always been what they are, and have always operated as they do now, that man has progressed from the simple to the complex, from the particular to the general. This assump-tion does not interfere with the discussion which the anthropologists carry on respecting monogeny or polygeny, —that is to say, the common or multiplex origin of the different races which inhabit the earth, nor does it affirm that the progress has been always continuous and well-marked. It recognizes the fact that some races may have been stationary and some may even have retrograded. It postulates simply that mankind, whatever be its origin, is, or has become, a mass practically homogeneous, more uniform than diverse. The wide differences between civilized and uncivilized man are now admitted to be only differences in degree,—actual civilization being the adult age, and savagery the infancy of mankind. " The conditions and habits of existing savages," says Sir John Lub-bock, "resemble in many ways those of our own ancestors at a period now long gone by ; they illustrate the earlier mental stages through which the human race has passed." To the casual observer, savages seem to be, as to Dr Johnson, all alike, and in fact they are so in comparison with our-selves ; but to the close observer who compares savages with savages, they are easily distinguishable. Although contemporaries, they are separated by differences in cul-ture so great that it would seem the work of centuries for the more backward to attain the state already reached by the more advanced. Great, indeed, are the facilities which ethnology confers on the historian who may, for example, explain the condition of the Israelites under the Judges by that of the Maories of New Zealand, as they were almost within the present generation, or may compare the earliest Aryan races with the Malay-Indian populations of to-day. By its aid the philosopher may trace an institu-tion through all countries and in every period, accumulating illustrations of its progressive stages, and piecing them together in their natural sequence like the scattered bones of an extinct animal. Uncivilized countries are for us a standing exhibition of prehistoric matters, museums where we find duplicates of objects which were thought to be lost or which were forgotten ; each of them is a Pompeii, exhumed from beneath the rubbish of ages. To study wild tribes is, as it were, to discover in the forests of Central America an ancient city, not crumbling and desolate, but still inhabited by a race preserving the old Maya habits and manners. The laying bare of all these scientific riches gave the impulse to which we owe ethnology. It does not require much reflection to under-stand that the principle just developed is an instance of the great law of evolution. According to the naturalist of the modern school, evolution has transformed successively the animal genera; according to the anthropologist, it has transformed the races of man; and, according to the ethnologist, it has transformed human thought. It must be confessed that evolution has yet opponents who contend that history records, not progress, but degeneration from a state of inno-cence and bliss, from an age of gold or Saturnian cycle. This doctrine, borne out by the unanimous testimony of all tradition, was assumed at one time to be beyond dispute, and had nearly become an article of faith. But in recent times it has not remained unchallenged. In answer to its assailants, the theory of degeneration has, within this cen-tury, been reasserted with great ingenuity and vehemence by ultramontane writers, such as De Maistre and De Bonald, and in our own country it has been more recently defended by Whately with characteristic vigour. But an effective reply has been given by such writers as Lubbock and Tylor, especially the latter, who concludes an exhaustive discussion by these words, to which most ethnologists will subscribe :—

" We may fancy ourselves looking on civilization as in personal figure she traverses the world; we see her lingering or resting by the way, and often deviating into paths that bring her toiling back to where she had passed by long ago; but, direct or devious, her path lies forward ; and if now and then she tries a few backward steps, her walk soon falls into a helpless stumbling. It is not according to her nature ; her feet were not made to plant uncertain steps behind her ; for both in her forward view and in her onward gait she is of only human type."—Early Culture, ii.

To the facts and reasonings adduced by the natu-ralists Mr Herbert Spencer adds the weight of specu-lative argument :—" Each organism, "he says, " exhibited within a short space of time a series of changes which, when supposed to occupy a period indefinitely great, and to go on in various ways instead of one way, gives us a tolerably clear conception of organic evolution in general. The whole exhibits one grand scheme of progression." These words are the substance of the whole philosophy of evolution, which, sketched out by Maupertuis, Lamarck, and Goethe, reasserted and victoriously demonstrated by Darwin and Wallace, and taken up by Huxley, Virchow, Quatrefages, Broca, and Haeckel, now underlies all ethno-logical research.

In the view of its supporters, evolution has not only in past ages differentiated genera and species, but is at work to-day in transforming the actual types. Here may be the place to advert to the great law, of which Von Baer and Agassiz were the most thorough and successful exponents, namely, " that the development of the in-dividual is an epitome of that of the species." The human embryo, for example, passes rapidly through all the principal phases, in one or other of which whole series of inferior animals stay permanently, in such a manner that every new generation repeats in an abridged manner those that have gone before. Of the many corollaries which follow from this theory, the most important seems to be that, however much some groups of animals may differ from each other in structure and habits, they must have descended from the same parent form, if they are found to pass through similar embryonic stages. This is heredity. Ethnologists, again, have not been slow in borrowing this law from anatomists. The embryo going over the same organic form as the species, they argue that the child too must,repeat the intellectual developments of past mankind. Parents, and not only the observers among them, had already reversed the opinion of the philosophers that savages are children by saying that children are savages. The remarkable similarity between their ideas, language, habits, and character, though generally admitted, had been regarded merely as a curious accident; but coin-cidences of such vast magnitude are not to be considered as merely accidental. Everybody knows, and the fact is as important as it is obvious, how boys delight in romping, running, leaping, boating, swimming, and all out-door exercises, and how their favourite heroes are the lied Bover, Robin Hood in the forest green, Robinson Crusoe in the solitude of his island home, where he had to begin all anew.

Peculiar instances of the general law of inheritance have been call ad atavism. It occurs often that one individual is the exact countertype of his grandfather, or some more remote ancestor. By this law, still a very obscure one, ethnologists explain how men are occasionally met with who live in the midst of our civilization as mere savages. The passion manifested by many people for hunting and fishing as a sport, for a tramping roving life, the frequent falling or relapse of French settlers in Canada (the Bois brûlés) into Indian habits, are supposed to be manifestations of atavism. But our stiff and rigid civilization is averse to those old fashioned individuals, who roam about, living from hand to mouth ; the existing system of law can scarcely be brought to distinguish them from criminals. Moralists attribute to atavism a large number of offences which lawyers attribute to guilty dispositions. Now-a-days more than one Boadicea emerges into a brief celebrity upon being sentenced to hard labour in the house of correction ; more than one Cassivellaunus has been severely flogged and sent to penal servitude. Mr Dugdale, an industrious statistician of New York, has traced to its common ancestor a family, the Jukes, consisting of 1200 people, of which the majority are paupers, thieves, or prostitutes, in a greater or less degree, and who are computed to have cost the state in prison maintenance, almshouse relief, &c, something like ¿£260,000. The ancestor was a descendant of the early Dutch settlers, and lived much as backwoodsmen do now upon the Indian frontiers. He is described as a " hunter and fisherman, a hard drinker, jovial and companionable, averse to steady toil, working hard by spells and idling by turns, becoming blind in his old age, and his blindness has been entailed upon his children and grandchildren."

It is not, however, owing to atavism, but to the mere continuance of an old order of things, that so many of our ill-educated classes, shepherds, agricultural labourers, and even factory hands, are as little developed, and live a life as little intellectual as savages. Latent in our small hamlets and large cities there is more savagery than many reformers are aware of, and it needs but little experience to discover something of the old barbarity lurking still in minds and hearts under a thin veil of civilization.

Atavism is a word applied to persons ; survival, an expressive word for which we are indebted to Tylor, has a similar meaning, but is applied to things. Survivals are habits, ideas, or expressions which are senseless and per-fectly inexplicable by the light of our present modes of life and thought, but can be explained by reference to similar customs or prejudices which are still to be found among distant tribes, or which are mentioned by ancient writers. The word survival corresponds exactly to the Latin word sziperstition, meaning the remainder or residue of bygone agss. But as the use of the word superstition is practically restricted to matters pertaining to religion and magic, a more general word had to be coined. " Survivals," says Tylor, "are milestones on the way of culture." They are intellectual fossils. Just as spear-heads and frag-ments of ancient pottery are disinterred by the plough in the midst of our fields, so survivals may be picked out in our daily conversation, in our habits and manners, but it requires a trained intelligence to detect them. Their original meaning has been lost, and they have been modified and distorted to serve modern purposes. Survivals may be compared to those muscles or pieces of bone which are retained in the bodies of animals and even in the human frame, as relics of a former construction. But sooner or later they will fall to the ground. Nature closely husbands her means ; she may keep for a while forms that are apparently useless ; it seems that she has forgotten them, or that she intends to fall back on them in case of failure; but when the new type is firmly settled, everything that is not serviceable disappears.

The scientific exploration of caverns with a view to dis-covering the remains of ancient men and beasts, as Pengelly has described it in the case of the Kent Cave, may serve as a model to ethnographers. The explorers did not leave an inch of soil untouched; all the mound was dug out yard by yard, and carefully sifted ; nothing was taken up, nothing thrown away without good reason; the objects collected were labelled with care, and even the nature and the condition of the refuse recorded. So the main work of the ethno-grapher consists in scooping the historic or the prehistoric soil, in picking up everything that has lived, or that has been touched by living hands, and not rejecting as valueless anything aslong as he is not perfectly cognizant of its nature. Thus he finds precious things and valuable information wherethe ignorant sees but heaps of offal and scourings. And when he travels, especially in semi-civilized countries, there is no limit to the things he may look and inquire after; the less the people are civilized, the richer the harvest he may gather in. One investigator prefers to study the people themselves, another their institutions. But whatever be the study, the first rule will always be to observe the facts with unprejudiced eyes; to draw a deep line of demarcation between them and all mere conjectures. Besides, all explanations have to be called in question, even those which seem sensible and judicious ; the student is in duty bound to distrust every theory and interpretation, especially his own glosses and commentaries. Rushing to conclusions is a fault into which beginners are sure to fall. The unscientific mind resembles the child in many respects, and in none more than this ; it is impatient and cannot bear suspense. Ready acquiescence in the assertion of others is dangerous, and easy conviction in one's own ideas is the worst bane to science.

One single fact well observed, well authenticated, is a positive gain, and may turn out to be of the highest value in future studies. But a single fact proves too much or too little ; as long as it stands alone, nobody can know whether it demonstrates a general law, or only an exception, as we see by the controversies still held on the famous skull of Neanderthal. Laws are obtained by grouping analogous facts in series. In nature, as in history, a series may be termed the development of an idea. Therefore, when the ethnographer does not restrict himself to the simple description of a single subject, of a single locality, of a single custom, he will have to search for analogous facts, that he may give the reader a scale of comparison. For he would expose himself and his readers to gross errors if he were to conclude from a single trait to the whole institution, or from a single institution to the whole national organization. Such primi-tive populations as the Aleutians or the Todas it would be easy to represent as living either in a moral paradise or in a moral hell, according as one chose to regard only the attractive or only the repulsive side of their character. A fine ethnographical portrait, which is an abstract representa-tion, will be always difficult to draw. In the sketch of that collective individual, a nation, the features must be impressed with the many lines and furrows which the wear and tear of existence have left on the original. In describing an institution which is a collective fact, the numerous and contradictory feelings must be indicated which it stirred up in the many minds and hearts on which it acted, and which reacted on it. But masters only know how to blend light and shade—how with some few colours to express a multitude of things.

Ethnology, having entered on the scientific stage of development, requires to be treated as a science. The fields of anthropology and ethnology are no longer the tilting-yard for fancies against opinions, for hypotheses against guesses; they are now the place where facts well authenticated are stored up and gathered into orderly groups. Ethnology has become a science of observation, a branch of natural history. It was born the last of all sciences, not because it is the most difficult, but, on the contrary, be-cause, being easy enough, people have dealt with it too lightly. Everybody thought himself able to judge, and his sentences expressed his biases or dislikes. Now, ethno-logy requires of its adepts that they be as unprejudiced as mathematicians, that they discard all preconceived judg ments as much as do the chemists and physicists. Ethno-graphers must be exact observers and faithful recorders. Science and virtue alike begin and prosper by the same means—by sincerity and by effort.

IV. Material Development.—Any inquiry into the mate-rial progress of man bears upon a multitude of details. Briefly stated, the most important are Food, its nature and its preparation; Weapons, Tools, and Implements; Shelter and Clothing; Domestic and Public Fires; Barter and Trade.

Food.-—Man has been defined as a digestive tube. He is happily something else as soon as his most imperious physical wants are satisfied, but it must be confessed that, until the cravings of his hunger or thirst are allayed, he is little better than a ravenous brute. For the states-man and the economist there is scarcely any question of more gravity than that of subsistence, even in the face of our enormous accumulation of wealth, in spite of our gigantic means of communication. There are four great phases through which nations pass, or have passed,— hunting and fishing, sheep and cattle tending, agriculture, and industry ; and these are nothing else than a succession of improvements in the means of raising food. All the results of manifold culture converge towards a grand total, —more food for more men, better food for every man, and consequently lives longer and more numerous. A simple calculation shows how much modern industry increases the amount of disposable food. From the United States census, showing the extent of land occu-pied by the Redskins in 1825, it was calculated that the hunting tribes, although they raised some maize, required D75 square miles per head. At that rate, all Europe, including Russia, could feed two millions of Indians and no more; but, thanks to its agriculture and to its industry, it supports three hundred millions of inhabitants. It would be hazardous to estimate how many more Indians the North American prairies might feed, if those Indians had taken to bison breeding instead of bison hunting. According as the chief produce of the herd is to be milk or meat, the calculations would vary by large amounts. Nor ought the yield of our improved breeds to be taken as the measure. But, to proceed, it is reckoned that an area under wheat affords from ten to twelve times more human food than it would give under grass for cattle or sheep. That ratio, ten or twelve to one, may express in human lives the progress which was realized when husband-men succeeded to nomad communities. With the intro-duction of steam as our great mechanical agent, we are entering the period of large cities. Human anthills of one million souls and more exist already in many parts of the world ; they increase constantly both in absolute numbers and relatively to the population at large. It is already necessary that the supply of food to these immense agglomerations of " digestive tubes " be as regular as clockwork.

For the chief information we have on the subject of human food in prehistoric times, we are indebted to Pro-fessor Rütimeyer, who examined the fauna of the lake dwellings in Switzerland, and to Steenstrup and Thomsen, who dug up the shell mounds of Denmark. They have displayed in their researches an amount of science and sagacity which is an honour to our century.

The quality of food is calculated to exert a great in-fluence upon the temperament, the health, the vigour, and the intelligence of men. There is thus some truth in Buckle's statement that the history of the most civilized nations may be explained by the chemical constituents of their food; but until the action of aliments on bodily and intellectual organisms is better known, the discussion would be premature. Besides, the subject belongs to anthro-pology, and if ethnologists mooted it, they would trespass upon their neighbours' preserves. Were primitive men a set of cannibals 1 Plausible reasons may be given for and against such a view. As men can feed on men but excep-tionally, the question would be better discussed in the chapters relating to religious sacrifices and to the progress of morality and intelligence.

Weapons, Tools, and Implements.—Ethnology centres in this study, and by far the greatest number of ethnologists have made it the chief subject of their researches. They go everywhere, beating about all corners, looking for potsherds, bones, teeth, chirts, nephrites, flints, and every-where their search is more or less successful. Ex ungue leonem is their motto. As the tool, so the work and so the workman ; as the arrow-point, so the archer. And they are right. Man is a tool-using, or, as Franklin defined him, a tool-making animal. These weapons, these imple-ments were subservient to the tyrannic necessity of obtain-ing food. The better the weapons, the more regular the supply of nourishment, and as the food changed, the tools had to be changed. Wood, bones, and rough stones were first used, then polished stones, afterwards bronze, and lastly iron,—each marking a new era. Strong doubts, however, begin to be entertained in m. ny quarters about the separation in two periods each of the stone and of the metallurgic ages : it is objected, first, that polished stones were used as articles of luxury, or where flints could not be had, and, secondly, that the finding of bronze imple-ments much older than any of iron does not prove that bronze was invented before iron, because bronze keeps in a tolerable state of preservation when iron, which oxidizes readily, has long disappeared; and, moreover, it is asserted by technologists that iron or steel tools are indispensable in the fabrication of bronze. Be that as it may, every invention was more than a simple addition to the old stock; it was an advance in quality and variety as much as in quantity; it marked a new progress in intelligence. Tylor says—

"The ethnographer's business is to classify such details with a view to making out their distribution in geography and history, and the relations which exist among them. To the ethnographer, the bow and arrow is a species, the habit of flattening children's skulls is a species, the practice of reckoning numbers by ten is a species. The geographical distribution of these things, and their transmission from region to region, have to be studied as the naturalist studies the geography of his botanical and zoological species. Just as certain plants and animals are peculiar to certain districts, so it is with such instruments as the Australian boomerang, the Polynesian stick-and-groove for fire-making, the tiny bow and arrow used as a lancet or pídeme by tribes about the Isthmus of Panama ; and in like manner with many an art, myth, or custom, found isolated in a peculiar field. Just as the catalogue of all the species of plants and animals of a district represents its flora and fauna, so the list of all the items of the general life of a people represents that whole which we call its culture. And just as dis-tant regions so often produce vegetables and animals which are analagous, though by no means identical, so it is with the details of the civilization of their inhabitants. How good a working analogy there really is between the diffusion of plants and animals and the diffusion of civilization comes well into view when we notice how far the same causes have produced both at once. ID district after district, the same causes which have introduced the cultivated plants and domesticated animals of civilization have brought in with them a corresponding art and knowledge. The course of events which carried horses and wheat to America carried with them the use of the gun and the iron hatchet, while in return the old world received not only maize, potatoes, and turkeys, but the habit of smoking and the sailor's hammock."





House and Shelter.—Previous to the recent scientific movement to which we owe ethnology under its present form, architects had already divined and applied to their art ethnological principles. They had understood that the most superb temples and palaces, the most splendid monuments, when they have a national character, repro-duce on a large scale the modest abodes of the country-people. A greater care is bestowed on the construction of a princely hall, its materials are more costly, the proportions more stately ; but in most cases it is a poor man's cottage magnified. So a church may be but the enlargement of a sepulchre. If the homesteads of the earlier inhabitants were caves or some piled-up slabs, if they were tents or log cabins, the primitive physiognomy will be still detected in the disposition of the magnificent buildings, and even in the costly furniture. For one sees in the Egyptian temples that their columns were imitations of Nile reeds tied in a bundle, that their walls were an imitation of plaited mats. What is called the architectural style is the character of the nation and of the epoch expressed in wood, stone, or brick.

Fire.—After some discussion, it appears now to be the general belief that there has not been within historical times any race of men ignorant of fire. There is certainly a wide chasm between civilized and uncivilized men, but none so deep as would imply the absence of fire, the use of fire being the great practical distinction between man and brute. We have to avoid the double danger of supposing uncivilized tribes to be either too intelligent or too stupid. Indeed, if it had not been for fire, mankind could not possibly have become what it is. It is a theory amongst architects, to whose relations towards ethnology we have just adverted, that the first buildings of men, inhabitants of caves, holes, or trees, were not dwellings for themselves, but simple hearth-places protected by reed walls and some thatching against wind and rain. They believe that on this model of a prytaneum, or abode of the firegod, the abode of his priest, and then of the kings and the chiefs of noble families, were successively erected, and that it is only in later times that all families obtained a fire-place of their own.

We have spoken of tools and weapons ; their history and that of modern industry are inseparable from the history of fire. Everywhere the stone celts and arrows were alleged imitations of thunderbolts, and are still believed by many villagers to have been once hurled down from the skies. Fire is mixed up with whatever men had to tell about things of the earth, of heaven, or of hell. Fire lore is a science by itself.

Commerce and Industry.—Slaves have been, perhaps, the first commodity purchased by the pastoral from the hunting and warlike tribes. Lindenschmidt and Peschel have reacted against the current belief that the tools and implements of bronze and steel had been manufactured in the countries where they have been found. They note that commerce already existed in the earliest ages of which we have any notice, It must have been by barter that the cave dwellers of Perigord, in the reindeer period, obtained rock crystals, Atlantic shells, and the horns of the Polish saiga antelope. The Phoenicians, and their descendants the Carthaginians, were attracted to and retained in Spain by the quarrying of silver ore. Tin has promoted civilization even more than silver, for without tin bronze cannot be produced. The Celts may have had some skill in metal-lurgy, as they taught the Romans the art of tinning utensils, and were taught by them the fabrication of coins. Im-portant mines were worked in the Scilly Islands and in Cornwall. If Carthaginian or Phoenician vessels ever reached the west coast of France or entered the Channel, they must have been in quest of tin, and probably too of débouchés for their manufactured bronze. At all events there was intercourse between the northern countries and the Mediterranean by land. That such land traffic existed is proved by the early foundation and prosperity of Mar-seilles; moreover, the lumps of tin ore which have been found among the Swiss relics of the bronze age must have reached Helvetia by inland commerce. It was owing to the presence of tin that the Celts of Gaul and Britain were of far higher social development than the Teutons of the time of Caesar. The possession of an article of export so indispensable, and the fact that tin was in such great request in the age of bronze, was in itself the means of promoting civilization, for commerce at a very early period brought the Britons into contact with the Mediterranean nations, and especially with the Etruscans, the great bronze-smiths of antiquity. The inhabitants of the coast of the North Sea, and still more of the Baltic, pos-sessed an analogous property in amber. It is doubtless to this coveted substance that the numerous " finds " on the shores of the Baltic are due, where Greek and Roman coins, as well as bronze instruments, were brought, some by way of the Euxine and Pannonia, along the Danube, some along the Rhone and the Rhine, and even some few across the huge barrier of the Alps.

The obsidian blades which are occasionally met with in ancient graves to the east of the Mississippi must have reached by barter the places where they are now discovered. We must not imagine that the Redskins had no intercourse but that of murderous feuds. Merchant boats passed along the great rivers, and transit dues were taken by the chiefs. In South America, curare, the arrow poison, the preparation of which was understood only by a few hordes, formed a valuable article of commerce among the Indians of the Amazon, so that people living near the Napo were obliged to make canoe voyages of three months' duration in order to procure it. Even where bands of hawkers and pedlars did not wander through the country, goods, such as nephrit hatchets, salt, curious shells, colouring stuffs, were bartered between horde and horde ; and thus a system of intercourse might have extended throughout an entire quarter of the world. English wares, deposited at Mom-bas on the eastern side of South Africa, have been recog-nized at Mogador, on the west coast of Northern Africa. From these circumstances we assume that commerce has existed in remote ages and among most inhabitants of the world. And we must not lose sight of the fact that if we find trade and emporiums in one place, some corre-sponding industries and manufactures must exist elsewhere in connexion with them.

V. Family Development.—To say that of all institutions the family is the oldest and most sacred, that from it all social rights and duties are derived, like branches from the parent stem, would be considered a truism. Nothing looks more plausible than the universal traditions, appa-rently well founded on historical records, according to which the founder of the nation, the ancestor, as he is called, had sons, who founded families, which increasing at every generation, became so many tribes, which coalesced as time went on. Historians and moralists have not been slow to credit the poets whose idylls described in glorious colours these primitive families. It was the belief that, notwith-standing the expulsion of man from paradise, and the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, the progenies of our first parents led a gladsome life, scarcely less inno-cent than it was when lambs and lions frolicked together on the banks of the Gihon and the Pison. Directly after the deluge the so-called patriarchal family is thought to have arisen. Perhaps even then it was a little tainted with polygamy and some other minor defects, but on the whole, it was a model of virtue, worthy to be set as an example to a degenerate posterity. Modern re-search flatly contradicts this common-place romance, denies these self-evident propositions which have become historical axioms. Science is no longer of opinion that tribes and nations have been evolved from the family ; on the con-trary, it holds that the family has been evolved from tribes I and hordes. It is not denied that the first step in the path of material and moral progress began with the rear-ing of a family, and that family cares have been the most powerful agents of civilization, but it is denied that the family has existed in a perfect state from thè beginning. The family had to grow like every thing else. As we see it now, it is an institution of a comparatively recent date.

In the same manner the belief, conscious or unconscious, has prevailed in most minds that monogamy was the first law of marriage, and that polygamy and polyandry have been wilful departures from a known rule. The reverse appears now to be the fact. In a book which was published as far back as 1861 Professor Bachofen of Basel pro-pounded a theory, deduced from a careful study of classical literature, that true marriage, unknown to the hunting, the fishing, and the nomadic tribes, arose with the spreading of agriculture, the husbandman wedding the wife at the same time that he wedded the soil. Previous to " husbandry " in both senses of the word, pre-vious to any regulation in the matter, the females and the children, he contends, were the common property of all the males of the tribe. In some legends this state of things was symbolized by the spontaneous vegetation of the marshes, rushes and wild asparagus. But the woman, spoil of the victors, passed or knocked about from man to man, and even from tribe to tribe, yearned after a better regulated state of things. Under her influence, the rudiments of the family grew into shape. Paternity was an idea which did not and could not have a place in such societies. A child had a hundred fathers or none, but he had one mother ; he knew the breasts which had given him suck. In this state of human relations, descent was traced exclusively through mothers. The first kinship was between the offspring of a common female ancestor. To trace descent through the male is an idea of far later date. By this discovery (for it deserves to be ranked as a dis-covery) a flood of light was thrown on a whole region of the obscure past. It is assumed that under the influence of the then recent idea of motherhood diverse religions arose, all having as principle the worship of Mother Earth, Demeter. And starting from the supposition that religions have been always the expression of the deepest thought and the loftiest aspirations of their worshippers, that practice was the exact counterpart of philosophy, Professor Bachofen inferred that, the Divine Mother having been recognized as the fountain of existence and the source of all right, the human mother was likewise the fountain of authority ; and that in some places, and for a certain period at least, woman as such had exercised political power, and had enjoyed a certain degree of social supremacy,—a startling conclusion, which the stories and traditions respecting Oriental queens did not sufficiently justify.

In originating the theory of gynaeocracy so-called, the limit of valid deduction had been overstepped, but the great law of maternal filiation has proved sound, Mean-while, in his Essay on Primitive Marriage, M'Lennan had come to the same conclusions as the author of Mutterrecht, about the system of kinship through females only. He made the system clear, not by abstract and far-fetched considerations, or on scanty testimony transmitted by Herodotus, Hesiod, or Aeschylus, but by the unmis-takable instances which ethnography most abundantly supplies. It is now admitted as a fact that maternal kinship was anterior to the paternal, or, as Sir John Lubbock puts it, " children were not in the earliest times regarded as related equally to their father and their mother ; but the natural progress of ideas is, first, that a child is related to his tribe generally; secondly, to his mother, a&d not to his father; thirdly, to his father, and not to his mother; lastly, and lastly only, that he is related to both." M'Lennan had been led to formulate the principle by a oareful study of that old Roman legend, the Rape of the Sabines. He demonstrated that the legend was in accord-ance, not only v ith the practice still prevalent in many savage countries of capturing wives by violence, but with the sham fights and mock scuffles which, even in our days and in Europe, take place between the bridegroom's party, pretending to carry off the bride, and the bride's party, pretending to ward off the bridegroom's attack. He showed that the symbol implied something more than the mere law-lessness of savages, and proved the fact that at one time wives were systematically obtained by theft or force. And as real capture could not have been practiced by peaceful neighbours in the midst of the same community, it was necessary to infer that wives were captured from other tribes, whence the distinction between exogamous tribes, marrying outside the pale of their community, and endogamous tribes, marrying within it. He supposes that the origin of exogamy is to be connected with the practice in early times of female infanticide, which, rendering women scarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of women from without. To tribes surrounded with enemies, struggling against the difficulties of existence, sons were a source of strength, both for defence and in the quest for food; daughters a source of weakness,—they ate and did not hunt. They weakened their mothers when young, and when grown up were a temptation to surrounding tribes. Hence the cruel custom which made the primitive human hordes prey upon one another for wives.

Tylor, who has also called attention to exogamy, regards it as mainly due, not to infanticide, but to the beneficial effect of marrying out-and-out, and to the physiological evils of marrying in-and-in. This theory is favoured by estab-lished, maxims, breeding in-and-in being perhaps held by public opinion as more noxious to the human species than _professional breeders think it for animal stock. As an _exogamous tribe increased and enlarged its territory, it may have become endogamous for practical reasons. Sir John Lubbock suggests another motive. "Endogamy seems to have arisen from a feeling of race pride, and a disdaiu of surrounding tribes, which were either really or presumably in a lower condition." Sir Henry Maine is very suggestive:— " The barbarous Aryan is not generally monogamous, but exogamous. He has a most prodigious table of prohibited degrees. The Mussulman, however, is not only poly-gamous, but endogamous; his law permits comparatively near relatives to intermarry. The comparative liberty of intermarriage is a part of the secret of Mahometanism's suc-cess in India."

Lewis Morgan, an American who had studied by per-sonal intercourse the organization of the family among the Seneca Indians, into whose tribe he was adopted, says, in his Ancient Society, that exogamy and endogamy are not as antagonistic and contradictory to each other as they are supposed to be. According to him, the com-munity at large is often practically endogamous, while thfe gentes, or set of families, which constitute it are rigorously exogamous. The lineage is in most cases through descent in the female line, and the males are obliged.to marry into other gentes.

Family institutions are in themselves an interesting object of study, and they have besides a wide practical bearing, as they are everywhere inseparably connected with the rules of property and inheritance. They may be conveniently discussed under the following heads :—
Marriages communal and free to all members of the tribe— Hetserism or Promiscuity—"Woman Capture—Female Infanticide —Marriages communal, but restricted to certain sets of persons— Endogamy — Exogamy — Adelphogamy — Levirate — Polygamy— Polyandry—Marriages by Pairs—Monogamy—Courtships—Bridals —Marriage by trial—Nuptial customs—Divorce—Widowhood— Re-marriage—Birth Ceremonies—The Couvade (a custom which was held to be the quintessence of absurdity, until it was shown to be a symbol by which the father acknowledged the child, and especially the son, to be his)—Ceremonies observed at the giving of the name, at the cutting of the first tooth, and upon arrival at puberty or nubility—Old age and infirmities—Parents killed by their children through filial piety, or from poverty—Funeral rites, few of which, if any, can be explained unless they are looked at in the light of religious ceremonies.

VI. Social Development.—Sociology narrates how men became grouped in political communities, how they con-stituted authority and property, how they originated castes and guilds, and by degrees separated into high and low, rich and poor. Of all the fields in ethnology, none is at present cultivated with more care and intelligence than that which deals with the history of society, and none perhaps with a greater prospect of fruitful results.
Grouping in Hordes, Tribes, or Nations.—Man is a gregarious animal. Society develops intelligence, comfort, the sentiments of justice and equality, of fraternity, good-will, and cheerfulness to a degree which would have been unattainable in a severe and prolonged solitude. The first hordes were scattered over vast areas, and were each very small. It is probable that they were recruited not only from within by births, but from without by capture of women and children, and by the voluntary or forced accession of their neighbours to their ranks. We draw a distinction between the human horde, which we hold to be superior only in degree to a herd of brutes, and the tribe, in which we recognize the first buddings of culture. The love of the mother for the young is an impulse to in-telligence and devotion among all higher animals. The certainty of parturition at a period fixed for every species induces precaution and forethought. The rudiments of true humanity we conjecture therefore to have been the acknowledgment of motherhood by the tribe, and the first regular provision for the care of the expected infant. As it has been said already, the family had its origin in the gathering of children round their mother. These children became to one another brothers and sisters by the remembrance of the care they had enjoyed in common. They kept together; so did their children and their children's children; and the gens took shape and life.

Probably the original horde was by degrees remodelled into tribes by the gentes which had taken birth in it. The word gens, equivalent to clan, sept, or totem, being the best known of all, may be used in a general sense to denote all kindred institutions. The tribe became an organization of gentes. An Indian tribe, according to Lewis Morgan, is composed of several gentes, developed from two or more, all the members of which are inter-mingled by marriage, and all of whom speak the same dialect. To a stranger the tribe is visible, and not the gens. It is highly convenient for a tribe to contain at least two gentes, which, if they choose to intermarry, would find wives at their own door. A fundamental law of the gens prohibited marriage between gentiles, or members of the same gens. For most communities were deeply averse to consanguineous marriages, which they branded with the infamous name of incest, though some others held them to be highly commendable. The original rule was that all descendants by the same mother were to be regarded as brothers and sisters, and they were soon forbidden to con-tract matrimonial unions. As there was no relationship by the father's side, the patriarch Abraham could in all propriety take his sister, or rather his half-sister, as a wife. And such a tribe, consisting of two gentes only, intermarrying constantly, might be composed of first cousins only, and be strictly endogamous nevertheless.

Further rights and duties of the gentiles were the reci-procal obligations of help, defence, and redress of injuries against any one from without. They had the same religious rites, and a common burial place. The archaic gens inherited the property of its members, as they were taken away by death, and redistributed it every year, or at stated periods. All children of earth return by death to her bosom, and all the gentiles were brought to rest in a common burial place. The gens was primarily a great motherhood, and the gentiles, all of them, were supposed to be brothers and sisters, and to live in their mother's home.

As in the course of time the gentes increased, they segre-gated to a certain extent, but maintained their association for certain common objects; the enlarged association was called a phratria or brotherhood. Each of the four tribes of the Athenians was organized in three phratrias, each composed of thirty gentes. The Roman curia was the analogue of the Grecian and the Iroquois phratrias.

In the normal course of events the tribes increased and segregated as the gentes had formerly done. And " as the gentes had recoalesced in phratrias, so did the tribes reunite in confederacies. Where one Indian tribe had divided into several, and the subdivisions occupied inde-pendent but adjacent territories, the confederacy reinte-grated them in a higher organization, on the basis of the common gentes which they possessed, and of the affiliated dialects which they spoke. The confederacy had the gentes for its basis, and the mother language as the measure of its extent. Its formation required the highest skill. The Iroquois ascribed the origin of theirs to divine inspiration; they considered it to be the masterpiece of wisdom." To bring many tribes together, to conciliate the conflicting interests in a superior organization, and make it work, re-quires an intelligence much superior to that which is required for gaining victories in the battlefield. Therefore confederacies have been always rare achievements. The common course of events has been rather that tribes have become nations, not by peaceful and voluntary aggregation, but by the bloody work of war and conquest, by constant encroachments on the territory of neighbours, by killing part of them, and enslaving the rest.

Authority.—When not actually engaged in a war or in a hunting expedition, wild tribes are often without recog-nized chiefs. In case of need, in dangerous emergencies, natural superiority soon asserts itself, and the boldest, strongest, most intelligent, or most experienced steps forward as leader. With the children of nature authority is of a more transient and less definite character than with us. Their aggregations are, as a rule, very small. In order to understand the most ancient condition of human society, says Sir Henry Maine, all distances must be reduced, and we must look at mankind, so to speak, through the wrong end of the historical telescope. Many anthropologists are of opinion that civilization has increased the differences in the anatomy of man and woman, in the stature of giants and dwarfs. There is stronger evidence that it has in-creased intellectual differences. The oscillations on either side of the average line of learning and intellect are widest in our populous and complicated communities, where the talented are more talented, and the stupid more stupid than elsewhere. In small bodies politic, there is not the same necessity for strict discipline as in the large ones. And the larger they grow, totis paribus, the more despotic they become. History has shown it to be the case with all great, monarchies, which in times ancient and modern have been synonymous with despotisms. When conquering Rome overstepped the limits of the Italian territory, she ceased to be a republic, and despite the desperate efforts of her best citizens she became an empire. The larger the territory,, the greater are the inequalities between the inhabitants, and the greater the danger of despotism. To our eyes kingdoms like those of Dahomey, of Ashantee, or of Uganda, may not appear very large, but to negroes, whose minds are unable to grasp any thing very complex, they seem immense. In fact, some savage rulers believe themselves to be-real gods,— believe without a shadow of doubt that their ancestor created heaven and earth ; they are persuaded that the limits of the habitable world are not far beyond the boundaries of their petty dominions. We are expressly told by travellers that their subjects hold them in greater reverence than divinities. The innumerable variety of governments is perplexing to ethnologists, who find often the most hetero-geneous forms side by side, and see intelligent and courage-ous nations submit to a tyranny which would often appear intolerable to their neighbours. Forces are constantly in operation, of which some tend to increase the liberty of the-citizen, and some to increase the authority of government. If we are believers in the general principle that self-govern-ment is the best, then we shall be astonished to find how often it has been obtained by nations which we deem much-inferior to ourselves. So-called savages possess a degree of freedom and enjoy an absence of restraint which well may kindle the enthusiasm of the youthful readers of Fenimore Cooper, and provoke melancholy reflections in many people who feel over-governed, and ruled down, who complain that the price which we pay for the blessings of civilization is too high.

For the men who exercise power, it is dangerous not to have an eye open, if not to the general benefit, at least to the interest of some powerful class. This fact is often disregarded ; historians easily overlook the circumstance that a ruler, however violent, rash, and headstrong, is in most cases but the tool, conscious or unconscious, of a party. Because orders are given in his name alone, it is not remembered that in reality he acts not in his personal capacity, but as the general manager of a joint-stock company with numerous shareholders. If we revert to the historic origin of authority, it is highly probable that the-gens, to which is attributed the interior organization of the tribe, has been also the most efficacious constituent of political power. The most powerful gens taking the lead; of the other gentes, the head of that gens became easily the regular chief of the tribe. Such a government might as easily become republican as monarchical or oligarchic. To the Commoners of the English Parliament corresponds-the assembly of the people,—that is, of all the gentiles ; to the senate, or Lords, corresponds the council of the elders and chiefs of gentes. Either the council, or the assembly, or both together, entrusted the executive power to one pre-eminent official, who may have exercised at once the functions of priest, general, and chief justice,— for in early times the cumulation of offices was the rule, and the division of labour was the exception. In his interesting book, La Cité Antique, which depicts society under the posterior gentile organization, M. Fustel de-Coulanges represents the paterfamilias as being at once a. tiller of the soil, a warrior, a judge in his own household—invested with the power of life and death over his wife, his children, and his slaves,—a priest and an offerer of sacrifice, when officiating before his sacred hearth. The rex or basileus, acting on behalf of the whole city, was the representative paterfamilias, acting in the name and on behalf of all his brethren.

Property is an institution which stands second in importance to none. Property went on increasing in amount from the hunting and fishing period to the pastoral, and from the pastoral to the agricultural—not to stop there. Riches increased in proportion to the intelligence and to the amount of work done. As riches accumulated, so increased not only the greed but, what is an apparent con-tradiction, the need for them. The men in authority, the strong, took more than their share, the weak growing constantly weaker, the poorer becoming either paupers or slaves. When riches were made fairly abundant by agriculture, the pristine gens with maternal kinship had to give way to the gens with paternal kinship; for it was contrary to logic that the privileges of riches and power should be still bestowed by enslaved women, when the circumstances of family life established a sufficient certitude of paternity. Thus internal revolutions modified totally the character _of the gens in the course of time. It had begun by being feminine in character, it ended in being exclusively masculine. Originally property was held in common by all gentiles; by degrees its ownership became restricted to constantly diminishing circles of relations, and finally an _end was made of collective property ; the principle of private ownership obtained the victory, and reigned supreme as it does now.

And when, in the leading states, the principle of collective property which underlay the gens had lost its vital force, the gens fell or was overthrown and crumbled to dust. This mighty fabric, the most considerable perhaps of all human institutions, has broken down everywhere, but it has not been totally destroyed. Its debris lie broadcast over the earth, from Rajputana to Scotland and Ireland, and thence to America. In the still existing House or Village Communities in the East and West, as described by Sir Henry Maine, we see living remnants of that institution in which formerly all ideas of peace, industry, justice, and progress had centred. Once the gens was all, and it was believed that it would remain all to all time. At that period, the gens was a political and a religious no less than a family institution; each gens was a complete state in itself. Where the gentes absorbed all the members of the tribe, leaving nobody out of its pale, and giving a fair share to all, the institution was perfectly compatible with progress, at least for a long time. But it happened other-wise in many instances, and especially among the gentes which are the best known to us, those of Greece and Rome. There the gentes took advantage of the fact that they were the first organized body to arrogate all power, and most obstinately they kept it, making themselves a privileged oclass, ruling a mob of paupers, exiles, fugitives, runaway slaves, and their progeny the proletariate. Theoretically the gens might have endured for ever, if it had consented to take up outsiders. But collective bodies lack generosity, especially when they are powerful. The gentiles went on increasing the number of non-gentiles by their raids and wars, conquering and enslaving other free men, until the privileged ones were outnumbered, outwitted, and finally ousted from power by the multitude of the non-possessors. And thus sovereignty, which for long ages rested upon the family system, rests now upon the terri-torial system.

VII. Intellectual Development, Language, Literature, and Arts.—To no other auxiliary science is ethnology so much indebted as to philology. Not long ago the two sciences were confounded with each other, and purely linguistic disquisitions went under the name of " ethno-graphic researches," as in the Atlas of Balbi, where the word " ethnography" occurs perhaps for the first time (in 1826).

Formerly the words "nations" and "languages" were synonymous. In Genesis the confusion of the tongues is said to have caused the separation of mankind into nations. A language is to be considered as the collective brain of a nation; the vocabulary shows the richness of its ideas, the syntax how it works them. While our lexicographers count their words by the ten thousands, we are assured that the savage is scarcely able to use more than twelve hundred words, and that many English rustics have not more than four or five hundred words at their disposal. A nation's language is the sum of its developed intellect, the record of its previous intellectual efforts. From that store of accumulated ideas and feelings our children draw the best part of their information, the most of their morals. Our mother tongue is our intellectual motherland.

For a long time, the element of race had been considered to be the greatest of all ethnological factors. Some even drew between Aryans and non-Aryans a line which would have been scarcely sharper if it had been between men and brutes. But after all, affinity of blood seems to have much less influence on men than the affinity of religions, and the affinity of religions less than the affinity of languages, at least in modern times,—for this reason, that language is the sum and religion a part only of our thoughts. A curious example of the power of language is observed in Roumania. Its inhabitants claim descent from Italian colonists, an obscure and certainly very mixed stock. For a time they were thought to have disappeared among the Slavs, whose Greek religion had already conquered them, and already acted powerfully on their language. But the language which had been brought to the plains of Moldo-Wallachia by poor soldiers and ignorant peasants stubbornly resisted extinction, and at last obtained the advantage over its invader, because as a vehicle of thought it brought with it the ideas and memories which are preserved in the pages of Virgil and Cicero, and finally the Roumanians elected to enter into the fellowship of Latin nations. It is the English language which in the United States has welded into one nation the motley crowd of immigrants landing from so many countries and professing so many religions. Ethnologists, as such, are not concerned to inquire into ' the difficult problem of the origin of languages, which is to be worked out by the professed philologists. The solu-tions, however, which seem self-evident to linguists on mere philologic grounds, if they do not tally with ethnolo-gical experience, will have their acceptance postponed by ethnologists until further examination. For example, some authors will have it that nations must be considered as belonging to different races, and descended from ancestors of totally inconsonant minds, if one uses as a prefix what another would use as a suffix, or if one puts the attribute after the substantive when another puts it before. Between the isolating, the agglutinative, and the inflexional languages they have drawn the same distinctions as those established by the botanists between acotyledonous, monocotyle-donous, and dicotyledonous plants; and they want the ethno-logists to classify nations accordingly,—the last of the three, i.e., the inflexional, being supposed to have a pre-ponderance as great as that of the vertebrates over the in-vertebrates. And, furthermore, considering that the in-flexional languages are less sonorous and abundant in forms than they were in their earlier stages, philologists took much to heart what they regarded as a linguistic deteriora-tion. From that degeneration theory there is an easy transition to the belief that language is a divine revelation, or ] at least a sudden and spontaneous birth in the soul of every race (Renan). This theory, which presupposes the plurality of races, may be very acceptable to philologists, but is one with which most ethnologists do not agree. Where philo-logists see a difference in nature, ethnologists see rather a difference in degree; they object that " it must not be by any means supposed that complexity in language implies excellence or even completeness."





What mere philologists call debasement, philologists who are also philosophers call improvement. Mere artists or calligraphers may deplore the deterioration of hiero-glyphics with elaborate drawings into a cursive, demotic writing, which has led to the adoption of our unpicturesque alphabets. " The phonic alteration," says an able linguist, M. Michel Breal, " helped the emancipation of thought; it furthered the first steps of man in the path of abstract thought; it gave to the human mind the same assistance as algebra gives to the mathematician, when it substituted signs more abstract still." Mr Sweet (Language and Thought), considering it an amelioration that English has cast off " an effete inflexional system," does not lament that " English is to be compared in part with agglutinat-ing in part with isolating languages, such as Chinese."

These reservations are made not because ethnologists think little of philology applied to ethnologic research, but rather because they know that alliance to be a vital necessity, and hope by concerted action to increase its usefulness. Philology, like history, was long limited to a study of the Greek and Latin languages, until it was made a totally new science by the discovery of Sanskrit, and by the vocabularies which travellers collected from all parts of the globe. In the hand of modern observers, such as Bopp, Schleicher, Fick, Max Müller, Friedrich Müller, Curtius, Pictet, philo-logy has become a sort of telescope by which human sight penetrates the night of centuries long past. " By marvel-lous efforts of sagacity it has reconstituted the social state, the uses, the ideas, the beliefs of the ancient Aryas, whose moral history is now better known to us than some periods of Roman history. It has discovered bonds of parentage between nations, which, as the Greeks and Persians did, reproached each other with being barbarians, and it has descried a diversity of origin between nations, which, as the Greeks and Egyptians, thought themselves to be closely allied" (Breal). How the sagacity of the philo-logists adds to the achievements of ethnology is shown by Peschel, who thus sums up the results of their labours for finding out where was the cradle of our Indo-European ancestors :—

" When the ancient vocabulary of the primordial Aryan age is restored by collecting the roots common to all the members, we at the same time obtain an outline of the social condition of these nations in the most ancient period. We thus learn that they already tilled the ground, ploughed it with oxen, used carriages with wheels, kept cattle for the production of milk, and ventured on a neighbour-ing sea in rowing boats, but did not use sails. It is more than doubtful whether they smelted metals, especially as the name for bellows is net derived from the primordial place of abode. As they were not acquainted there with the ass and the cat, both ancient domestic animals in Africa, they had not as yet inter-changed any of the treasures of civilization with the Egyptians. As they had the same terms for snow and winter, and the other seasons afterwards received different names, we may be certain that in ancient Arya there was an alternation of hot and cold months. In these primitive abodes dwelt bears, wolves, and otters, but there were neither lions nor tigers. It lay eastward of Nestus in Mace-donia, which in the time of Xerxes was the limit of the European lion. It was also further north than Chuzistan, Irak-Arahi, and even than Assyria, where lions are still to be met with. It cannot have included the high lands of west Iran and the,southern shores of the Caspian Sea, for tigers still wander in search of prey as far as those districts. Hence every geographer will probably agree that the Indo-Europeans occupied both slopes of the Caucasus, as well as the remarkable gorge of Dariel, and were in the habit of visiting either the Euxine or the Caspian Sea, perhaps both."

Mr Hyde Clarke shows that the original names of some African weapons are still names of stones,—an interesting circumstance, as the belief gains ground in some quarters that the despised Negro invented the smelting and the working of iron, a discovery which ranks second to none, and to which are mainly due the wonders of our modern civilization in this, the true Iron Age. Geiger claims to have proved that, as recently as the Homeric period, men had a very imperfect and even deficient perception of colours. Bolder still is Herr Fick, who has construed some hundreds of proper names by which the " Proeth-nians," supposed ancestors of the Celts, Germans, and Zends, may have been called before Sanskrit was yet born. Many other proofs might be given that philologists, who quite recently dared not, as it were, lose sight of the Medi-terranean coasts, now navigate the most distant seas, far beyond the Ultima Thule of yore.

Language is the highest work of a nation, a work of art, and often a nation's only one. The study of languages leads to the study of popular poetry, of songs, of dances, and of music, all subjects upon which we possess a mass of information, but little knowledge. The details are ready, collected from all parts of the world, but the synthesis has not yet been made.

It is a curious fact that very accurate and even artistic etchings made on bone or horn, with the point of a flint, are found in the remains of the early stone age, but are wanting not only in the later part of the stone age, but also throughout the so-called bronze period. The orna-mentation of pottery was very rude and scanty, progressing very slowly, but in the age following it seems to have taken a start—imitations of plants and animals being essayed. The Eskimo are fair draughtsmen. The Indians draw like children. Polynesians do not draw, but carve and paint. The Bushmen and Kaffirs have no idea of perspective, the Chinese very little. Drawing on a flat surface re-quires a certain degree of thought, and encountered pro-bably much prejudice, because it was supposed to catch the shadow, or the soul of the objects. Carvings and mouldings in clay were easier, not to execute, but to attempt. It is beyond question that personal ornament was the be-ginning of art. Savages are passionately fond of adorning their persons with painting (probably the hunters of Cro-Magnon, Schussenried, and Thayingen bedaubed themselves with the ochre found near their bones), with tattooing, with all sorts of necklaces, bracelets, necklets, armlets, leggings, breast-plates, and stomachers, with fantastic head-gear, and quills, pearls, shells, and rings through the nose, ears, and lips. Even the front teeth have been inlaid with shining knobs, as among the Dyaks. We are, in this depart-ment, encumbered by a mass of details, which require to be systematically arranged, examined, and compared, in order that they may become part of a science, or even a science by itself.

VIII. Religious Development, Myths and Legends, Magic and Superstition.—Controversies have been waged upon this question—" Do any tribes exist which have no kind of religion 1" What made the dispute interminable, and of little profit, is the fact that the disputants attached different meanings to the same word. Reports of missionaries were quoted, some affirming, some denying. Thus facts have been brought forward to prove either that the Russian peasants are very religious or very irreligious. The truth is that the religion of these simple-minded people is so mixed up with superstition that rigorous critics who main-tain that superstition is the reverse of religion, as much as of morals, have no difficulty in proving that many of thes.e country folks practice real shamanism under the cloak of Greek Christianity. But ethnologists are not expected to be either severe or indulgent; they have to give a definition covering the ground occupied by all religions, be they true or false. Their definition of the word, although a philosophic one, falls in with that which many theologians have formulated. " Religion is the feeling which falls upon man in the presence of the unknown." Man fears and must fear the unknown, because the unknown may be dangerous and terrible, because the infinite is hidden in the unknown. Man personifies the Unknown; when his mind is strongly excited, he cannot do otherwise. And that personification he seeks to propitiate.

As regards superstitions, while moralists and social reformers consider them to be baneful weeds which it is their duty to dig out and destroy, ethnologists consider them as wrecks of former beliefs, over which the waves of many centuries have washed. The symbol has remained, but its significance is gone; the comprehension, never more than superficial, became lost, but the reverence was great, and survived. Thus, paganism underlies Christianity still, especially among ignorant rustics, a fact which the word pagan itself illustrates (pagani, country folk).

Classic paganism, the product of a late idealism, was in its theory too philosophic to be understood except by the few; it propounded the worship of the sun and aether as male principles and sources of light, heat, and life. It had suc-ceeded to the so-called chthonic religions, of which Professor Bachofen (Mutterrec7it) and M. Jules Baissac (Les Origines de la Religion) have been the exponents. The Earth Mother was then the centre of stellar, solar, and lunar deities, lunar deities especially, the moon being often considered as of the male sex. Erom internal evidence, it may be supposed that these religions were devised under the influence of agricul-tural practices, when the idea of paternal filiation began to be slowly evolved from the maternal. And the chthonic religions were themselves in their origin an innovation upon animal worship, which corresponded to the rise of Totemism (M'Lennan, Spencer) upon Shamanism, and the still ruder Fetichism. The lowest religions are characterized by their containing the greatest proportion of magic and the least of science and morality. In that stage, the invisible powers of witchcraft and sorcery are made to explain what-ever is not understood,—even the fact of natural death, the explanation of which one would have thought to be the first to loom on these dark intelligences. But seeing around them so many violent deaths, among men as well as among brutes, they believed that all death, and even all diseases, were owing to magic.

Magic has been analysed. Its essence is the belief in the action of spirits or souls of dead men. That belief is called ANIMISM (q. v.) by Tylor, whose researches on the subject constitute one of the most important results of English ethnology. He says—

'' Animism characterizes tribes very low in the scale of humanity, and thence ascends, deeply modified in its transmission, but from first to last preserving an unbroken continuity, into the midst of high culture. Animism is the groundwork of the philosophy of religion, from that of the savages up to that of civilized men; but although it may at first seem to afford but a meagre and bare de-finition of a minimum of religion, it will be found practically sufficient; for where the roots are, the branches will generally be produced. The theory of animism divides into two great dogmas, forming parts of one consistent doctrine; first, concerning souls of individual creatures, capable of continued existence after death; second, concerning other spirits, upward to the rank of powerful deities. Spiritual beings are held to affect or control the events of the material world, and man's life here and hereafter; and it being considered that they hold intercourse with men and receive pleasure or displeasure from human actions, the belief in their existence leads naturally sooner or later, to active reverence and propitiation."

Indications are not wanting that prehistoric men were addicted to magic. In the Swiss lake-dwellings, crescent-shaped implements in baked earth have been found, which are supposed by some to be amulets, and related to moon worship; and the absence of all bones of hares in the kitchen middens is generally explained by a superstitious avoidance of that animal's flesh.

Superstition or prehistoric religion still survives even in the heart of civilized Europe, where many of its bizarre and grotesque practices are to be found similar to those prevailing in China, and in the dark corners of Africa and Australia. How is this universal prevalence to be ex-plained 1 Does it prove that the communications between distant members of the human family were more active than it is commonly supposed that they were 1 Does it prove that we did all come from the same stock 1 Or is the true explanation this, that the similarity of effects results from the similarity of causes, and that men evolved analogous beliefs because they have analogous minds 1 Mr Herbert Spencer (Animal Worship) is of opinion that, considering the sum of knowledge which primitive men possessed, and the imperfection of their signs of language and thought, the conclusions which they arrived at were after all the most reasonable. Till recently sensible men did but shrug their shoulders when they heard of super-stitions. They had little thought of collecting them with care, and still less of studying them in earnest as subjects of scientific inquiry, and precious as embodying the oldest accessible thoughts of mankind. Some beginning has been made. Brandes, Henderson, and Wright in England, Wuttke in Germany, Kreutzwald in Esthonia, Grohmann in Bohemia, Dennys and Doolittle in China, and many others have collected precious documents. A mass of material lies scattered about, especially in books of travels. Explorers in this field of inquiry ought not to be repelled by the amount of nonsense they encounter; the more absurd the text, the more ancient and genuine it probably is. Most things would be inexplicable if they stood alone, but one explains another. Here, as in natural history, the value and signification of the individual object is best perceived when it is examined in the series to which it belongs.

Fairy tales and popular legends find little favour with many enlightened people. Of course if these tales were to be taken literally, they would be pronounced pure nonsense, but their meaning, like that of poetry, is an ideal one; they are intended to please and invigorate the imagination of children. In ancient times, when their primitive form and meaning were less altered, they had a higher purpose. Those mixed up with animal stories of a certain character appear to have been Buddhist parables intended to teach fairness and goodness towards " the weaker brethren." But although twenty centuries old and more, they belong to the later creations in the development of human thought. The oldest stories are scraps of prehistoric myths, cosmologies, and epics. Although they have been patched up a thousand times, they have still kept enough of their original traits to be still recognizable.

And it is not only popular tales and proverbs which are to be regarded as records of ancient lore, but also children's plays, nursery rhymes, and infantine dances, as has been pointed out by Tylor and by Bochholz (Kinderlied und. Kinderspiel). Among Kirghiz, Chinese, Redskins, and Bantu negroes, counterparts have been found to the Iliad and the Odyssey, to the grand myths of Hercules and Pro-metheus, to the traditions of the Argonauts, of Danae, Andro-mede, Proserpine, not to forget the most charming romance of Psyche. During the Middle Ages many of those tales were bedaubed with theological additions, and transformed into hagiologies and " Golden Legends." As such they had a separate existence, but fortunately they did not obliterate the recollection of the originals from which they sprang. Struck with a happy idea, and wishing to prove that the moderns were as good as the ancients, Charles Perrault put his Conies into writing, which he little suspected to be as old, and even of the same covey as those of the Greeks. His narrations were gems of elegant simplicity, and their success caused them to be followed by many similar pro-ductions, which were enjoyed as light literature, their scientific import being little suspected, until the brothers Grimm collected the Deutsche Hausmärchen, one of the most popular books published in this century. These savants opened a most fertile field of investigation by their discovery that many German popular tales had for their sub-stratum German mythology. Adalbert Kühne's Herabkunft des Feuers marked a new step. He showed most clearly that our tales have the same relation with the old Vedan mythology as our languages with the Sanskrit. Benfey proved by other considerations the same thesis. Following them, M. Breal gave in his Mythe de Cacus a model of science made clear and pleasant. A host of diligent searchers, mostly Germans, for the Germans have taken the lead in this department, devoted themselves to collecting, translating, commenting upon popular tales, songs, and mythology. Folklore now constitutes quite a special litera-ture. We have already legends from all five parts of the world, legends from nearly every important country, and in some countries from almost every province. The immense task of sifting and reconstructing prehistoric mythology has next to be commenced.

IX. Justice and Morals.—-Law is anterior to justice. The lower races, says Lubbock, are deficient in any idea of right, though quite familiar with that of law. In fact, civil law, in its origin, is a custom and nothing else,—a custom meeting some particular want. Therefore laws will not last if they be arbitrary, if they be founded on the caprice of a legislator, and do not subserve the interests of the majority. True laws are the expression of the people's will; legislature and magistracy are delegations of the people's authority. In primitive communities such delega-tion is often uncalled for; the community acts directly as judge and law-giver, its resolutions being guided not by abstract principles of justice, but by self-interest and a desire for self-preservation,—seldom, if ever, by unselfish considerations. " Salus populi suprema lex." As the community enlarges this feeling widens and becomes generalized; by degrees the idea of justice is evolved out of common convenience. Absorbed by their petty local interests, early tribes could scarcely realize the idea of absolute justice, which is inseparable from the idea of mankind at large. Both ideas are of a recent origin; they seem contemporaneous with the rise of the Roman empire, when it strove to take possession of the whole world, and when the positive principles of jurisprudence were set forth with a logic, a vigour, and a lucidity not surpassed, not even equalled since. Our civilized countries have enriched them-selves with a ponderous apparatus of written laws, which are, or are affirmed to be, the outgrowth of customary laws, and an accepted fiction sets forth that every citizen knows and understands perfectly that immense miscellany of rules and statutes.

Criminal law has a similar origin ; it is the part of justice evolved out of vengeance, which, from being with some animals and the lowest tribes a boundless passion, was by degrees restrained, acquired a definite form, and became the law of retaliation,—" an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." From that principle men were sure to infer, " Do not to others what thou wouldst not like to be done to thyself,"—the negative side of a principle which was far sooner understood than its positive side, " Do unto others as ye would that men should do unto you." The abandonment of vendetta is one of the steps which lead from semi-civilization towards civiliza-tion. But its adoption by primitive communities had in its time heralded an improved state of things. Its prin-ciple is that all the members of a gens are bound to avenge the death or the hurt of any individual member. Thereby the gentiles were involved in continual troubles. By degrees they came to find out that the surest way to minimize the troubles arising out of vendetta was to avoid its causes. This led to the softening of manners. The next step was for the gens to impose upon its affiliates the obligation to resort directly to its tribunal in case of offences. Thus by degrees redress came to be substituted for revenge, and justice taken at one's own hand to be re-garded as fit only for barbarians.

Like the tribe, the gens was for its members an enlarged self, and its motto was—One for all, all for one,—an ideal motto among brothers in a brotherhood, but one fit also to promote strifes of brotherhood against brotherhood. Friendship, honesty, justice, and even self-sacrifice within the circle of kinship; cunning, violence, murder, ruthless brutality outside. The gentile stood by the gentile for weal or woe, for wrong or right. Men's minds and hearts are now so far enlarged that they can embrace the idea of a whole country, their own. But have we gone really much further 1

X. Progress.—Ethnology, in its actual state, centres upon the theory of progress. It has not only to prove the exist-ence of progress, it has to demonstrate how it operates, and to measure the amount of its work in the different periods. Progress, put in question in all the branches of human development, is nowhere more fiercely discussed than in its relation to justice and morals. This is the most import-ant, the most interesting, and also the most perplexing theme. It is the easiest to discourse upon, as there are no external standards by which to measure internal phenomena, no fixed canon by which to compute the ever-shifting corre-lations between the two great principles of social order and individual liberty—custom and progress, which, far from working harmoniously together, clash so often one against the other. This question is not merely a theoretical one : it has very practical bearings, now that our civilization is about to take possession of all the world,—now that repre-sentatives of our culture invade in so many places the soil occupied by less advanced communities. Before the last remainders of ancient ages be destroyed, it is certainly worth while to pause and to consider, Are we right in doing away with them, and will the world at large be a gainer by it ? The United States, the colonial administrations, are constantly called on to deal with native reserves, native wars, and, alas ! with native extermination. We cannot forget that the landing of Columbus at Guanahani cost the lives of many millions of American and African aborigines, and that the last Tasmanian, the last Guancho, the last Beothus, have been " improved" off the face of earth. We can hardly regard with unmixed feelings the prospect that the whole of the African continent will soon be open to " European enterprise."

We will give an epitome of the debates which are carried on, striking off many arguments for the sake of brevity. It will be but fair to give the first word to a friend of the attacked and (must we say ?) the doomed races.

Mr Wallace, after having given a charming picture of some Malay communities which he had visited, tells us : . . . "It is very remarkable that among people in a very low stage of civilization we find some approach to such a perfect social state. Each man scrupu-lously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes place. In such community all are nearly equal. There are none of these wide distinctions, of educa-tion and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master and servant, which are the product of our civilization ; there is not that severe compe-tition and struggle for existence or for wealth which the dense population of civilized countries inevitably creates. . . It is not too much to say that the mass of our populations have not at all advanced beyond the savage code of morals, and have in many cases sunk below it."

Such pictures as that drawn by Mr Wallace are not unfrequent, and we might have transcribed many pleasant descriptions of the peace, concord, and fraternity reigning among the Todas, Aleutians, and some other primitive communities.

Now comes the indictment by Lubbock, Tylor, and others. It is a heavy one.

"The Veddahs of Ceylon are of opinion that it signifies little whether they do right or wrong" (Davies). "To Australians the words good and bad had reference to taste or bodily comfort, and did not convey any idea of right or wrong. . . . The whole tendency of their system is to give every thing to the strong, to the prejudice of the young, and more particularly to the detriment of women" (Lang). . ." To believe," says Sir George Grey, "that man in a savage state is endowed with freedom, either of thought or action, is erroneous in the highest degree. . . . Offences, in Fijian estimation, are light or grave according to the rank of the offender. . . . In Tahiti the missionaries considered that no less than two-thirds of the children were murdered by their parents." . . . "Conscience does not exist in Eastern Africa. Repentance expresses regret for missed opportunities of mortal crime. Robbery constitutes an honourable man. Murder—the more atrocious the midnight crime the better—makes the hero " (Burton).

And is civilization any thing else ? reply the others. Is it not the same struggle for existence, but here on a gigantic scale ? Is not our incessant battle for life little short of wholesale murder ? Is it not accompanied with the same envy, with the same remorse-less hatred, but under a thicker veil of perfidy and hypocrisy? The Anthropological Society in London was told by the late Winwood Reade that among the savages of Africa he had not seen anything as bad as the pauperism, as the mass of misery and degradation to be found in our large cities. The Anthropological Society of Paris was told by Mr Coudereau that in our modern Europe the moral and intellectual development of the multitude is not superior to that of the Dahomians. It was said by Mr Lavrof: " Between our peasants and the primitive savages there is little difference. The religions and the most advanced philosophies, which hold so large a place in the history of mankind, have never been taken up in reality except by a minority numerically insignificant. Were they profitless to the majority? No, they enriched it with new amulets, new magical signs, new forms of divination. And when practical results of science, such as the electric telegraph, enter into common use, their real signification is as little understood by our country folks as it would be by the Marquesas Islanders."

Although there may have been some exaggeration in the expression, the facts which have been alleged on both sides are true; none is to be explained or trifled away.

Thus it is evident that among civilized men all is not satisfactory, while among uncivilized all is not unsatisfac-tory. We are led to infer that civilization amplifies and intensifies its elements. We had already occasion to note that among ourselves the extremes are wider apart than among the barbarians. We can say that we are at once materially much better and much worse off, and morally much better and much worse than savages. And as to man himself it can be said that of all ferocious brutes he is the most cruel, and of all gentle animals the most affec-tionate.

Can material progress be disputed 1 An increased pro-duction of food has enabled greater numbers of men to live; their daily ration of eatables and drinkables has been increased; the quality of their vestments has been im-proved; most people do not dwell in damp holes dug in the earth; they do not any longer roost in the branches of trees. Not to speak of other comforts, the invention of lucifer matches and of candles have been splendid achiev-ments in their day. That the-intellectual progress has been prodigious from the time when our forefathers were unable to count their own fingers, even of one hand, as Spix and Martius tell of the Brazilian Wood Indians, to the transformation of mathematics into a powerful scientific engine, to the calculations of Newton and Laplace, to the wonders of spectral analysis, is a position nobody dares to impugn.

Material and intellectual development being satisfactorily settled, we touch upon the vexed question of moral pro-gress. Mr Wallace says—"While civilized communities have increased vastly beyond the savage state in intellectual achievements, we have not advanced equally in morals." It may be said with equal truth that this progress has been immense, and that it has been ridiculously small,—immense, if we consider that there is an infinite distance between nothing' and something; very small indeed, if we gauge the precise amount of that something. But that actual something will appear larger if we trace it to its original state, of which we do not find the like among the present savages. Their abject condition, abject as it has been depicted, is yet vastly superior to that of the supposed primeval man. Everything tends to prove that mankind, far from being born with a vivid sense of right and wrong, as the common doctrine will have it, had to evolve a moral sense by a long process. Through ages man must have collected sensations of a peculiar sort, which at first were slightly perceptible, and which, when accumulated, became that positive perception, the most to be cared for of our inherited abilities. " The world is very young," said Mrs Mill, " and has only just begun to cast off injustice," And we hold to be survivals of antecedent ages the instances which show among civilized and uncivilized an utter absence of morality, the lack of all fairness and generosity. But in our times these instances are exceptions. On the average, we know better than the Bechwana, who, being asked what it meant "to be good," was much puzzled, but finally answered, " To be good it is to possess a wife and cows, and to steal one neighbour's wife and cows;" or than the Pawnee, who said, "He is a good man who is a hunter sly, crafty as a fox, daring and strong as a wolf."

A last question arises—If moral progress be a positive fact, how could it be denied by intelligent observers'! First, progress is far from being always evident. Its course runs not incessantly onwards in a straight line at a uniform speed; it proceeds by irregular motions and some-times by curved, by broken, or even by spiral lines. Then we are apt to underrate a progress which has become a habit. The pleasure which an improvement gives us does not last longer than its novelty. Very soon we become used to it—and then we become conscious that some evil, which we had till then borne patiently, has grown insuffer-able, and must be quickly done away with. We feel to the quick injustices and iniquities which ages ago we would have submitted to without complaint,—of which we would have been participants. Till mankind reaches some goal yet unknown to us, its motto seems to be, Never to rest, never to be thankful.

Thus ethnology may be considered as the science which builds up the history of material and intellectual progress, which retraces the evolution of that attribute, precious and delicate, of which Dr Maudsley has finely said, " Morality, the last acquired faculty of man, is the first which he is liable to lose."

XI. The Bibliography of ethnology may be regarded either as very extensive or unimportant, according as we include all books in which ethnological subjects are treated, or as we exclude all books which have not ethnology for their primary object. Although possessed of immense territories in copartnership with the sister sciences, ethnology holds but a limited province of its own. This remark disposes of the largest mass of ethnographical bibliography, in a work which contains bibliographies of other sciences.

Works which take up the new science as a whole, and bring its various problems together, cannot as yet be very numerous, especially if the demarcation between ethnology and anthropology is main-tained. In the preceding pages the titles of most current books which are acknowledged as authoritative have been mentioned, and for brevity's sake will not be repeated. One of the most important publications, the object of which is to set the science on a solid foundation, is in progress. The Descriptive Sociology commenced in 1867 by Mr Herbert Spencer, devised, classified, and arranged by him, is compiled and abstracted by Messrs James Collier, Richard Scheppig, and David Duncan. "The digests of materials, thus brought together, will supply the student of social science with data, standing towards his conclusions in a relation like that of which accounts of the structures and functions of different types of animals stand to the conclusion of the biologist. Until there had been such systematic descriptions of different kinds of organisms as made it possible to compare the connexions and forms and actions and modes of origin of their parts, the science of life could make no progress; and in like manner, before there can be reached in socio-logy generalizations worthy to be called scientific, there must be definite accounts of the institutions and activities of societies, of various types and in various stages of evolution, so arranged as to furnish the means of ascertaining what social phenomena are habitually associated."

In the three volumes of Adolf Bastian, Der Mensch in der Geschichte, we have already a kind of ethnological encyclopaedia, a mine of interesting facts, collected from the most various sources. The author is a man of great reading, and has himself travelled over the known world. But in 1860, when the book was written, ethno-logy had not come of age, and instead of allowing the facts to speak for themselves, he marshalled them in ungainly array to make them support metaphysical theses.

Amongst other important books relating to general ethnology are to be named—Klemn's Allgemeine Culturgesehichte der Men-schheit; Caspari's Urgeschichte der Menschheit; Fr. von Hellwald's Culturgeschichte ; Waitz's Anthropologie der Naturvölker; Fr. M iil-ler's Allgemeine Ethnographie; Gerland's Anthropologische Beiträge; Baer und Schaafhausen, Der vorgeschichtliche Mensch; Huxley's Methods and Results of Ethnology; Brace's Manual of Ethnology ; Von Martius, Ethnographic Mr H. Bancroft's Native Races of America and Meinike's Polynesia cover only parts of our ground, but deserve exceptional record here, from the amount of informa-tion which they afford.

Ethnographical maps have been published by Berghaus, Schafarik, Fuchs, Gzoernig, Waitz, and others. In Germany, Denmark, and Sweden "maps of the finds" are in progress. Dupont has given out important Synoptic Tables.

An ethnological feat, accomplished with the resources of a national budget, that of Austria, is the Novara Expedition, which continues the series of the great scientific travels, such as those of the "Beagle" and the "Astrolabe," and those accomplished by Cook, Forster, and Bougainville. The relations given by travellers of what they have seen in foreign parts compose an immense col-lection, which ethnographers have now to classify, and to sift carefully in order to extract from it all that is useful. Modern descriptions have their peculiar merits, but the value of earlier writers increases in proportion as civilization, which is gradu-ally imported everywhere, destroys the old order of things, and gives an uniform tinge to the intellects and the institutions of all races. Narrations of the mediaeval travellers, such as Marco Polo and Ibn Batutah, were never found so interesting as they are now. "We peruse again the stories of the Conquistadores, the bar-barous heroes of modern culture, and those of their twin brothers, the Conquerors of Faith, the missionaries of the third Christian period, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, whose work among the Indians of North and South America, among the races of Africa, the Chinese, and the Japanese, is related in the celebrated collection of the Lettres itdifiantes. Acosta, Lafitau, Charlevoix, Duhalde, Dobrizhoffer, have given to the world much information, as have also the modern missionaries, chiefly Protestants, among whom we may cite Williams, Ellis, Isenberg, Krapf, Moffat, Callaway, Casalis, Hue, Eitel, Metz, and, above all, Livingstone.

Although ethnology be a new science, it must not be considered as a new invention. Thirty years ago not a few books were written in France and Germany, which, expounding the "philosophy of history" then in vogue, would now-a-days have expounded the "pro-gress of culture." The most antiquated, inspired by the schools of Hegel and Schelling, contain less of history than of so-called philo-sophy ; the best, inspired rather by Herder and Vico, contain more of facts than of metaphysics. Some of their authors were already eth-nologists without knowing it,—among them, Buckle, whose Civiliza-tion in England may be considered as one of the works which open the new period of history, as modified by ethnology.

The bibliography of a science giving its history in a condensed form, it must be said that the corner-stones of any ethnographer's library are the works of the great historians Herodotus and Tacitus, and that the first expounder of the modern principles of ethnology is the poet Lucretius.

In contrast with the paucity of the publications which profess to give the synthesis of ethnology, one may notice the super-abundance of books, memoirs, essays, and lesser works which discuss all kinds of ethnologic matters and points of detail. Ethno-logy being in great favour with the public, there appear in reviews and magazines, and even in the weekly and daily press, articles which an ethnographer should diligently collect. A list of these various publications appears every year in the Brunswick Archiv für Anthropologie. It is not, and could not be, complete, but, such as it is, it meets most wants.

The learned societies scattered throughout the civilized world act in scientific matters as the lakes and reservoirs of the high lands do in the hydrographic system ; they collect and purify the waters of torrents and rivulets, they regulate their outlet. In all European capitals, and in some other cities, as Washington, Toronto, Rio Janeiro, Calcutta, Yeddo, Tiflis, Melbourne, Cairo, savants and scientists meet in Academies, and, in the Transactions of their diverse sections, ethnology comes in for a part of their attention. Societies of anthropology and ethnology have constituted them-selves as separate bodies m London, Paris, Rome, Florence, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, Dantzig, Leipsic, Dresden, Munich, and Stuttgart.

From their influence and the date of their foundation, the societies of London and Paris are to be ranked first. To the impulse given by the Société Anthropologique are often ascribed the great strides recently made by anthropology. This association was founded by men who mostly wen t to work with a precision which originated in the methods of anatomy, physiology, archaeology, palaeontology, and philology, the lights from which they projected simultaneously on their favourite science. The vastness of Great Britain's colonial empire, the diversity of its climes, races, and creeds, the magni-tude of England's commercial navy, which has become the general carrier of the world, the facility* with which Englishmen emigrate or travel abroad, have given to ethnographic matters in this country an interest and an importance which they have not elsewhere. Hence the directness and the variety of the communications which are transmitted to the Anthropological Institute in London. The character of the two societies reflects itself in their publications ; the Revue d'Anthropologie, as edited by Dr Paul Broca, has a pre-ference for biology, and the Journal of the Institute, as edited by Mr John Evans and Major-General Lane Fox—the best authorities on flints and on primitive weapons and implements—has a marked preference for archaeology and the domestic arts. In almost every considerable town of Germany there is some society affiliated to the large Deutsche Gesellschaft fiir Anthropologie, Ethnologie, und Urgeschichte, which numbers about 2000 members, and issues the Archiv fiir Anthropologie already named, edited by Dr Virchow, Eck, Lindenschmidt, with many collaborateurs, mostly physicians and naturalists.

Another publication, more ethnological in character, is the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, edited by the great traveller and most learned man, Adolf Bastian. In the Scandinavian countries, and in Hungary, patriotism fosters the prehistoric studies by the hope-of throwing some light on the misty figures of gigantic ancestors. Since the discovery of the lake-dwellings, by which a sudden in-terest was awakened in archaeological pursuits, ethnology has been a favourite study in Switzerland. Italy, which also had lake-dwellings as well as terramare, whole cities buried in the soil, &c., and which teems with precious remains of Roman, Greek, Etruscan, and Oriental origin, addicts herself with some zeal to these re-searches, the results being given forth especially in the Archivio dell' Antropologia e Etnologia, and the Paleo-etnologia Italiana.

Not to be omitted are the Tour du Monde, which has been translated perhaps in every civilized language, and even into Japanese; the Globus of Herr Karl Andrée; the Ausland of Fr. von Hellwald; the Matériaux pour servira l'histoire primitive et naturelle de l'homme of Cartailhac and Fontdouce. Many publications which give occasionally valuable ethnographic information, but which bestow on geography, history, and philology the largest share of their attention, must be passed over. (E. RE.)