BAAS September 1888

Pitt-Rivers, A.H.L.F. 1888. [c]. 'Address as President of the Anthropological Section of the British Association, Bath, September 6, 1888', Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1888), pp. 825-835.

Section H.—Anthropology
President of the Section—Lieut.-General Pitt-Rivers, D.C.L., F.R.S., F.G.S., F.S.A.

Thursday, September 6
The President delivered the following Address:-
Having been much occupied up to within the last week in my own special branch of anthropology, and in bringing out the second volume of my excavations in Dorsetshire, which I wished to have ready for those who are interested in the subject on the occasion of this meeting, I regret that I have been unable to prepare an address on a general subject, as I could have wished to do, and am compelled to limit my remarks to matters on which I have been recently engaged. Also, I wish to make a few observations on the means to be taken to promulgate anthropological knowledge and render it available for the education of the masses.
Taking the last-mentioned subject first, I will commence with anthropological museums, to which I have given attention for many years. In my judgment, an institution which is dedicated to the Muses should be something more than a store, it should have some backbone in it. It should be in itself a means of conveying knowledge, and not a mere repository of objects from which knowledge can be culled by those who know where to look for it. A national museum, created and maintained at the public expense, should be available for public instruction, and not only a place of reference for savants.
I do not deny the necessity that exists for museum stores for the use of students, but I maintain that, side by side with such stores, there should in these days exist museums instructively arranged for the benefit of those who have no time to study, and for whom the practical results of anthropological and other scientific investigations are quite as important as for savants.
The one great feature which it is desirable to emphasise in connection with the exhibition of archaeological and ethnological specimens is evolution. To impress upon the mind the continuity and historical sequence of the arts of life, is, without doubt, one of the most important lessons to be inculcated. It is only of late years that the development of social institutions has at all entered into the design of educational histories. And the arts of life, so far as I am aware, have never formed part of any educational series. Yet as a study of evolution they are the most important of all, because in them the connecting links between the various forms of development can be better displayed.
The relative value of any subject for this purpose is not in proportion to the interest which attaches to the subject in the abstract. Laws, customs, and institutions may perhaps be regarded as of greater importance than the arts of life, but for anthropological purposes they are of less value, because in them, previously to the introduction of writing, the different phases of development, as soon as they are superseded by new ideas, are entirely lost and cannot be reproduced except in imagination. Whereas in the arts of life, in which ideas are embodied in material forms, the connecting links are in many cases preserved, and can be replaced in the proper sequence by means of antiquities.
For this reason the study of the arts of life ought always to precede the study of social evolution, in order that the student may learn to make allowance for missing links, and to avoid sophisms and the supposition of laws and tendencies which have no existence in reality.
To ascertain the true causes of all the phenomena of human life is the main object of anthropological research, and it is obvious that this is better done in those branches in which the continuity is best preserved.
In the study of natural history, existing animals are regarded as present phases in the development of species, and their value to the biological student depends, not so much on their being of the highest organism, as on the palaeontological sequence by which their history is capable of being established. In the same way existing laws, institutions and arts, wherever they are found in their respective stages of perfection, are to be regarded simply as existing strata in the development of human life, and their value from an anthropological point of view depends on the facilities they afford for studying their history.
If I am right in this view of the matter, it is evident that the arts of life are of paramount importance, because they admit of being arranged in cases by means of antiquities in the order in which they actually occurred, and by that means they serve to illustrate the development of other branches which cannot be so arranged, and the continuity of which is therefore not open to visual demonstration for the benefit of the unlearned.
It is now considerably over thirty years since I first began to pay attention to this subject. Having been employed in experimenting with new inventions in firearms, submitted to H.M. Government in 1852-3, I drew up in 1858 a paper which was published in the ‘United Service Journal,’ showing the continuity observable in the various ideas submitted for adoption in the army at that time.
Later, in 1867-8 and 9, I published three papers, which, in order to adapt them to the institution at which they were read, I called “Lectures on Primitive Warfare,” but which, in reality, were treatises on the development of primitive weapons, in which it was shown how the earliest weapons of savages arose from the selection of natural forms of sticks and stones, and were developed gradually into the forms in which they are now used. I also traced the development of the forms of implements of the bronze age and their transition into those of the iron age. These papers were followed by others on the same subject read at the Royal Institution and elsewhere, relating to the development of special branches, such as Early Modes of Navigation, Forms of Ornament, Primitive Locks and Keys, the Distribution of the Bow, and its development, into what I termed the composite bow in Asia and America, and other subjects.
Meanwhile I had formed a museum in which the objects to which the papers related were arranged in developmental order. This was exhibited at the Science and Art Department at Bethnal Green from 1874 to 1878, and at South Kensington from that date to 1885; and a catalogue raisonné was published by the Department, which went through two editions. After that, wishing to find a permanent home for it, where it would increase and multiply, I presented it to the University of Oxford, the University having granted 10,000l. to build the museum to contain it. It is there known as the ‘Pitt-Rivers Collection,’ and is arranged in the same order as at South Kensington. Professor Moseley has devoted much attention to the removal and re-arrangement of it up to the time of his recent, but I trust only temporary illness, which has been so great a loss to the University, and which has been felt by no one connected with it more than by myself; for whilst his great experience as a traveller and anthropologist enabled him to improve and add to it, he has at the same time always shown every disposition to do justice to the original collection. Since Professor Moseley’s illness it has been in the charge of Mr. H. Balfour, who I am sure will follow in the steps of his predecessor and former chief, and will do his best to enlarge and improve it. He has already added a new series in relation to the ornamentation of arrow-stems, which has been published by the Anthropological Institute. It appears, however, desirable that the same system should be established in other places, and with that view I have for some time past been collecting the materials for a new museum, which, if I live long enough to complete it, I shall probably plant elsewhere.
Before presenting the collection to Oxford I had offered it to the Government, in the hope that it might form the nucleus of a large educational museum arranged upon the system of development which I had adopted. A very competent committee was appointed to consider the offer, which recommended that it should be accepted, but the Government declined to do so; one of the reasons assigned being that some of the authorities of the British Museum thought it undesirable that two ethnographical museums should exist in London at the same time; this, however, entirely waives the questions of the totally different objects that the two museums (at least that part of them which relates to ethnographical specimens) are intended to serve.
The British Museum with its enormous treasures of art, is itself only in a molluscous and invertebrate condition of development. For the education of the masses it is of no use whatever. It produces nothing but confusion in the minds of those who wander through its long galleries with but little knowledge of the periods to which the objects contained in them relate. The necessity of storing all that can be obtained, and all that is presented to them in the way of specimens, precludes the possibility of a scientific or an educational arrangement.
By the published returns of the Museum it appears that there has been a gradual falling off in the number of visitors since 1882, when the number was 767,873, to 1887, when it had declined to 501,256. This may be partly owing to the increased claims of bands and switchbacks upon public attention, but it cannot be owing to the removal of the Natural History Museum to South Kensington, as has been suggested, since the space formerly occupied by those collections at Bloomsbury has since been filled with objects of greater general interest, and the galleries have been considerably enlarged.
The Science and Art Department at South Kensington has done much for higher education, but for the education of the masses it is of no more use than the British Museum, for the same reason, that its collections are not arranged in sequence, and its galleries are not properly adapted for such an arrangement. Besides such establishments, annual exhibitions on a prodigious scale have been held in London for many years, at an enormous cost, but at the present time not the slightest trace of these remains, and I am not aware of any permanent good that has resulted from them. If one-tenth of the cost of these temporary exhibitions had been devoted to permanent collections, we should by this time have the finest industrial museum in the world. Throughout the whole series of these annual temporary exhibitions, only one, viz., the American department of the Fisheries Exhibition, was arranged upon scientific principles, and that was arranged upon the plan adopted by the National Museum at Washington. It appears probable from the experience of the present year that these annual exhibitions are on the decline. Large iron buildings have been erected in different places, some of which would meet all the requirements of a permanent museum. The Olympia occupies 3 1/2 acres, the Italian Exhibition as much as 7 acres. There can be little doubt, I think, that the long avenues of potted meats and other articles  of commonplace merchandise, which now constitute the chief part of the objects exhibited in these places, must before long cease to be attractive and must be replaced by something else, and in view of such a change I venture to put in a plea for a national anthropological museum upon a large scale, using the term in its broadest sense, arranged stratigraphically in concentric rings upon the plan of the diagram now exhibited. It is a large proposal, no doubt, but one which, considering the number of years I have devoted to the subject, I hope I shall not be thought presumptuous in submitting for the consideration of the Anthropological Section of this Association.
The Palaeolithic period being the earliest, would occupy the central ring, and having fewer varieties of form would require the smallest space. Next to it the Neolithic and bronze age would be arranged in two concentric ring, and would contain, besides the relics of those periods, models of prehistoric monuments, bone caves, and other places interesting on account of the prehistoric finds that have been made in them. After that, in expanding order, would come Egyptian, Greek, Assyrian, and Roman antiquities, to be followed by the objects of the Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, and Merovingian periods; these again in developmental outward expansion would be surrounded by mediaeval antiquities, and the outer rings of all might then be devoted to showing the evolution of such modern arts as could be placed in continuity with those of antiquity.
In order that the best objects might be selected to represent the different periods and keep up the succession of forms which could constitute the chief object of the museum, I would confine the exhibition chiefly to casts, reproductions, and models, the latter being, in my opinion, a means of representing primitive arts, which has not yet been sufficiently made use of, but which in my own small museum at Farnham, Dorsetshire, I have employed to a considerable extent, having as many as twenty-three models, similar to those now exhibited, of places in which things have been found within an area of two miles.
The several sections and rings would be superintended by directors and assistants, whose function it would be to obtain reproductions and models of the objects best adapted to display the continuity of their several arts and periods; and the arts selected for representation should be those in which this continuity could be most persistently adhered to. Amongst these the following might be named:- Pottery, architecture, house furniture, modes of navigation, tools, weapons, weaving apparatus, painting, sculpture, modes of land transport and horse-furniture, ornamentation, personal ornament, hunting and fishing apparatus, machinery, fortification, modes of burial, agriculture, ancient monuments, domestication of animals, toys, means of heating and providing light, the use of food, narcotics, and so forth.
Miscellaneous collections calculated to confuse the several series, and having no bearing on development, should be avoided, but physical anthropology relating to man as an animal, might find its place in the several sections.
I have purposely avoided in my brief sketch of this scheme giving unnecessary details. Any cut-and-dried plan would have to be greatly altered, according to the possibilities of the case, when the time for action arrived. My object is to ventilate the general idea of a large anthropological Rotunda, which I have always thought would be the final outcome of the activity which has shown itself in this branch of science during the last few years, and which I have reason to believe is destined to come into being before long. In such an institution the position of each phase of art development shows itself at once by its distance from the centre of the space, and the collateral branches would be arranged to merge into each other according to their geographical positions.
The advantages of such an institution would be appreciated, not by anthropologists and archaeologists only. It would adapt itself more especially to the limited time for study at the disposal of the working classes, for whose education it is unnecessary to say at the present time we are all most deeply concerned. Although it is customary to speak of working men as uneducated, education is a relative term, and it is well to remember that in all that relates to the material arts they have, in the way of technical skill and handicraft, a better groundwork for appreciating what is put before them than the upper classes. That they are able to educate themselves by means of a well-arranged museum, my own experience, even with the imperfect arrangements that have been at my command, enables me to testify. Anything which tends to impress the mind with the slow growth of stability of human institutions and industry and their dependence upon antiquity, must, I think, contribute to check revolutionary ideas, and the tendency which now exists, and which is encouraged by some who should know better, to break drastically with the past, and must help to inculcate conservative principles, which are urgently needed at the present time, if the civilization that we enjoy is to be preserved and to be permitted to develop itself.

The accompanying map of Great Britain shows the monuments that I have been the means of obtaining by the consent of their owners. [not shown, details available via the Nature article about this address see Nature Oct. 4, 1888 pp 542-546]

The Pictish Tower at Mousa in the Shetlands, which is well known to be the best preserved monument of this class in the country, has been included by the owner, Mr. Bruce, and some necessary repairs have been done to it by the Government. In the Orkneys the owners of the scheduled monuments declined to make use of the Act, but they are well looked after. The same applies to the Bass of Inverurie, the Vitrified Fort on the hill of Noath, the Pillar Stones at Newton, in the Garioch, and the British settlement at Harefaulds, in Lauderdale, which latter, however, is in such ruinous condition that the remains of it are scarcely worth preserving.The Suenos Stone the Nairn; the Cat-stane at Kirkliston; the Burgh of Clickanim, have also been withheld by their owners,but most of them are very well taken care of. The Cairns at Minnigaff were nearly destroyed before they were scheduled, and are not worth preserving. The inscribed stone in St. Vigean's churchyard is preserved in the porch of the church, but it is not included. On the other hand, Edin's Hall, the largest and most southern of the remains of the Pictish Towers in Berwickshire has been included by Mr. J.S. Fraser-Tytler;the Black and White Caterthuns have been added by Miss Carnegy Arbuthnot;both these are large camps having ramparts of stones and earth-works round them, and they are described in General Roy’s work. The Pictish Towers at Glenelg have been included by Mr. James Bruce Bailey; they are in a very bad state of repair, and have been propped up by the Government. The inscribed stones at Laggangairn, New Luce, have been included by Lord Stair; they are at a great distance from any road or habitation, and the protection afforded them, beyond the powers contained in the Act, must be regarded as nominal. The Peter's stone, on the road from Wigton to Whithorn, has not been added; it is an important stone, and is in a dangerous position; it has already suffered damage, and it is to be hoped it will be included hereafter. The chapel on the Isle of Whithorn, supposed to be that built by St. Ninian, has been included by Mr. R. Johnstone Stewart; this was not in the schedule. The Pillars of Kirkmadrine have been included by Mrs. Ommaney McTaggart ; they are the earliest Christian monuments in the country. I suggested that Government should contribute towards building a small chapel to contain them, which has been done. The Cross at Ruthwell, with its remarkable runes, which were gradually being destroyed and covered with lichen, so that its

inscription could not be read, has also been added. I suggested that the Government could contribute towards building an annex to the neighbouring church to contain it, which has been done. This was not in the schedule. The cup-marked rock of Drumtrodden, Wigtonshire, has been added by Sir Herbert Maxwell, and Government has granted a certain sum towards building a shed over it to preserve it. It was not in the schedule, but is a good example of its class. Barsalloch Fort, Wigtonshire, the Moat Hill of Druchtag, the Drumtrodden standing stones, Wigtonshire, have also been added by Sir Herbert Maxwell. St. Ninian's Cave, with its early Christian crosses, has been included by Mr. Johnstone Stewart. In the Island of Lewis the remarkable standing stones in the form of a cross at Callernish, and the Broch at Carloway, have been added by Lady Matheson. This latter is, next to Mousa, the best Pictish tower in the country. In Cumberland, the Stone Circle on Castle Rigg has been put under the Act by Miss Edmondson. In Westmoreland, Arthur's Round Table, an earthen circle with a ditch in the interior, and Mayborough, a large circle with an embankment of stones and the remains of a stone circle within, has been included by Lord Brougham. In Derbyshire, Arborlow,  a large circle similar to Arthur’s Round Table, with the remains of a stone circle, the stones of which are prostrate, and a large tumulus near it, has been added by the Duke of Rutland. Hob Hurst’s House, and the Circle on Eyam Moor, which also has a large cairn close to it, have been included by the Duke of Devonshire, and the Nine Ladies, a circle of small stones on Stanton Moor, by Major Thornhill. In Gloucestershire, Uleybury, a long barrow with a well-preserved stone chamber, has been added by Colonel Kingscote. In Oxfordshire, the Rollrich stones have been included by Mr. J. Reade. In Kent, Kit’s Coty House by Mr. Brassey, which is the remains of a long barrow, the traces of which can be seen, with part of the stone chamber remaining. In Somerset the Stone Circles of Stanton Drewm, by Mrs. S.B. Coates, and the Cove there by Mr. Fowler; the chambered at Stoney Littleton by Lord Hylton. In Wiltshire, the long barrow at West Kennet by the Rev. R.M. Ashw, and Silbury Hill by Sir John Lubbock. In Dorsetshire, the chambered long barrow, called the Grey Mare and Colts, near Gorwell, by Mr. A.B. Sheridan; the circle of Nine Stones near Bridehead Park by Mr. R. Williams; the Stone Circle on Kingston Russell Farm by the Duke of Bedford; and in Wales the Pentre Evan cromlech, one of the largest in the country, by Lord Kensington—making in all thirty-six which have been placed under the Act with the consent of their owners. All these and many others have been surveyed; plans, drawings and sections have been made of them, which are contained in the book now upon the table, which is open for the inspection of the members. I hope to publish these shortly. Besides such monuments which are included under the Act, a good deal of useful work has been done by communicating with the owners of other monuments, without using the Act.

I think it speaks well for the landowners that so many should have been willing to accept the Act, considering that so few of them take much interest in antiquities. There is not a more public-spirited body in the world than the much-abused landowners of England.

Those who have refused have generally done so on the grounds that they wish to remain responsible for their own monuments, and I think I may say, from my own observations, that there is  very little damage to prehistoric monuments going on at the present time. Public opinion has done more than any Act of Parliament could do, and it appears to me that it is generally known throughout the country that any wilful damage to the monuments would be universally condemned.

But it is well to consider the operation of the Act, and how it may be improved. The provision which makes it illegal, ever after, to destroy the monuments that are now placed under the Act by their owners, and to enable magistrates to punish offenders summarily, appears to me excellent, and worthy to be retained. But there are defects to which it would be well to give attention. By the present Act, the Government are made responsible for all the monuments that are included, which entails expense; and as members of Parliament generally take very little interest in ancient monuments, and the great object of the Government must always be to curtain expenditure, additions to the list are not as a rule encouraged.

I last year obtained eleven new monuments, but I was told that this was too many, and that some must be omitted, so I selected three of the least important, and they have not been included. This, I think, is objectionable; the two provisions of the Act I have mentioned should be applied as widely as possible. If the provision making Government responsible for the preservation of the whole of them is altered, there will be no inducement on the part of the authorities to reduce the number to be included. At present local archaeologists wash their hands of the matter, thinking that there is a Government Inspector whose business it is to look after the monuments. This is a mistake; the proper function of the Inspector is simply to look after the monuments that are included, and to advise the Commissioners—not to obtain new monuments for the Act. I have done so because I was charged in a special manner with the organization and working of the Act on its first introduction, but it is beyond the proper functions of the Inspector. I have done it as a private individual may do the same. Moreover, it is impossible for an Inspector to stand sentry over all the monuments that are put under the Act. The police are requested to look after them as well as they can, but damage must occasionally be done which local archaeologists are in a better position to ascertain and to remedy, using the provisions of the Act for the purpose.

It may be that my position as a landowner, as Lord Stallbridge said in his letter asking me to take the appointment, may have had some effect in enabling me to persuade some of the other landowners, but you cannot insure always having a landowner for an Inspector, and it is desirable now to put the Act on a working footing. It is much to be wished that local Archaeological Societies should be made to feel themselves responsible both for the inclusion of monuments under the Act, and their preservation afterwards; the Act arms them with full powers for the purpose if they think proper to use it.

... I think that the Government should continue to appropriate a small sum (it is now under £200 a year) to apply to such purposes as may be thought desirable, such as building sheds to preserve the monuments, but that they should not necessarily be held responsible for all the monuments placed under the Act, and that, the Bill being a permissive one, it should rest with the public to make use of it or not, as they think proper. If there is no demand for the preservation of monuments, there is no reason why the country should be saddled with the expense of it. If there is demand, let those who are interested use the law on the subject as they use any other to prosecute delinquents. I think, also, the provision that the new monuments before being included should rest forty days before Parliament might be advantageously abolished. The First Commissioner, with the practical knowledge of the Inspector, is fully competent to decide upon the monuments to be included. It is evident that, if it were desired to save any monument that might be threatened, the forty days would afford ample time to enable the destruction to be carried out before the Act could be applied. With these alterations I think the Act would take root in the country and produce better results. Of one thing, however, I feel certain: that, as long as the owner of a monument takes an interest in it, he is the best person that the public can look to for the preservation of it. [He then reports on his recent excavations ...]

Transcribed by AP for Rethinking Pitt-Rivers project and in 2015 [Ancient Monuments second half taken from the version given as Nature Oct. 4, 1888 pp 542-546]