Mexico, one of which influenced the Southeast and the other the Southwest. One center was probably in the highlands, and the other on the east coast.

Transcription

1 DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 733 Mexico, one of which influenced the Southeast and the other the Southwest. One center was probably in the highlands, and the other on the east coast. To judge from the traits which spread northward from them, the cultures of these two centers must have differed considerably. May I make the suggestion that Mexico was influenced by the north, and blended the two northern cultures? We know that there was communication between Mexico and the Southeast and Southwest. It is possible that Mexico adopted scaffold torture, temples built on pyramidal mounds, certain pottery forms and art motives from the lower Mississippi valley, and stone construction, impersonation of deities, cardiac sacrifice, weaving, mosaic work and the maize complex from the Southwest. If we adopt this view, we shall find no occasion for surprise that Nearly all the specialized Mexican traits which are present in the Southeast are lacking in the Southwest, and vice versa.. Any high civilization is not only a center of diffusion, but also a melting pot; a focal point as well as a focus. Simple civilizations, in the aggregate, probably influence neighbouring complex civilizations as much as they are influenced. Thus Rome was not merely a diffusion center, but a cross-roads where many civilizations met, and were either elaborated or debased. Of course, both ancient Rome and ancient Mexico made original contributions to civilization, too. But we must not forget that the Aztec, Maya, and Inca drew upon the surrounding tribes for cultural traits, just as New York City draws upon Sleepy Hollow, Baltramansk, and the seven Buddhist hells for sweetness and light. JOHN OWEN CLARK FIRST IMPERIAL COLLEGE, TOKYO, JAPAN REPORT TO THE COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DIVISION OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL At its last annual meeting, the Councii of the American Anthropological Association appointed a committee consisting of Doctors Boas, Hough, and Hooton to consider the relations between the 1 Received by the Editor on April 25, 1927.

2 734 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. S., 29, 1927 Association and the National Research Council. On February 24, 1926, Dr. Boas, Chairman of the Committee communicated to the Division the following: In the opinion of the American Anthropological Association a closer cooperation between the National Research Council, more particularly to the Division of Anthropology and Psychology, is considered highly desirable. Since the American Anthropological Association appoints representatives, it shares with the National Research Council the responsibility for the conduct of the Division and for enterprises in which the Division participates. In order to make this possible the American Anthropological Association believes that it is indispensable that annual reports on the progress of work in the Division should be rendered, and it should be in a position to express its opinion in regard to the work that is going on. I had the privilege of taking part in the discussion which led to the formation of Dr. Boas committee; I have since talked with many Anthropologists about the affairs of the Division; and since assuming. its chairmanship I have naturally given much anxious thought to the question of how it might best advance our science. The result of all this is a belief that the Division has not yet been able to fulfil to the maximum its possibilities for service, because it has not had the enthusiastic support of Anthropologists, and that this support has been withheld because the nature and particularly the limitations of the Division have not been made clear to them. Anthropologists have expected more of the Division along certain lines than was possible for it to accomplish; and their disappointment in this regard hgs, I think, diverted their attention from less obvious but surely no less important aspects of the Division s field of work. It may be well to state briefly the aims of the National Research Council and the organization of the Division. The National Research Council is neither a large operating scientific laboratory, nor a repository of large funds to be given away to scattered scientific workers or institutions. It is rather an organization which while clearly recognizing the unique value of individual work hopes expecially to help bring together scattered work and workers, and to assist in coordinating, in some measure, scientific attack in America upon large problems in any and all lines of scientific activity, especially, perhaps, upon those problems which depend for successful solution on the cooperation of several or many workers and laboratories either within the realm of a single science or representing different realms in which various parts of a single problem may lie.* Annual report for 1926, p. 2.

3 DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 735 Aside from a small group of permanent administrative officers, the Council, or rather that part of it which concerns itself with the natural sciences, is made up of representatives of the leading scientific and technical societies of America, plus a certain number of members at large. These are grouped into seven divisions: (1) Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy; (2) Engineering and Industrial Research; ($) Chemistry and Chemical Technology; (4) Geology and Geography; (5) Medical Sciences; (6) Biology and Agriculture; (7) Anthropology and Psychology. Our Division is made up of six representatives from the American Anthropological Association ; six from the American Psychological Association; six members at large, three Anthropologists and three Psychologists; one representative from the Educational Research Association, and one from the Council s Division of Federal Relations. From this membership there is chosen a resident chairman who ordinarily serves for one year. When the chairman is an Anthropologist the vice-chairman is usually a Psychologist and vice-versa; there is, however, no regulation governing this matter, nor is there any provision that strict alternation of Anthropologists and Psychologists should take place in the choice of chairmen. The salaries of the chairman and his secretary are paid from the general funds of the Research Council; the Division also receives from the same source a yearly appropriation for general maintenance, sufficient to cover the cost of the annual meeting, and leave a small balance for contingencies. The Division has no funds of its own to be allocated for research. The present anthropological activities of the Division are as follows : (1) Committee on State Archaeological Surveys. Seeks to stimulate archaeological work by properly qualified state agencies, to coordinate the results of such work, to promote contacts between investigators, and to encourage the preservation of archaeological sites. Publishes each year in the AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST a summary of current projects. (2) Committee on Child Development. The work of this committee concerns all biological aspects of the child of pre-school age. Included among its interests, therefore, is the physical anthropology of children, and the anthropological side of child-psychology. (3) Committee on the ClassiJication of Anthrofiologud Literature. Organized to pass upon a specific project in classification. It is also available for service as an advisory body.

4 736 AMERICAN A NTIIROPOLOGIST [N. S., 29, 1927 (4) Committee on a Study of the American Negro. Newly organized at the request of Anthropologists for the purpose of coordinating and stimulating Negro research. (5) Committee on a Study of Pelvic Structure. Newly organized for the purpose of considering a specific project of research. The Division can serve Anthropology in many ways. It provides by its annual meetings and by the four stated meetings a year of its Executive Committee, opportunity for the discussion of anthropological topics, and the consideration of anthropological projects, by a group of representatives of the Anthropological Association, who, if the Association selects wisely, shou'ld be those most competent for such deliberations. Secondly, the Division has, approximately every other year, an anthropological chairman, resident in Washington, equipped with adequate office and secretarial facilities, who not only can devote a considerable share of his attention to anthropological matters, but can work under the most favorable conditions to promote between Anthropology and the other sciences represented in the Council those contacts which are so essential to the progress of research. Furthermore, the Division can provide the machinery by the establishment of sub-committees both within and without its membership, for the study or promotion of special aspects of Anthropology. Finally, it can be of assistance in the raising of funds for the prosecution of anthropological research by adding the weight of its endorsement to projects already under consideration by donors 0: by attempting itself to find donors and enlist their support. The organization and the scope of the Division have now been considered. It remains to discuss certain criticisms of the functioning of the Division. It has been felt by some: (1) That it loses efficiency by attempting to cover two fields as large as Anthropology and Psychology. (2) That it has been inactive. (3) That it has not kept the Association informed as to its activities. (4) That it has failed to secure adequate financial backing for Anthropological projects. (5) That it has expended money unwisely. The association of Anthropology and Psychology in one Division of the Research Council is primarily a matter of financial necessity. Sufficient funds are not available to provide for separate Divisions of these two sciences. That we are not discriminated against in this regard is shown by the grouping in the Council of, for instance,

5 DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE 737 Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy; and Biology and Agriculture. It would, of course, be desirable in many ways for us to enjoy the material benefits of an independent section; but, on the other hand, there are very distinct compensations. As has often been pointed out, the contacts between Anthropology and Psychology are both numerous and important. Each science has developed techniques and has acquired data of great value for the other, and the pooling of these, together with the diverse view-points from which problems can be considered, has always been one of the most stimulating aspects of the Division s work. It should be added that the Psychologists have never attempted to assert that dominance in the affairs of the Division, to which the numerical superiority of workers in their science (probably ten to one) might seem to entitle them. They have, as a matter of fact, done everything in their power to assist the growth of Anthropology, and are attempting at the present time to promote its teaching in those universities which have no departments. If the Division has been inactive, its inactivity has been due, I am sure, more to lack of funds than to bureaucratic sloth. That it has not kept the Association informed as to what it has done is, it seems to me, a much more serious charge, because it has not only deprived the Association of knowledge to which, as the agency responsible for the selection of the anthropological members of the Division, it is naturally entitled; but has deprived the Division of that wholehearted cooperation of all Anthropologists which is so absolutely essential for its development. The feeling that the Division has failed to secure adequate backing for Anthropological projects, and that when money was available it has at times been unwisely expended, has, I believe, less justification. It is due to a misunderstanding on the part of Anthropologists of the policy and especially of the financial limitations of the Research Council. As has been said before, the Division is not in possession of funds for distribution in the form of grants. Such funds would, indeed, place it in the difficult position of arbiter between the merits of different aspects of research; it is always ready, however, to do what it can to assist in the financing of worthy projects. In the case of our Division, funds have come in two ways. In one set of instances, donors have approached the Division for advice as to the accomplishment of certain definite ends, and have later requested the Division, through one of its committees, to undertake the administration of grants. Certain projects originating outside of this Division and

6 738 A M ERICA N ANTHROPOLOGIST IN. S., 29, 1927 coming to it, so to speak, ready-financed, have presumably given rise to the feeling that the Division was spending money unwisely, because it was being used for undertakings not thought by some students to be of primary importance. It should be remembered, however, that for the prosecution of these researches, no funds have been depleted that could have been disbursed for other activities. Needless to say, the Division only accepts responsibility for undertakings as to the value of which it is thoroughly convinced; and the most captious critic could hardly object to its employment of available funds for worthy ends, merely because support for other researches, even possibly of greater significance, could not at the moment be had. The same set of considerations applies to the financing of projects originating in the Division, or presented to it for assistance. Donors, whether individuals or foundations, usually have special interests or special fields of endeavor, and if projects under consideration happen to be in line with these, backing is naturally not difficult to obtain. If, however, a project does not accord obviously with the desires of any potential donor, the Division must, like any other sales agency, attempt to create a demand for it by emphasizing its basic scientific importance, or its immediate practical value. The success of the Division s effort must necessarily depend, to a large extent, upon the assistance that it receives, first from those actively interested in any given project, secondly from the general body of Anthropologists. Without the former it can hardly hope to present the concrete case with a maximum of effect; without the latter it can never attain a position sufficiently influential for its recommendations to carry weight. Anthropology will be benefited by the Division in exact proportion to the amount of effort that Anthropologists are willing to put into it. A. V. KIDDER