DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42067#0102
80
Representative art
differ only in the more or less fragmentary character of the symbols.
The perspective type does not develop from the former two as the
result of an evolution; it is based on a distinct mental attitude, the
early presence of which is manifested by the realistic, perspective
paintings of a number of primitive tribes.
The theory of a continuous development from symbolic to realistic
art is one of the numerous attempts to prove a continuous develop-
ment of cultural forms, a steady, unbroken evolution. This view-
point has had a deep influence upon the whole theory of ethnology.
Evolution, meaning the continuous change of thought and action, or
historic continuity, must be accepted unreservedly. It is otherwise,
when it is conceived as meaning the universally valid continuous
development of one cultural form out of a preceding type, such as
the assumed development of economic forms from food gathering
through herding to agriculture. In past times these three stages were
assumed to be characteristic of all human development, until it was
recognized that there is no connection between the invention of
agriculture and the domestication of animals,—the former developed
through the occupation of woman who gathered the vegetable food
supply, the latter through the devotion of men to the chase. The
men had no occasion to become familiar with the handling of plants,
and the women had just as little opportunity of dealing with animals.
The development of agriculture and of herding can, therefore, not
possibly be derived from the same sources.
It is no less arbitrary to assume that social forms must have
developed in regular universally valid sequence, one certain stage
always being based on the same preceding one in all parts of the
world. There is no evidence that would compel us to assume that
matrilineal organizations always preceded patrilineal or bilateral ones.
On the contrary, it seems much more likely that the life of hunters
in single family units, or that of larger groups in more fertile areas
has led to entirely different results. We may expect continuous evolu-
tion only in those cases in which the social and psychological condi-
tions are continuous.
Representative art
differ only in the more or less fragmentary character of the symbols.
The perspective type does not develop from the former two as the
result of an evolution; it is based on a distinct mental attitude, the
early presence of which is manifested by the realistic, perspective
paintings of a number of primitive tribes.
The theory of a continuous development from symbolic to realistic
art is one of the numerous attempts to prove a continuous develop-
ment of cultural forms, a steady, unbroken evolution. This view-
point has had a deep influence upon the whole theory of ethnology.
Evolution, meaning the continuous change of thought and action, or
historic continuity, must be accepted unreservedly. It is otherwise,
when it is conceived as meaning the universally valid continuous
development of one cultural form out of a preceding type, such as
the assumed development of economic forms from food gathering
through herding to agriculture. In past times these three stages were
assumed to be characteristic of all human development, until it was
recognized that there is no connection between the invention of
agriculture and the domestication of animals,—the former developed
through the occupation of woman who gathered the vegetable food
supply, the latter through the devotion of men to the chase. The
men had no occasion to become familiar with the handling of plants,
and the women had just as little opportunity of dealing with animals.
The development of agriculture and of herding can, therefore, not
possibly be derived from the same sources.
It is no less arbitrary to assume that social forms must have
developed in regular universally valid sequence, one certain stage
always being based on the same preceding one in all parts of the
world. There is no evidence that would compel us to assume that
matrilineal organizations always preceded patrilineal or bilateral ones.
On the contrary, it seems much more likely that the life of hunters
in single family units, or that of larger groups in more fertile areas
has led to entirely different results. We may expect continuous evolu-
tion only in those cases in which the social and psychological condi-
tions are continuous.