SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION--BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY. J. W. POWELL, DIRECTOR. * * * * * ON LIMITATIONS TO THE USE OF SOME ANTHROPOLOGIC DATA. BY J. W. POWELL. ON LIMITATIONS TO THE USE OF SOME ANTHROPOLOGIC DATA. BY J. W. POWELL. * * * * * ARCHÆOLOGY. Investigations in this department are of great interest, and haveattracted to the field a host of workers; but a general review of themass of published matter exhibits the fact that the uses to which thematerial has been put have not always been wise. In the monuments of antiquity found throughout North America, in campand village sites, graves, mounds, ruins, and scattered works of art, the origin and development of art in savage and barbaric life may besatisfactorily studied. Incidentally, too, hints of customs may bediscovered, but outside of this, the discoveries made have often beenillegitimately used, especially for the purpose of connecting the tribesof North America with peoples or so-called races of antiquity in otherportions of the world. A brief review of some conclusions that must beaccepted in the present status of the science will exhibit the futilityof these attempts. It is now an established fact that man was widely scattered over theearth at least as early as the beginning of the quaternary period, and, perhaps, in pliocene time. If we accept the conclusion that there is but one species of man, asspecies are now defined by biologists, we may reasonably conclude thatthe species has been dispersed from some common center, as the abilityto successfully carry on the battle of life in all climes belongs onlyto a highly developed being; but this original home has not yet beenascertained with certainty, and when discovered, lines of migrationtherefrom cannot be mapped until the changes in the physical geographyof the earth from that early time to the present have been discovered, and these must be settled upon purely geologic and paleontologicevidence. The migrations of mankind from that original home cannot beintelligently discussed until that home has been discovered, and, further, until the geology of the globe is so thoroughly known that thedifferent phases of its geography can be presented. The dispersion of man must have been anterior to the development of anybut the rudest arts. Since that time the surface of the earth hasundergone many and important changes. All known camp and village sites, graves, mounds, and ruins belong to that portion of geologic time knownas the present epoch, and are entirely subsequent to the period of theoriginal dispersion as shown by geologic evidence. In the study of these antiquities, there has been much unnecessaryspeculation in respect to the relation existing between the people towhose existence they attest, and the tribes of Indians inhabiting thecountry during the historic period. It may be said that in the Pueblos discovered in the southwesternportion of the United States and farther south through Mexico andperhaps into Central America tribes are known having a culture quite asfar advanced as any exhibited in the discovered ruins. In this respect, then, there is no need to search for an extra-limital origin throughlost tribes for any art there exhibited. With regard to the mounds so widely scattered between the two oceans, itmay also be said that mound-building tribes were known in the earlyhistory of discovery of this continent, and that the vestiges of artdiscovered do not excel in any respect the arts of the Indian tribesknown to history. There is, therefore, no reason for us to search for anextra-limital origin through lost tribes for the arts discovered in themounds of North America. The tracing of the origin of these arts to the ancestors of known tribesor stocks of tribes is more legitimate, but it has limitations which arewidely disregarded. The tribes which had attained to the highest culturein the southern portion of North America are now well known to belong toseveral different stocks, and, if, for example, an attempt is made toconnect the mound-builders with the Pueblo Indians, no result beyondconfusion can be reached until the particular stock of these villagepeoples is designated. Again, it is contained in the recorded history of the country thatseveral distinct stocks of the present Indians were mound-builders andthe wide extent and vast number of mounds discovered in the UnitedStates should lead us to suspect, at least, that the mound-builders ofpre-historic times belonged to many and diverse stocks. With thelimitations thus indicated the identification of mound-building peoplesas distinct tribes or stocks is a legitimate study, but when we considerthe further fact now established, that arts extend beyond the boundariesof linguistic stocks, the most fundamental divisions we are yet able tomake of the peoples of the globe, we may more properly conclude thatthis field promises but a meager harvest; but the origin and developmentof arts and industries is in itself a vast and profoundly interestingtheme of study, and when North American archæology is pursued with thisend in view, the results will be instructive. PICTURE-WRITING. The pictographs of North America were made on divers substances. Thebark of trees, tablets of wood, the skins of animals, and the surfacesof rocks were all used for this purpose; but the great body ofpicture-writing as preserved to us is found on rock surfaces, as theseare the most enduring. From Dighton Rock to the cliffs that overhang the Pacific, these recordsare found--on bowlders fashioned by the waves of the sea, scattered byriver floods, or polished by glacial ice; on stones buried in graves andmounds; on faces of rock that appear in ledges by the streams; on cañonwalls and towering cliffs; on mountain crags and the ceilings ofcaves--wherever smooth surfaces of rock are to be found in NorthAmerica, there we may expect to find pictographs. So widely distributedand so vast in number, it is well to know what purposes they may servein anthropologic science. Many of these pictographs are simply pictures, rude etchings, orpaintings, delineating natural objects, especially animals, andillustrate simply the beginning of pictorial art; others we know wereintended to commemorate events or to represent other ideas entertainedby their authors; but to a large extent these were simply mnemonic--notconveying ideas of themselves, but designed more thoroughly to retain inmemory certain events or thoughts by persons who were already cognizantof the same through current hearsay or tradition. If once the memory ofthe thought to be preserved has passed from the minds of men, the recordis powerless to restore its own subject-matter to the understanding. The great body of picture-writings is thus described; yet to some slightextent pictographs are found with characters more or less conventional, and the number of such is quite large in Mexico and Central America. Yeteven these conventional characters are used with others lessconventional in such a manner that perfect records were never made. Hence it will be seen that it is illegitimate to use any pictographicmatter of a date anterior to the discovery of the continent by Columbusfor historic purposes; but it has a legitimate use of profound interest, as these pictographs exhibit the beginning of written language and thebeginning of pictorial art, yet undifferentiated; and if the scholars ofAmerica will collect and study the vast body of this material scatteredeverywhere--over the valleys and on the mountain sides--from it can bewritten one of the most interesting chapters in the early history ofmankind. HISTORY, CUSTOMS, AND ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS. When America was discovered by Europeans, it was inhabited by greatnumbers of distinct tribes, diverse in languages, institutions, andcustoms. This fact has never been fully recognized, and writers have toooften spoken of the North American Indians as a body, supposing thatstatements made of one tribe would apply to all. This fundamental errorin the treatment of the subject has led to great confusion. Again, the rapid progress in the settlement and occupation of thecountry has resulted in the gradual displacement of the Indian tribes, so that very many have been removed from their ancient homes, some ofwhom have been incorporated into other tribes, and some have beenabsorbed into the body of civilized people. The names by which tribes have been designated have rarely been namesused by themselves, and the same tribe has often been designated bydifferent names in different periods of its history and by differentnames in the same period of its history by colonies of people havingdifferent geographic relations to them. Often, too, different tribeshave been designated by the same name. Without entering into anexplanation of the causes which have led to this condition of things, itis simply necessary to assert that this has led to great confusion ofnomenclature. Therefore the student of Indian history must be constantlyon his guard in accepting the statements of any author relating to anytribe of Indians. It will be seen that to follow any tribe of Indians throughpost-Columbian times is a task of no little difficulty. Yet this portionof history is of importance, and the scholars of America have a greatwork before them. Three centuries of intimate contact with a civilized race has had nosmall influence upon the pristine condition of these savage and barbarictribes. The most speedy and radical change was that effected in thearts, industrial and ornamental. A steel knife was obviously better thana stone knife; firearms than bows and arrows; and textile fabrics fromthe looms of civilized men are at once seen to be more beautiful andmore useful than the rude fabrics and undressed skins with which theIndians clothed themselves in that earlier day. Customs and institutions changed less rapidly. Yet these have been muchmodified. Imitation and vigorous propagandism have been more or lessefficient causes. Migrations and enforced removals placed tribes underconditions of strange environment where new customs and institutionswere necessary, and in this condition civilization had a greaterinfluence, and the progress of occupation by white men within theterritory of the United States, at least, has reached such a stage thatsavagery and barbarism have no room for their existence, and evencustoms and institutions must in a brief time be completely changed, and what we are yet to learn of these people must be learned now. But in pursuing these studies the greatest caution must be observed indiscriminating what is primitive from what has been acquired fromcivilized man by the various processes of acculturation. ORIGIN OF MAN. Working naturalists postulate evolution. Zoölogical research is largelydirected to the discovery of the genetic relations of animals. Theevolution of the animal kingdom is along multifarious lines and bydiverse specializations. The particular line which connects man with thelowest forms, through long successions of intermediate forms, is aproblem of great interest. This special investigation has to dealchiefly with relations of structure. From the many facts alreadyrecorded, it is probable that many detached portions of this line can bedrawn, and such a construction, though in fact it may not be correct inall its parts, yet serves a valuable purpose in organizing and directingresearch. The truth or error of such hypothetic genealogy in no way affects thevalidity of the doctrines of evolution in the minds of scientific men, but on the other hand the value of the tentative theory is brought tofinal judgment under the laws of evolution. It would be vain to claim that the course of zoölogic development isfully understood, or even that all of its most important factors areknown. So the discovery of facts and relations guided by the doctrinesof evolution reacts upon these doctrines, verifying, modifying, andenlarging them. Thus it is that while the doctrines lead the way to newfields of discovery, the new discoveries lead again to new doctrines. Increased knowledge widens philosophy; wider philosophy increasesknowledge. It is the test of true philosophy that it leads to the discovery offacts, and facts themselves can only be known as such; that is, can onlybe properly discerned and discriminated by being relegated to theirplaces in philosophy. The whole progress of science depends primarilyupon this relation between knowledge and philosophy. In the earlier history of mankind philosophy was the product ofsubjective reasoning, giving mythologies and metaphysics. When it wasdiscovered that the whole structure of philosophy was withoutfoundation, a new order of procedure was recommended--the Baconianmethod. Perception must precede reflection; observation must precedereason. This also was a failure. The earlier gave speculations; thelater give a mass of incoherent facts and falsehoods. The error in theearlier philosophy was not in the order of procedure between perceptionand reflection, but in the method, it being subjective instead ofobjective. The method of reasoning in scientific philosophy is purelyobjective; the method of reasoning in mythology and metaphysics issubjective. The difference between man and the animals most nearly related to him instructure is great. The connecting forms are no longer extant. Thissubject of research, therefore, belongs to the paleontologists ratherthan the ethnologists. The biological facts are embraced in thegeological record, and this record up to the present time has yieldedbut scant materials to serve in its solution. It is known that man, highly differentiated from lower animals inmorphologic characteristics, existed in early Quaternary and perhaps inPliocene times, and here the discovered record ends. LANGUAGE. In philology, North America presents the richest field in the world, forhere is found the greatest number of languages distributed among thegreatest number of stocks. As the progress of research is necessarilyfrom the known to the unknown, civilized languages were studied byscholars before the languages of savage and barbaric tribes. Again, thehigher languages are written and are thus immediately accessible. Forsuch reasons, chief attention has been given to the most highlydeveloped languages. The problems presented to the philologist, in thehigher languages, cannot be properly solved without a knowledge of thelower forms. The linguist studies a language that he may use it as aninstrument for the interchange of thought; the philologist studies alanguage to use its data in the construction of a philosophy oflanguage. It is in this latter sense that the higher languages areunknown until the lower languages are studied, and it is probable thatmore light will be thrown upon the former by a study of the latter thanby more extended research in the higher. The vast field of unwritten languages has been explored but notsurveyed. In a general way it is known that there are many suchlanguages, and the geographic distribution of the tribes of men whospeak them is known, but scholars have just begun the study of thelanguages. That the knowledge of the simple and uncompounded must precede theknowledge of the complex and compounded, that the latter may be rightlyexplained, is an axiom well recognized in biology, and it appliesequally well to philology. Hence any system of philology, as the term ishere used, made from a survey of the higher languages exclusively, willprobably be a failure. "Which of you by taking thought can add one cubitunto his stature, " and which of you by taking thought can add theantecedent phenomena necessary to an explanation of the language ofPlato or of Spencer? The study of astronomy, geology, physics, and biology, is in the handsof scientific men; objective methods of research are employed andmetaphysic disquisitions find no place in the accepted philosophies;but to a large extent philology remains in the hands of themetaphysicians, and subjective methods of thought are used in theexplanation of the phenomena observed. If philology is to be a scienceit must have an objective philosophy composed of a homologicclassification and orderly arrangement of the phenomena of the languagesof the globe. Philologic research began with the definite purpose in view to discoverin the diversities of language among the peoples of the earth a commonelement from which they were all supposed to have been derived, anoriginal speech, the parent of all languages. In this philologists hadgreat hopes of success at one time, encouraged by the discovery of therelation between the diverse branches of the Aryan stock, but in thisvery work methods of research were developed and doctrines establishedby which unexpected results were reached. Instead of relegating the languages that had before been unclassified tothe Aryan family, new families or stocks were discovered, and thisprocess has been carried on from year to year until scores or evenhundreds, of families are recognized, and until we may reasonablyconclude that there was no single primitive speech common to mankind, but that man had multiplied and spread throughout the habitable earthanterior to the development of organized languages; that is, languageshave sprung from innumerable sources after the dispersion of mankind. The progress in language has not been by multiplication, which would bebut a progress in degradation under the now well-recognized laws ofevolution; but it has been in integration from a vast multiplicitytoward a unity. True, all evolution has not been in this direction. There has often been degradation as exhibited in the multiplicity oflanguages and dialects of the same stock, but evolution has in theaggregate been integration by progress towards unity of speech, anddifferentiation (which, must always be distinguished frommultiplication) by specialization of the grammatic process and thedevelopment of the parts of speech. When a people once homogeneous are separated geographically in such amanner that thorough inter-communication is no longer preserved, all ofthe agencies by which languages change act separately in the distinctcommunities and produce different changes therein, and dialects areestablished. If the separation continues, such dialects become distinctlanguages in the sense that the people of one community are unable tounderstand the people of another. But such a development of languages isnot differentiation in the sense in which this term is here used, andoften used in biology, but is analogous to multiplication as understoodin biology. The differentiation of an organ is its development for aspecial purpose, _i. E. _, the organic, specialization is concomitantwith functional specialization. When paws are differentiated into handsand feet, with the differentiation of the organs, there is a concomitantdifferentiation in the functions. When one language becomes two, the same function is performed by each, and is marked by the fundamental characteristic of multiplication, _i. E. _, degradation; for the people originally able to communicate witheach other can no longer thus communicate; so that two languages do notserve as valuable a purpose as one. And, further, neither of the twolanguages has made the progress one would have made, for one would havebeen developed sufficiently to serve all the purposes of the unitedpeoples in the larger area inhabited by them, and, _coeteris paribus_, the language spoken by many people scattered over a large area must besuperior to one spoken by a few people inhabiting a small area. It would have been strange, indeed, had the primitive assumption inphilology been true, and the history of language exhibited universaldegradation. In the remarks on the "Origin of Man, " the statement was made thatmankind was distributed throughout the habitable earth, in somegeological period anterior to the present and anterior to thedevelopment of other than the rudest arts. Here, again, we reach theconclusion that man was distributed throughout the earth anterior to thedevelopment of organized speech. In the presence of these two great facts, the difficulty of tracinggenetic relationship among human races through arts, customs, institutions, and traditions will appear, for all of these must havebeen developed after the dispersion of mankind. Analogies and homologiesin these phenomena must be accounted for in some other way. Somatologyproves the unity of the human species; that is, the evidence upon whichthis conclusion is reached is morphologic; but in arts, customs, institutions, and traditions abundant corroborative evidence is found. The individuals of the one species, though inhabiting diverse climes, speaking diverse languages, and organized into diverse communities, haveprogressed in a broad way by the same stages, have had the same arts, customs, institutions, and traditions in the same order, limited only bythe degree of progress to which the several tribes have attained, andmodified only to a limited extent by variations in environment. If any ethnic classification of mankind is to be established morefundamental than that based upon language, it must be upon physicalcharacteristics, and such must have been acquired by profounddifferentiation anterior to the development of languages, arts, customs, institutions, and traditions. The classifications hitherto made on thisbasis are unsatisfactory, and no one now receives wide acceptance. Perhaps further research will clear up doubtful matters and give anacceptable grouping; or it may be that such research will result only inexhibiting the futility of the effort. The history of man, from the lowest tribal condition to the highestnational organization, has been a history of constant and multifariousadmixture of strains of blood; of admixture, absorption, and destructionof languages with general progress toward unity; of the diffusion ofarts by various processes of acculturation; and of admixture andreciprocal diffusion of customs, institutions, and traditions. Arts, customs, institutions, and traditions extend beyond the boundaries oflanguages and serve to obscure them, and the admixture of strains ofblood has obscured primitive ethnic divisions, if such existed. If the physical classification fails, the most fundamental grouping leftis that based on language; but for the reasons already mentioned andothers of like character, the classification of languages is not, to thefull extent, a classification of peoples. It may be that the unity of the human race is a fact so profound thatall attempts at a fundamental classification to be used in all thedepartments of anthropology will fail, and that there will remainmultifarious groupings for the multifarious purposes of the science; or, otherwise expressed, that languages, arts, customs, institutions, andtraditions may be classified, and that the human family will beconsidered as one race. MYTHOLOGY. Here again America presents a rich field for the scientific explorer. Itis now known that each linguistic stock has a distinct mythology, and asin some of these stocks there are many languages differing to a greateror less extent, so there are many like differing mythologies. As in language, so in mythology, investigation has proceeded from, theknown to the unknown--from the higher to the lower mythologies. In eachstep of the progress of opinion on this subject a particular phenomenonmay be observed. As each lower status of mythology is discovered it isassumed to be the first in origin, the primordial mythology, and alllower but imperfectly understood mythologies are interpreted asdegradations, from this assumed original belief; thus polytheism wasinterpreted as a degeneracy from monotheism; nature worship, frompsychotheism; zoölotry, from ancestor worship; and, in order, monotheismhas been held to be the original mythology, then polytheism, thenphysitheism or nature worship, then ancestor worship. With a large body of mythologists nature worship is now accepted as theprimitive religion; and with another body, equally as respectable, ancestor worship is primordial. But nature worship and ancestor worshipare concomitant parts of the same religion, and belong to a status ofculture highly advanced and characterized by the invention ofconventional pictographs. In North America we have scores or evenhundreds of systems of mythology, all belonging to a lower state ofculture. Let us hope that American students will not fall into this line of errorby assuming that zoötheism is the lowest stage, because this is thestatus of mythology most widely spread on the continent. Mythology is primitive philosophy. A mythology--that is, the body ofmyths current among any people and believed by them--comprises a systemof explanations of all the phenomena of the universe discerned by them;but such explanations are always mixed with much extraneous matter, chiefly incidents in the history of the personages who were the heroesof mythologic deeds. Every mythology has for its basis a theology--a system of gods who arethe actors, and to whom are attributed the phenomena to beexplained--for the fundamental postulate in mythology is "some one doesit, " such being the essential characteristic of subjective reasoning. Aspeoples pass from one stage of culture to another, the change is made bydeveloping a new sociology with all its institutions, by the developmentof new arts, by evolution of language, and, in a degree no less, by achange in philosophy; but the old philosophy is not supplanted. Thechange is made by internal growth and external accretion. Fragments of the older are found in the newer. This older material inthe newer philosophy is often used for curious purposes by manyscholars. One such use I wish to mention here. The nomenclature whichhas survived from the earlier state is supposed to be deeply andoccultly symbolic and the mythic narratives to be deeply and occultlyallegoric. In this way search is made for some profoundly metaphysiccosmogony; some ancient beginning of the mythology is sought in whichmystery is wisdom and wisdom is mystery. The objective or scientific method of studying a mythology is to collectand collate its phenomena simply as it is stated and understood by thepeople to whom it belongs. In tracing back the threads of its historicaldevelopment the student should expect to find it more simple andchildlike in every stage of his progress. It is vain to search for truth in mythologic philosophy, but it isimportant to search for veritable philosphies, that they may be properlycompared and that the products of the human mind in its various stagesof culture may be known; important in the reconstruction of the historyof philosophy; and important in furnishing necessary data to psychology. No labor can be more fruitless than the search in mythology for truephilosophy; and the efforts to build up from the terminology andnarratives of mythologies an occult symbolism and system of allegory isbut to create a new and fictitious body of mythology. There is a symbolism inherent in language and found in all philosophy, true or false, and such symbolism was cultivated as an occult art in theearly history of civilization when picture-writing developed intoconventional writing, and symbolism is an interesting subject for study, but it has been made a beast of burden to carry packs of metaphysicnonsense. SOCIOLOGY. Here again North America presents a wide and interesting field to theinvestigator, for it has within its extent many distinct governments, and these governments, so far as investigations have been carried, arefound to belong to a type more primitive than any of the feudalitiesfrom which the civilized nations of the earth sprang, as shown byconcurrently recorded history. Yet in this history many facts have been discovered suggesting thatfeudalities themselves had an origin in something more primitive. In thestudy of the tribes of the world a multitude of sociologic institutionsand customs have been discovered, and in reviewing the history offeudalities it is seen that many of their important elements aresurvivals from tribal society. So important are these discoveries that all human history has to berewritten, the whole philosophy of history reconstructed. Governmentdoes not begin in the ascendency of chieftains through prowess in war, but in the slow specialization of executive functions from communalassociations based on kinship. Deliberative assemblies do not start incouncils gathered by chieftains, but councils precede chieftaincies. Lawdoes not begin in contract, but is the development of custom. Landtenure does not begin in grants from the monarch or the feudal lord, buta system of tenure in common by gentes or tribes is developed into asystem of tenure in severalty. Evolution in society has not been frommilitancy to industrialism, but from organization based on kinship toorganization based on property, and alongside of the specializations ofthe industries of peace the arts of war have been specialized. So, one by one, the theories of metaphysical writers on sociology areoverthrown, and the facts of history are taking their place, and thephilosophy of history is being erected out of materials accumulating byobjective studies of mankind PSYCHOLOGY. Psychology has hitherto been chiefly in the hands of subjectivephilosophers and is the last branch of anthropology to be treated byscientific methods. But of late years sundry important labors have beenperformed with the end in view to give this department of philosophy abasis of objective facts; especially the organ of the mind has beenstudied and the mental operations of animals have been compared withthose of men, and in various other ways the subject is receivingscientific attention. The new psychology in process of construction will have a threefoldbasis: A physical basis on phenomena presented by the organ of the mindas shown in man and the lower animals; a linguistic basis as presentedin the phenomena of language, which is the instrument of mind; afunctional basis as exhibited in operations of the mind. The phenomena of the third class may be arranged in three subclasses. First, the operations of mind exhibited in individuals in various stagesof growth, various degrees of culture, and in various conditions, normaland abnormal; second, the operations of mind as exhibited in technology, arts, and industries; third, the operations of mind as exhibited inphilosophy; and these are the explanations given of the phenomena of theuniverse. On such a basis a scientific psychology must be erected. * * * * * As methods of study are discovered, a vast field opens to the Americanscholar. Now, as at all times in the history of civilization, there hasbeen no lack of interest in this subject, and no lack of speculativewriters; but there is a great want of trained observers and acuteinvestigators. If we lay aside the mass of worthless matter which has been published, and consider only the material used by the most careful writers, we findon every hand that conclusions are vitiated by a multitude of errors offact of a character the most simple. Yesterday I read an article on the"Growth of Sculpture, " by Grant Allen, that was charming; yet, therein Ifound this statement: So far as I know, the Polynesians and many other savages have not progressed beyond the full-face stage of human portraiture above described. Next in rank comes the drawing of a profile, as we find it among the Eskimos and the bushmen. Our own children soon attain to this level, which is one degree higher than that of the full face, as it implies a special point of view, suppresses half the features, and is not diagrammatic or symbolical of all the separate parts. Negroes and North American Indians cannot understand profile; they ask what has become of the other eye. Perhaps Mr. Allen derives his idea of the inability of the Indians tounderstand profiles from a statement of Catlin, which I have seen usedfor this and other purposes by different anthropologists until it seemsto have become a _favorite fact_. Turning to Catlin's _Letters and Notes on the Manners, Customs, andCondition of the North American Indians_, (vol. 2, page 2) we find himsaying: After I had painted these, and many more whom I have not time at present to name, I painted the portrait of a celebrated warrior of the Sioux, by the name of Mah-to-chee-ga (the Little Bear), who was unfortunately slain in a few moments after the picture was done by one of his own tribe; and which was very near costing me my life, for having painted a side view of his face, leaving one-half of it out of the picture, which had been the cause of the affray; and, supposed by the whole tribe to have been intentionally left out by me, as "good for nothing. " This was the last picture that I painted amongst the Sioux, and the last, undoubtedly, that I shall ever paint in that place. So tremendous and so alarming was the excitement about it that my brushes were instantly put away, and I embarked the next day on the steamer for the sources of the Missouri, and was glad to get underweigh. Subsequently, Mr. Catlin elaborates this incident into the "Story of theDog" (vol. 2, page 188 _et seq_). Now, whatsoever of truth or of fancy there may be in this story, itcannot be used as evidence that the Indians could not understand orinterpret profile pictures, for Mr. Catlin himself gives several platesof Indian pictographs exhibiting profile faces. In my cabinet ofpictographs I have hundreds of side views made by Indians of the sametribe of which Mr. Catlin was speaking. It should never be forgotten that accounts of travelers and otherpersons who write for the sake of making good stories must be used withthe utmost caution. Catlin is only one of a thousand such who can beused with safety only by persons so thoroughly acquainted with thesubject that they are able to divide facts actually observed fromcreations of fancy. But Mr. Catlin must not be held responsible forillogical deductions even from his facts. I know not how Mr. Allenarrived at his conclusion, but I do know that pictographs in profile arefound among very many, if not all, the tribes of North America. Now, for another example. Peschel, in _The Races of Man_ (page 151), says: The transatlantic history of Spain has no case comparable in iniquity to the act of the Portuguese in Brazil, who deposited the clothes of scarlet-fever or small-pox patients on the hunting grounds of the natives, in order to spread the pestilence among them; and of the North Americans, who used strychnine to poison the wells which the Redskins were in the habit of visiting in the deserts of Utah; of the wives of Australian settlers, who, in times of famine, mixed arsenic with the meal which they gave to starving natives. In a foot-note on the same page, Burton is given as authority for thestatement that the people of the United States poisoned the wells of theredskins. Referring to Burton, in _The City of the Saints_ (page 474), we find himsaying: The Yuta claim, like the Shoshonee, descent from an ancient people that immigrated into their present seats from the Northwest. During the last thirty years they have considerably decreased, according to the mountaineers, and have been demoralized mentally and physically by the emigrants. Formerly they were friendly, now they are often at war with the intruders. As in Australia, arsenic and corrosive sublimate in springs and provisions have diminished their number. Now, why did Burton make this statement? In the same volume he describesthe Mountain Meadow massacre, and gives the story as related by theactors therein. It is well known that the men who were engaged in thisaffair tried to shield themselves by diligently publishing that it was amassacre by Indians incensed at the travelers because they had poisonedcertain springs at which the Indians were wont to obtain their suppliesof water. When Mr. Burton was in Salt Lake City he, doubtless, heardthese stories. So the falsehoods of a murderer, told to hide his crime, have gone intohistory as facts characteristic of the people of the United States intheir treatment of the Indians. In the paragraph quoted from Burton someother errors occur. The Utes and Shoshonis do not claim to havedescended from an ancient people that immigrated into their presentseats from the Northwest. Most of these tribes, perhaps all, have mythsof their creation in the very regions now inhabited by them. Again, these Indians have not been demoralized mentally or physically bythe emigrants, but have made great progress toward civilization. The whole account of the Utes and Shoshonis given in this portion of thebook is so mixed with error as to be valueless, and bears intrinsicevidence of having been derived from ignorant frontiersmen. Turning now to the first volume of Spencer's _Principles of Sociology_(page 149), we find him saying: And thus prepared, we need feel no surprise on being told that the Zuni Indians require "much facial contortion and bodily gesticulation to make their sentences perfectly intelligible;" that the language of the Bushman needs so many signs to eke out its meaning, that "they are unintelligible in the dark;" and that the Arapahos "can hardly converse with one another in the dark. " When people of different languages meet, especially if they speaklanguages of different stocks, a means of communication is rapidlyestablished between them, composed partly of signs and partly of oralwords, the latter taken from one or both of the languages, but curiouslymodified so as hardly to be recognized. Such conventional languages areusually called "jargons, " and their existence is rather brief. When people communicate with each other in this manner, oral speech isgreatly assisted by sign-language, and it is true that darkness impedestheir communication. The great body of frontiersmen in America whoassociate more or less with the Indians depend upon jargon methods ofcommunication with them; and so we find that various writers andtravelers describe Indian tongues by the characteristics of this jargonspeech. Mr. Spencer usually does. The Zuni and the Arapaho Indians have a language with a complex grammarand copious vocabulary well adapted to the expression of the thoughtsincident to their customs and status of culture, and they have no moredifficulty in conveying their thoughts with their language by night thanEnglishmen have in conversing without gaslight. An example from each ofthree eminent authors has been taken to illustrate the worthlessness ofa vast body of anthropologic material to which even the best writersresort. Anthropology needs trained devotees with philosophic methods and keenobservation to study every tribe and nation of the globe almost _denovo_; and from, materials thus collected a science may be established. INDEX Anthropologic archæology 73, 74 data, limitation of use of 73-86 ethnic characteristics 76, 77 history, customs 76, 77 language 78-81 mythology 81, 82 origin of man 77, 78 picture writing 75 psychology 83, 86 sociology 83 Archæology, Limitations to the Use of, in study of anthropology 73, 74 Ethnic characteristics, Limitations to the use of, in study of anthropology 76 History and customs, Limitations to the use of, in study of anthropology 76, 77 Language, Limitations to the use of, in study of anthropology 78, 81 List of illustrations, Burial customs 87 Man, Origin of, in connection with the study of anthropology 77, 78 Mythology, Limitations to the use of, in study of anthropology 81, 82 Origin of man, in connection with the study of anthropology 77, 78 Picture writing, Limitations to the use of, in study of anthropology 75 Psychology, Limitations to the use of, in the study of anthropology 83, 86