Produced by Julia Miller and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) Transcriber's Note A number of typographical errors have been maintained in this version of this book. They have been marked with a [TN-#], which refers to a description in the complete list found at the end of the text. AN ETHNOLOGIST'S VIEW OF HISTORY. AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NEW JERSEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AT TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, JANUARY 28, 1896. BY DANIEL G. BRINTON, A. M., M. D., LL. D., D. Sc. PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND OF GENERAL ETHNOLOGY AT THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA. PHILADELPHIA, PA. 1896. An Ethnologist's View of History. MR. PRESIDENT: * * * * * The intelligent thought of the world is ever advancing to a fuller appreciation of the worth of the past to the present and the future. Never before have associations, societies and journals devoted to historical studies been so numerous. All times and tribes are searched for memorials; the remote corners of modern, medieval and ancient periods are brought under scrutiny; and going beyond these again, the semi-historic eras of tradition and the nebulous gleams from pre-historic milleniums[TN-1] are diligently scanned, that their uncertain story may be prefaced to that registered in "the syllables of recorded time." In this manner a vast mass of material is accumulating with which the historian has to deal. What now is the real nature of the task he sets before himself? What is the mission with which he is entrusted? To understand this task, to appreciate that mission, he must ask himself the broad questions: What is the aim of history? What are the purposes for which it should be studied and written? He will find no lack of answers to these inquiries, all offered with equal confidence, but singularly discrepant among themselves. His embarrassment will be that of selection between widely divergent views, each ably supported by distinguished advocates. As I am going to add still another, not exactly like any already on the list, it may well be asked of me to show why one or other of those already current is not as good or better than my own. This requires me to pass in brief review the theories of historic methods, or, as it is properly termed, of the Philosophy of History, which are most popular to-day. They may be classified under three leading opinions, as follows: