DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42067#0015
Preface
5
It is safe to say that the critical study of recent years has definitely
disproved the existence of far reaching homologies which would
permit us to arrange all the manifold cultural lines in an ascending
scale in which to each can be assigned its proper place.
On the other hand dynamic conditions exist, based on environ-
ment, physiological, psychological, and social factors, that may bring
forth similar cultural processes in different parts of the world, so
that it is probable that some of the historical happenings may be
viewed under more general dynamic viewpoints.
But historical data are not available and when prehistoric research
does not reveal sequences of cultural changes, the only available
method of study is the geographical one, the study of distribution.
This has been emphasized in the last third of the past century by
Friedrich Ratzel. It has probably been most rigidly developed in
the United States. I illustrated this method in 1891 by a study of
the distribution of folk tales in North America1 and it has become
more and more the method of analytical study of cultural forms.
Its very fruitfulness, however, has led to extremes in its applica-
tion that should be guarded against. I pointed out, in print in 1911
and often before and since that time in speaking, that there is a
certain homology between universal distribution of cultural facts and
their antiquity. The fundamental principle involved in this assump-
tion was fully discussed by Georg Gerland in 1875,2 although we
are hardly ready to accept his conclusions. The data of prehistoric
archaeology prove that some of these universal achievements go
back to paleolithic times. Stone implements, fire and ornaments
are found in that period. Pottery and agriculture, which are less
universally distributed, appear later. Metals, the use of which is
still more limited in space, are found still later.
Recent attempts have been made to raise to a general principle
this point of view which, with due caution, may be applied here
1 Journal of American Folk-Lore, Vol. IV, pp. 13—20; also Science, Vol. XII
(1888), pp. 194—196.
2 Anthropologische Beitrage, Halle a/S, pp. 401 et seq.
5
It is safe to say that the critical study of recent years has definitely
disproved the existence of far reaching homologies which would
permit us to arrange all the manifold cultural lines in an ascending
scale in which to each can be assigned its proper place.
On the other hand dynamic conditions exist, based on environ-
ment, physiological, psychological, and social factors, that may bring
forth similar cultural processes in different parts of the world, so
that it is probable that some of the historical happenings may be
viewed under more general dynamic viewpoints.
But historical data are not available and when prehistoric research
does not reveal sequences of cultural changes, the only available
method of study is the geographical one, the study of distribution.
This has been emphasized in the last third of the past century by
Friedrich Ratzel. It has probably been most rigidly developed in
the United States. I illustrated this method in 1891 by a study of
the distribution of folk tales in North America1 and it has become
more and more the method of analytical study of cultural forms.
Its very fruitfulness, however, has led to extremes in its applica-
tion that should be guarded against. I pointed out, in print in 1911
and often before and since that time in speaking, that there is a
certain homology between universal distribution of cultural facts and
their antiquity. The fundamental principle involved in this assump-
tion was fully discussed by Georg Gerland in 1875,2 although we
are hardly ready to accept his conclusions. The data of prehistoric
archaeology prove that some of these universal achievements go
back to paleolithic times. Stone implements, fire and ornaments
are found in that period. Pottery and agriculture, which are less
universally distributed, appear later. Metals, the use of which is
still more limited in space, are found still later.
Recent attempts have been made to raise to a general principle
this point of view which, with due caution, may be applied here
1 Journal of American Folk-Lore, Vol. IV, pp. 13—20; also Science, Vol. XII
(1888), pp. 194—196.
2 Anthropologische Beitrage, Halle a/S, pp. 401 et seq.