offer to the young man who for a moment considers it as a possible academic study? There are no professional posts at present open to him, and few academic posts." There is little to attract the young man to anthropology as a career. Is its position as a training of mind any stronger? The student knows if he studies physics or chemistry or engineering that he will obtain a knowledge of the principles of observation, of measurement, and of the interpretation of data which will serve him in good stead whenever he has to deal with phenomena of any kind. But, alas! in anthropology, while he finds many things of surpassing interest, he discovers no generally accepted methods of attacking new problems, quot homines, tot sententiæ. The type of man we want in anthropology is precisely the man who now turns to mathematics, to physics, and to astronomythe man with an exact mind who will not take statements on authority and who believes in testing all things. To such a man anthropometry-in all its branches, craniometry, psychometry, and the wide field in which body and mind are tested together under dynamic conditions-forms a splendid training, provided his data and observations are treated as seriously as those of the physicist or astronomer by adequate mathematical analysis. Such a type of man is at once repelled from our science if he finds in its textbooks and journals nothing but what has been fitly termed "kindergarten arithmetic." Why, the other day I saw in a paper by a distinguished anthropologist an attempt to analyse how many individual bones he ought to measure. He adopted the simple process of comparing the results he obtained when he took 10, 20, 30 individuals. He was not really wiser at the end of his analysis than at the beginning, though he thought he was. And this, notwithstanding that the whole matter has been thrashed out scientifically by John Bernoulli two centuries. ago, and that its solution is a commonplace of physicists and astronomers!

How can we expect the scientific world to take us seriously and to treat anthropology as the equal of other sciences while this state of affairs is possible? What discipline in logical exactness are we offering to academic youth which will compare with that of the older sciences? What claim have we to advise the State until we have introduced a sounder technique and ceased to believe that anthropometry is a science that any man can follow, with or without training? As I have hinted, the problems of anthropology seem to me as subtle as those of physical astronomy, and we are not going to solve them with rusty weapons, nor solve them at all unless we can persuade the "brainy boys" of our universities that they are worthy of keen

10 In London, for example, there is a reader in physical anthropology who is a teacher in anatomy, and a professorship in ethnology, which for some mysterious reason is included in the faculty of economics and is, I believe, not a full-time appointment.

minds. Hence it seems to me that the most fertile training for academic purposes in anthropology is that which starts from anthropometry in its broadest sense, which begins to differentiate caste and class and race, bodily and mental health and disease, by measurement and by the analysis of measurement. Once this sound grounding has been reached the trained mind may advance to ethnology and sociology, to prehistory and the evolution of man. And I shall be surprised if equal accuracy of statement and equal logic of deduction be not then demanded in these fields, and I am more than half convinced, nay, I am certain, that the technique the student will apply in anthropometry can be equally well applied in the wider fields into which he will advance in his later studies. Give anthropology a technique as accurate as that of physics, and it will forge ahead as physics has done, and then anthropologists will take their due place in the world of science and in the service of the State.

Francis Galton has a claim upon the attention of anthropologists which I have not. He has been President of your Institute, and he spoke just 35 years ago from the chair I now occupy, pressing on you for the first time the claims of new anthropological methods. In Galton's words: "Until the phenomena of any branch of knowledge have been submitted to measurement and number it can not assume the status and dignity of a science." Have we not rather forgotten those warning words, and do they not to some extent explain why our universities and learned societies, why the State and statesmen, have turned the cold shoulder on anthropology?

This condition of affairs must not continue; it is good neither for anthropology, nor for the universities, nor for the State if this fundamental science, the science of man, remains in neglect. It will not continue if anthropologists pull together and insist that their problems shall not fail in utility, that their scientific technique shall be up to date, and that anthropological training shall be a reality in our universities-that these shall be fully equipped with museums, with material, with teachers and students.

It is almost as difficult to reform a science as it is to reform a religion; in both cases the would-be reformer will offend the sacrosanct upholders of tradition, who find it hard to discard the faith in which they have been reared. But it seems to me that the difficulties of our time plead loudly for a broadening of the purpose and a sharpening of the weapons of anthropology. If we elect to stand where we have done, then a new science will respond to the needs of state and society; it will spring from medicine and psychology, it will be the poorer in that it knows little of man's development, little of his history or prehistory. But it will devote itself to the urgent problems of the day. The future lies with the nation that most truly

plans for the future, that studies most accurately the factors which will improve the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally. Is anthropology to lie outside this essential function of the science of man? If I understand the recent manifesto of the German anthropologists, they are determined it shall not be so. The war is at an end, but the critical time will be with us again, I sadly fear, in 20 to 30 years. How will the States of Europe stand then? It depends to no little extent on how each of them may have cultivated the science of man and applied its teaching to the improvement of national physique and mentality. Let us take care that our Nation is not the last in this legitimate rivalry. The organization of existing human society with a view to its future welfare is the crowning task of the science of man; it needs the keenest-minded investigators, the most stringent technique, and the utmost sympathy from all classes of society itself. Have we, as anthropologists, the courage to face this greatest of all tasks in the light of our knowledge of the past and with our understanding of the folk of to-day? Or shall we assert that anthropology is after all only a small part of the science of man, and retreat to our study of bones and potsherds on the ground that science is to be studied for its own sake and not for the sake of mankind? I do not know what answer you will give to that question, yet I am convinced what the judgment of the future on your answer is certain to be. It will be similar to Wang Yang Ming's reproof of the complacency of the Chinese cultured classes of his day: "Thought and learning are of little value, if they be not translated into action."

PIGMENTATION IN THE OLD AMERICANS, WITH NOTES

ON GRAYING AND LOSS OF HAIR.'

By anthropology of the Old Americans is meant the status, physically, physiologically, and demographically, of the oldest parts of the white population of the United States, as contrasted with the American population at large and with other units of the white race.

Since discovery this country has been an ever-increasing eddy that drew in, and still draws the offshoots and surplus of a wide range of white populations in the older parts of the world, and a large majority of these newcomers have remained, made this their permanent home, and intermingling with others have been gradually building up the great new nation.

The changed environment, the many new stimuli, the freer and more virile as well as more strenuous life, the better and more abundant nourishment, the more wholesome conditions in general, and besides all the steadily growing admixture of blood, have now been acting on the older parts of this nation for from one to over three centuries. What are the results? Here is a great natural laboratory, the subject of whose multitudinous experiments has been man himself: How has he responded, and what are the indications for the future?

1 Reprinted by permission from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. v, No. 2, May, 1922.