Part 8

I fully agree with him, but would make the National Museum the center of activity, rather than the Smithsonian Institution. It would then be under the control of the Board of Regents, through the secretary or the assistant secretary, who could have direct charge. It seems to me that the function of the Smithsonian Institution is to aid at the beginning of such a movement, and then place the administration in charge of one of its bureaus or transfer it to some other suitable organization.

With the National Museum as a center or base, the student in Washington may avail himself of the Library of Congress and of the facilities offered for study and investigation by the various scientific bureaus of the Government, such as the Fish Commission, the Zoölogical Park, the Geological and Coast and Geodetic Surveys, the Naval Observatory, and the Weather, Botanical, Biological, and Entomological Bureaus of the Department of Agriculture, and systematic courses of lectures will place before him the most advanced ideas and conclusions of the largest body of scientific investigators in the world.

A single well-trained man, with a few assistants, could render invaluable aid to hundreds of post-graduate and special students, whose only need is direction as to the best means of pursuing studies and investigations. Such an organization could be located in the administrative building that it has been proposed to erect as a nucleus of the National University. From this beginning a national university of the broadest type could be developed with as much rapidity as the educational interests of the country might demand.

The National Museum can not at present give facilities to more than a score of students, but with the erection of a modern museum building, well equipped with laboratory space and a suitable staff to conduct the necessary work of installation and investigation, the scientific side of the National University would be established. It should be remembered that many of the officers of the scientific bureaus of the Government are directly connected with the museum staff as honorary curators and custodians, and that a number of them have laboratories within the museum building.

NEED OF A NEW BUILDING.--The growth of the United States National Museum was rapid under the successful administration of Dr. Goode. When the character of the building and the funds available for the maintenance of the museum are considered, it compares favorably with any modern museum. It has received large collections from the scientific departments of the Government, by private contribution, by purchase, and by exchange, which have been accommodated as well as possible in the inadequate laboratories, storerooms, and exhibition spaces. During the fiscal year 1897-'98, accessions to the number of 1,441 were received, containing upward of 450,000 specimens--the largest number for any one year since the museum was opened. The total number of specimens recorded to July 1, 1898, exceeds four million. The galleries just completed have added sixteen thousand square feet of floor space, which is available for the spreading out and proper exhibition of material that has previously been crowded in the exhibition halls and courts on the floor; but, as an illustration of the present congested conditions, it may be stated that the anthropological collections now in the possession of the Government, illustrating the development and progress of man and his works, if properly placed on exhibition, would occupy the entire space in the present museum building. The great collections in biology, botany, economic geology, general geology, and paleontology should be placed in a building properly constructed for their study and exhibition. A considerable portion of the collections are still in the Smithsonian building, where the crowding is scarcely less than in the museum building.

Moreover, in the present building there is great deficiency in laboratory facilities. Curators and assistants are hampered for want of room in which to lay out, arrange, classify, mount, and label specimens. There should also be rooms in which students could bring together and compare various series of objects, and have at hand books and scientific apparatus. The present museum building contains a few rooms suitable for the purposes mentioned, but the majority have to be used as storerooms, laboratories, and offices, and are therefore too much crowded to serve in any one of these capacities. Owing to the pressure for space, courts, halls, and galleries intended for exhibition purposes, both in the Smithsonian building and in the museum building, are unavoidably occupied to a considerable extent as laboratories and storerooms. There is also need of storage room, an increase of the scientific staff, and a purchasing and collecting fund. The American Museum of Natural History expends annually $60,000 for the increase of its collections; the National Museum has from $3,000 to $4,000 for the purpose.

The immediate and greatest need, however, is a suitable museum building. The present building is 375 feet square. The space on the ground floor is 140,625 square feet, and that in the galleries 16,000 square feet; exhibition space, 96,000 square feet. The entire cost is $315,400.

For comparison with the above figures, the following statistics relating to the American Museum of Natural History in New York are given: Total floor space, 294,000 square feet, divided as follows: Exhibition space, 196,000 square feet; laboratories, library, etc., 42,500 square feet; workrooms, storage, etc., 42,000 square feet; lecture hall, 13,500 square feet. These figures include the portions of the building now being completed. The total cost of the museum to date, including the completion of the new wings, is $3,559,470.15. The buildings, and the care of them, are provided for by the city of New York. The expenses of the scientific staff, increase of collections, etc. (the income for which for the present year is approximately $185,000), are defrayed from endowments, membership fees, and contributions. In the capitals of Europe, museum buildings are generously provided for.

The National Museum building was erected with the view of covering the largest amount of space with the least outlay of money. In this respect it may be considered a success. It is, in fact, scarcely more than the shadow of such a massive, dignified, and well-finished building as should be the home of the great national collections. There is needed at once a spacious, absolutely fireproof building of several stories, constructed of durable materials, well lighted, modern in equipment, and on such a plan that it can be added to as occasion arises in the future. The site for such a building is already owned by the Government; only the building needs to be provided for. What the Capitol building is to the nation, the library building to the National Library, the Smithsonian building to the Smithsonian Institution, the new museum building should be to the National Museum. There should be available:

Sq. ft. Department of biology 190,000 Department of geology 83,000 Special laboratories for students 5,000 Rough storage, workshops, etc. 20,000 Lecture hall 6,000 ------- Total 304,000 Present museum space to be devoted to the department of anthropology 96,000 ------- Grand total 400,000

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.--With suitable buildings provided, the immediate development of the National Museum naturally lies in four directions: (1) The occupation of the present building by the anthropological collections; (2) the housing, developing, and installing of the large biological collections; (3) the development of a great museum of practical geology; and (4) the development of the scientific side of a National University.

1. The collections in anthropology, as they stand to-day, cover a wide field in a broken and disconnected way. It is difficult to use them effectively to illustrate the great features of this branch of science. They do not present a connected story of the peoples and cultures of the world. This arises from the gaps in the collections and the absence of suitable laboratory and exhibition space. This department should have adequate representations of the American peoples and their culture, not only of our own country, but of the whole American continent. Our nation is the only one in America that can reasonably be expected to do anything of importance toward the preservation of the materials necessary for the illustration of this vast field; and as the American race is a unit, of which the tribes in our own territory constitute a considerable part, it appears to be our duty to take up this work in a comprehensive way. Thus would be built up not only a National Museum, but an American Museum in the widest sense. This applies not only to anthropology, but to the other great departments of the museum. It will be impossible to carry on such a work without turning over to the Department of Anthropology the entire present building, with all its laboratory and exhibition space.

2. The Department of Biology now occupies a large exhibition space in the Smithsonian building and 55,000 square feet in the museum building. Large collections are stored in laboratories and inclosed spaces in the exhibition halls which would be placed on exhibition if space were available. As has already been explained, in a new building there should be available for the Department of Biology 190,000 square feet of exhibition, laboratory, and storage space.

The present exhibit is more complete than that of the other departments of the museum. Of birds there is a large mounted series, one of the finest in existence, but it is so indifferently housed that it fails to make the impression it should. Of mammals there is a good North American series, and there are some excellent examples of exotic species. There is a good and rather large exhibit of the various groups of the lower forms of animals, including an especially fine series of corals and sponges. These are the only series at present exhibited which can be considered at all comprehensive. Of the great groups of fishes, reptiles, and amphibians there is room only for an outline representation. The wonderful variety of form among insects can be scarcely more than suggested in the space available. Of plants there has hitherto been no exhibit worthy of the name, and the space which it has now been possible to set aside is entirely out of proportion to the vast extent and importance of this great kingdom of Nature.

Every natural-history museum of the first class should have at least two comprehensive exhibition series. The first, the _Systematic Series_, is a series representing the natural groups, among which all animals and plants, from the highest to the lowest, are divided. The second, the _Faunal and Floral Series_, is a series showing the animals and plants characteristic of each of the grand divisions of the earth's surface, which naturalists have established as a result of their study of these two kingdoms of Nature. These two great comprehensive exhibits should be supplemented by a number of _Special Series_, illustrating the more interesting phenomena and phases of life, such as the macroscopic and microscopic structure of animals and plants and their development from the germ to the fully adult individual, and special modifications of form and color by which animals are protected from their enemies; the adaptations for peculiar environments and modes of life; the characteristics of youth, maturity, and old age; the variation in form, size, and color among individuals of the same species; the domiciles and other works constructed by birds, mammals, insects, and the like. To these series should be added another of great importance, the _Economic Series_, representing the animals and plants as related to the activities and needs of man. Any one of these principal series in its full development would more than fill the entire space now available.

3. There should be developed a museum of practical geology in the broadest sense, which will be of service to every producer and consumer of American mineral products, and to all students of geology who are engaged in either economic or purely scientific investigations.

In addition to the series of rocks and fossils illustrating the stratigraphy and succession of the sedimentary rocks and the systematic collection of minerals and ores, an exhibit showing how geologic work benefits the daily life of the people should be developed. An illustration of this would be a representation of the artesian-water supply of the semi-arid region, showing the stratification and structure of the sedimentary rocks, and how hydrographic and geologic investigations clearly indicate the regions in which artesian-water development may be carried on successfully. Mining and areal geology could also be illustrated in such manner as to place before the student and intelligent observer the import and value of such work.

In most museums the principal effort has been to make a collection of useful mineral products. This is desirable, but, from the broad view of illustrating the practical in addition to the scientific side of geology, it should be secondary. The best basis for classification on the practical side of the museum exhibit appears to be the finished mineral product. For instance, if pig iron be taken as a key material in classification, the iron ores from which it has been obtained should be arranged so as to show the various kinds whose combination has resulted in the pig iron. In connection with this should be grouped the geologic phenomena, which should include any geologic conditions connected with the original deposition and the occurrence of iron ores. This might include the conditions which have led to the oxidation of pyrite and other sulphur compounds of iron, and to the development of hydrous oxides of iron; also an illustration of what has been demonstrated in regard to the solution of widely distributed minerals in certain rocks, and their subsequent concentration in ore bodies by metasomatic action. All the metals could be arranged under such a classification, as also the nonmetallic products. The preparation of such an exhibit would require many years of work, the details of which would be considered as each mineral product was taken in hand.

4. The fourth direction of development is toward the requirements of a National University, which has already been sufficiently dwelt upon in this connection.

CHILDREN'S MUSEUM.--The children gain a fair amount of information from the general exhibit in any well-arranged museum, but it is desirable that their interest should be aroused by having certain exhibits made expressly for them. I would have a space set aside in each of the three departments in which nothing should be exhibited except for the children. It might be called a Museum Kindergarten.

Some of the preceding suggestions have been adopted by the museum authorities and partially put into execution, and the carrying of them out is dependent upon enlarged facilities for laboratory work and exhibition space. During the administration of Dr. Goode the museum developed as far as possible under the conditions surrounding it. No one knew better than he that only by securing new buildings and expanding the museum could it take the place in America that the several national museums of Europe have taken in their respective countries. It is well recognized that a public museum is a necessity in every highly civilized community, and that, as has been so well stated by Dr. Goode, "the degree of civilization which any nation, city, or province has attained is best shown by the character of its public museums and the liberality with which they are maintained." At present New York city is, in this respect, in advance of all other American cities and of the national Government. Whether the latter will take its proper place by developing the National Museum as it has developed the National Library remains to be seen. The question whether they are willing to be represented by the museum as it is to-day is one that the American people should consider and decide at an early date; meantime, it is the duty of all interested in the advancement of science and education to aid by every means in their power the development of a National Museum that will be truly national and American.

ARE JEWS JEWS?

BY JOSEPH JACOBS,

PRESIDENT OF THE JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

In the December (1898) and January (1899) numbers of Appletons' Popular Science Monthly Prof. William Z. Ripley concludes the remarkable series of articles on the Racial Geography of Europe, originally delivered as Lowell Institute lectures, by a couple of articles on the Jews. Strictly speaking, the articles might seem to have no right in the particular series in which Professor Ripley has included them, since their main object is to show that the Jews are not a race but a people, and have therefore no claim to be considered in the racial geography of any continent. But one can not regret that a daring disregard for logic has caused Professor Ripley to conclude his interesting series with the somewhat startling paradox that Jews are not Jews, in the sense of the word in which both their friends and their enemies have hitherto taken it. As Professor Ripley has been good enough to refer to me as having written with some authority on the subject, and as I have not been convinced by his arguments against the comparative racial purity of the Jews, I am glad of an opportunity to discuss the question, which is of equal theoretic and practical interest.

The theoretic interest, with which alone we need concern ourselves here, seems to me of two kinds. Professor Ripley, as a student of anthropology, declares, as the result of his inquiries, that there has been so large an admixture of round skulls with the (hypothetically assumed) original long skulls of the Hebrews that all signs of racial unity have disappeared. I, on the other hand, who have approached the subject as a student of history,[10] see no evidence of any such large admixture of alien elements in the race since its dispersion from Palestine, and have come, therefore, to the opposite conclusion--that the Jews now living are, to all intents and purposes, exclusively the direct descendants of the Diaspora. Here, then, anthropology and history--if Professor Ripley and I have respectively interpreted their verdicts aright--appear to speak in two opposite senses, and no conference at La Hague or elsewhere can appoint a court of appeal which can decide between contrary propositions by two different sciences.

[Footnote 10: To prevent misunderstanding, I should perhaps add that I have not neglected the anthropological aspects of the question. My paper on The Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews, which appeared in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute for 1885, contained, I believe Professor Ripley would allow, the fullest account of Jewish anthropometry collected up to that date.]

But the point in discussion seems to me to raise also a problem of exceeding interest within the anthropological sphere itself. Professor Ripley assumes that round heads beget round heads, and long heads descend from long heads for all time unchanged. That appears to carry with it the assumption that no amount of brain activity can increase the mass of brain, that skull capacity has no relation to mental capacity, and that alone among the organs of the body the brain and skull are incapable of growth, change, or development. The _crux_ of Jewish anthropology raises this problem, as I shall proceed to show, and, if I have interpreted history aright, offers valuable material toward its solution.

I might have met Professor Ripley's arguments on narrower grounds, which would have enabled me to evade this larger question. His main, I might say his solitary, argument is that contemporary Jews are predominantly brachycephalic, or round-headed, whereas contemporary Arabs, whom he takes as the type of the Semites, are as predominantly dolichocephalic, or long-headed. Accepting Professor Ripley's own criterion of purity of race, I might point to the almost universal round-headedness of the Jew as a proof of their racial unity. The fact that Arabs do not share that quality really does not affect the question. Linguistically and geographically the Hebrews of history were associated with the Aramæans and Assyrians of Asia Minor, and Professor Ripley himself allows that Asia Minor was mainly brachycephalic. Till Professor Ripley brings forward craniological evidence that the cephalic index of the ancient Hebrews was below 77.8, his reference to the contemporary Arab must be ruled out of court. But, quite apart from this, the Arabic evidence would be of little significance, since the chief characteristic of Moslem civilization has been the predominance of marriage by capture and descent from slave concubines. Every caravan that has entered Arabia for the last twelve hundred years has had its contingent of female slaves of alien race, mainly from dolichocephalic Africa. I must confess my surprise that Professor Ripley has based his main argument on the shifting sands of Arabic racial purity.

The only attempt Professor Ripley makes toward a proof that the pure Hebrew is dolichocephalic is a half-hearted endeavor to claim that quality for the Sephardim, or Spanish and Portuguese Jews, descended in the main from Jewish refugees from Spain and Portugal in 1492. As a matter of fact, the largest number of measurements of Sephardic heads has been made by Mr. Spielman and myself,[11] and of the fifty-one heads examined by us only eight were long-headed. Professor Ripley gives a portrait of a Tunisian Jew, with index 75, who is also probably of Sephardic origin, like most of the Jews of the Mediterranean littoral. But, curiously enough, there is far more evidence for the mixture of race among contemporary Sephardim than of any other branch of Jews. Even while they were living in Spain as avowed Jews they were persistently accused of intermarriage, chiefly with the Moors, while a large number of contemporary Sephardim are descended not from refugees of 1492, but from the so-called Marranos--Jews who remained in Spain, professing Christianity and marrying tolerably freely among the surrounding population. If one wished to be hypercritical, one could trace the long-headedness of a minority of Jews to this admixture of race from Spain.

[Footnote 11: On the Comparative Anthropometry of English Jews, in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute for 1889.]