DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42067#0016
6
Prefa c e
and there. Herbert Spinden in his reconstruction of American
prehistoric chronology, Alfred Kroeber in his analysis of cultural
forms of the Pacific Coast, and quite recently Clark Wissler have
built up, founded on this principle a system of historic sequences
that apppear to me as quite untenable. That widely distributed
cultural traits develop special forms in each particular area is a
truism that does not require any proof. That these local develop-
ments may be arranged in a chronological series, that those of the
most limited distribution are the youngest, is only partially true. It
is not difficult to find phenomena that center in a certain region
and dwindle down at the outskirts, but it is not true that these
invariably arise on an ancient substratum. The converse is often
true, that an idea emanating from a center is diffused over a wide
area. Neither may the origin always be looked for in the area of
the strongest development. In the same way as we find animals
surviving and flourishing in regions far distant from the locality in
which they developed, so cultural traits may be transferred and find
their highest expression in regions far away from their origin. The
bronze castings of Benin; the wood carvings of New Zealand; the
bronze work of ancient Scandinavia; the giant stone work of Easter
Island; the early cultural development of Ireland and its influences
over Europe are examples of this kind.
Equally unsafe are the methods used by Fritz Graebner and Pater
W. Schmidt who claim the stability of certain very old and, as I
fear, fictitious correlations between cultural traits.
It is probably not necessary to point out the utter inadequacy of
Elliott Smith’s attempt to reduce all ethnological phenomena to a
single, and anthropologically speaking, late source and to assume a
permanence of cultural forms that exists nowhere.
It has often been observed that cultural traits are exceedingly
tenacious and that features of hoary antiquity survive until the
present day. This has led to the impression that primitive culture
is almost stable and has remained what it is for many centuries.
This does not correspond to the facts. Wherever we have detailed
Prefa c e
and there. Herbert Spinden in his reconstruction of American
prehistoric chronology, Alfred Kroeber in his analysis of cultural
forms of the Pacific Coast, and quite recently Clark Wissler have
built up, founded on this principle a system of historic sequences
that apppear to me as quite untenable. That widely distributed
cultural traits develop special forms in each particular area is a
truism that does not require any proof. That these local develop-
ments may be arranged in a chronological series, that those of the
most limited distribution are the youngest, is only partially true. It
is not difficult to find phenomena that center in a certain region
and dwindle down at the outskirts, but it is not true that these
invariably arise on an ancient substratum. The converse is often
true, that an idea emanating from a center is diffused over a wide
area. Neither may the origin always be looked for in the area of
the strongest development. In the same way as we find animals
surviving and flourishing in regions far distant from the locality in
which they developed, so cultural traits may be transferred and find
their highest expression in regions far away from their origin. The
bronze castings of Benin; the wood carvings of New Zealand; the
bronze work of ancient Scandinavia; the giant stone work of Easter
Island; the early cultural development of Ireland and its influences
over Europe are examples of this kind.
Equally unsafe are the methods used by Fritz Graebner and Pater
W. Schmidt who claim the stability of certain very old and, as I
fear, fictitious correlations between cultural traits.
It is probably not necessary to point out the utter inadequacy of
Elliott Smith’s attempt to reduce all ethnological phenomena to a
single, and anthropologically speaking, late source and to assume a
permanence of cultural forms that exists nowhere.
It has often been observed that cultural traits are exceedingly
tenacious and that features of hoary antiquity survive until the
present day. This has led to the impression that primitive culture
is almost stable and has remained what it is for many centuries.
This does not correspond to the facts. Wherever we have detailed