2 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s. f 22, 1920
pology is interested in similar problems, for it is taking infinite pains to trace out human tool concepts and other fundamental processes from the beginning of palaeolithic time. It has gathered from the remote corners of the earth data on the concepts and habits that underlie these processes. In fact, the anthropologists are gradually putting together the facts that are to constitute the history of human psychical functions from the beginning to the present. I predict that when that story begins to be rounded out psychologists will find it one of the most fascinating chapters in science. Anyway they, and they alone, will be able to interpret it in terms of func- tioning individual intelligence. Thus it is apparent, that the common tendency of the two sciences to study men and their per- formances, does bring them into direct contact at many points where a full interpretation of the results obtained in the pursuit of one science depends upon the insight obtained in the other.
But notwithstanding these obvious overlappings there is one difference in which lies the clearest and most tangible distinction between the two sciences. Psychology takes as its unit phenomenon the mind of man, whatever that may mean. If I were speaking anywhere except among the greatest psychologists of the world, I should know exactly what was meant by the mind of man and should expect no challenge, but here it is well to be cautious. Yet, one thing we can be sure of and that is, that psychology is concerned with a group of functions that center in a man. His individual performances are always the point of departure.
Anthropology, on the other hand, takes the group as its unit and point of departure. It is not greatly concerned with the func- tion of the individual in the -group. In fact, if the anthropologist did center his interest on the individual in the group he would soon be indistinguishable from a psychologist. The anthropologist is not interested in the problem as to how the individual fits himself into the group, how he learns the tasks required of him by his group, or even with his inherent specific reactions to the life of the group. He is, however, vitally interested in what the group requires of the individual and by what steps the group came to exact these require- ments. Thus the psychologist may be interested in the successive
�� �
