Even more direct and vital in its influence upon historiography was the new science of anthropology, which, in its modern form, was a product of the new evolutionary concepts applied to the study of mankind as a unity. While not ignoring the contributions of earlier students, modern anthropology owed its origin primarily to the researches and writings of Tylor in England, Bastian in Germany and Boas in America. Its purpose, according to Professor Boas, is "to reconstruct the early history of mankind, and, wherever possible, to express, in the form of laws ever-recurring modes of historical happeninas." The chief point of contact between anthropology and his tory is found in the attempt of the former to discover and formulate the laws of cultural evolution. With the controversies between the older school of unilateral evolutionists, repre sented by Spencer, Avebury, Morgan and Frazer, the more recent advocates of the doc trine of "diffusion,* such as F. Graebner, Rivers and Elliott Smith, and the exponents of the so-called theory of "convergent develop of cultural similarities and repetitions, among the most important of whom are Ehrenreich, Boas, Lowie and Goldenweiser, it will be impossible to deal in this place. It will be sufficient to insist upon the fact that no historian can regard himself as competent to attempt any large synthesis of historical ma terial without having thoroughly acquainted himself with these fundamental attempts to bring definite laws of development out of the chaos of historical facts. An attempt to link up cultural anthropology with a dynamic his tory has recently been made in two thoughtful books by Professor Teggart of the University of California. Dr. Goldenweiser in a recent brilliant article has endeavored to provide a systematic methodological point of departure for scientific history and critical anthropology. Several other significant influences of anthropology in altering the attitude of the historian should be noted. In the first place, nothing could be more destructive of chauvinism or more important for acquiring a proper perspective for the interpretation of his torical development than a perusal of the com parative surveys of legal, political, social and religious institutions by such writers as Lippert, Ihering, Tylor, Westermarck, Hobhouse, Durk heim and Sumner. The greatest blow to the venerable myth of the origins of political democracy in the Germanic folk-moot, which it ever sustained, was the discovery that it could be matched among primitive peoples the world over and that it was not the sole posses sion of the 'noblest branch of the Aryans.' Again, while the laws of cultural development which have been formulated by and the breadth or view inseparable from the handling of anthropological data are of the utmost value to all fields of history, anthropol ogy has a particularly close relation to the field of ancient history in that the beginnings of civilization cannot be properly understood and interpreted without a thorough acquaintance with the background of the primitive culture which preceded the dawn of written history. Finally, anthropology, by its study of mankind as a unity in time and space and especially through its basic premise developed by Bastian of the fundamental unity of the human mind, has for the first time provided a firm basis for a rational conception of the real unity of history.
Closely related to the subject of anthropol ogy, and by some considered a branch of that science, is the relatively recent science of pre historic and proto-historic archaeology. Work ing in co-operation with geologists and students of paleontology and comparative anatomy the archaeologists, such as Boucher de Perthes, Rutot Breuil, Boule, Dechelette, Cartailhac, Schmidt, Obermaier, Peet and Munro, have revealed the existence of mankind on the earth during a space of time almost beyond the range of human conception. The origins of the race
have been pushed back from the few thousand years comprehended in the exact chronologies of Eusebius, Jerome, Usher and Lightfoot to a vague and uncertain period not less than a quarter of a million years ago. The modification in the historical perspective which this epoch-making discovery has necessitated is obvious. As Professor Robinson has pointed out, Thales and Herodotus can no longer be regarded as among the *ancients,° but in the new scale of time must be viewed as our con temporaries. Not only has the discovery of the remoteness of human origins fundamentally altered all previous conceptions of the time ele ment in history, but it has given a new impulse to a dynamic theory of progress, in that it has shown that mankind have advanced further in the few centuries that have elapsed since the dawn of written history than they had in the tens of thousands of years previous to that time, and also because it has demonstrated that the rate of progress seems to be accelerated almost beyond comparison as one approaches extremely recent times. Not only have the archeologists rendered almost revolutionary services to his tory in lengthening the historical perspective, but they have also been of the utmost assist ance in increasing the historian's knowledge of *lost civilizations within what are convention ally regarded as *historic° times. Winckler and Garstang have rediscovered the lost Hittite civilization of ancient Syria. Schliemann, Evans and Dfirpfeld, among others, have re vealed a flourishing Aegean civilization coeval with the civilization of Egypt in the *Pyramid Age° of the third millenium s.c. The pro genitors of the historic Greeks no longer ap pear as the 'builders of civilization but as bar barous destroyers who ruined a civilization which they were unable to match for five centuries. Equally significant, though less familiar, are the researches of Dichelette, Jullian, Rice Holmes and others in the history and culture of ancient Gaul, which have ex hibited an early north European civilization which was in touch with the Aegean civiliza tion at its height and have thrown into high relief the relative savagery and backwardness of Teutonic culture as it appeared in western Europe at the beginning of the Christian era. No adequate history of Europe can any longer ignore the vital importance of this ancient Celtic culture. In this same department should be placed the epoch-making discoveries in philol ogy and archeology which have allowed scholars to arrive at an accurate and compre hensive knowledge of the civilizations of the ancient East, which had been hitherto known only by allusions in the literature of the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. About 1825 Champollion deciphered the Rosetta stone, mastered hieroglyphics and laid the foundations of Egyptology. Egyptian chronology and philology were firmly established by Lepsius and Brugsch. Mariette, Maspero Petrie have led in the excavations that have produced Egyptian archeology. Meyer has revised Egyptian chronology and Breasted has roduced the best synthesis of the history of yptian civilization. Erman has provided the onlly de tailed study of the social history of Egypt. What Champollion achieved for Egyptology was ac complished for the history of Babylonia and Assyria by Henry Rawlinson through his read ing of the Bohistun inscription in the middle of the 19th century. Schrader, Delitzsch and Lagarde perfected Assyriology and Semitic philology; Botta, Layard, Sarzec, Hilprecht and Winckler have supervised the all-important excavations of this region; and Maspero Meyer, Rogers, Goodspeed and King have pro-, vided the most reliable narratives of Assyrian and Babylonian history, while Jastrow has drawn the best picture of the culture of these ancient nations.