Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Stocking Race Culture and Evolution Chapter 6-Libre

    Enviado por

    Suzane Vieira
    27 visualizações13 páginas
    livro

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    livro

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    27 visualizações13 páginas

    Stocking Race Culture and Evolution Chapter 6-Libre

    Enviado por

    Suzane Vieira
    livro

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 13
    Race, Culture, and Evolution | Essays in the History Withanew | of Anthropology Preface | George W. Stocking, Jr. (Oxford University s ‘iy of Chicono Press ; The Dark-Skinned Savage: The Image of Primitive Man in Evolutionary Anthropology The present essay attemps to denw together several ofthe themes con sidored 50 far—the polygenist Uaciion of sci thought, the emergent ttadition of socal evolutionism, and the preanthre- pological conception of cult, all in the contest of Darwinian Doogie! evolution’sm—in order to delineate the major outlines Of the late ninetecotiscontuy image of the darkskinned savage Aga, there are issues of method that may nat excape the notice of the criial reader. tn treatiog late ninetenth-centny Ametean socal sciemic thought, T have draws on a somber of Bquees whose prevent socil scientific reputation is vistaly il, and have rele- {uted such majoe Bares a Jol Dewey aid Thorstein Veblen to ootnotes, This ects the method ofthe study fxm which this say derives, which, as I have already indicated, was bused on 9 ‘general sampling of socal scientific thought, Iu i, any of the figures we remember today were reduced to @ mvc laser degree af prominence—a result tat may have important inpication fr the methodology of intellectual history, in which the starting ‘point is often the representative man, conceived in Buversonian Primitive Man in Boolutonary Ambropology 118 in many cates the relative insignificance of major figures may refoct the fact that I amr dealng with a patie of thoughé that fs been rjeted. ‘The men we remember today tend to be those ‘who were Helping to crete the modern social sient framerork Which was built iv the context of tat rejection. Because any interest ere isin the rejected pattern and not inthe proces of rejection, the more ihuninating gues are offen men whose thought is otherwise no Tange of gret interest [A the sume time, there i » seme in which the eceaton of this re jected patter & clay conditioned by its relation to the process (of rejection, ‘The image of primitive mas that F preset here ie a generalized one which serves particular explanatory purpose: to Inake historical sense of Braz Bos! The Mind of Prinitive Man, It is abstracted from the thinking of a number of men, and although many of is elements can be found in the thinking of ‘any individoals and al of ite element inthe thinking of some, it docs nat pretend to provide 2 fully adequate pictoe ether of any single indlida’s thought, oF ofthe complete range of evolu tionary thought in general. A fall treatment of the thought of Daniel Binton, for instance, woul zeval a ster complex pic ture in which often very favorable evaluations of Arserican Indian capacity counted with the rather Bleak racial pessimism of the passages which T Dave quoted Below. Sinilely, if one were to freatevolationiam as a whole i terme of the questions it was laying to answer, rather than in terms of the problems it posed for Boas, the diference jn foous would produce a much more complex pct * Beyond these ualientons, there ita obvious methodological asym metry which requires comment. a treating the fist generation of crolutionsts, T hae in fact relied on rather aditional intelectual historical estmipions, id have chosen three representative men. In teams of ther subsequent infloence on the pattem of thought Tam recreating, I think the choice is defensible. But forthe fur ther history of anthropology, it would certainly be worthwhile to attempt a systematic analy of Victorian evolutionary thooght in ally sspecte over the whele period ofits importance, and not simply iis manifestations i late nineteenthoeneury American a a ence einen af enchitiorery thought “pandign.” Forgoing certain questions I have about Kubn’s point of view, I would suggest that social evolutionary theory functioned as 2 kind of social scientific world view which height: ened the relevance of certain issues atthe expense of others. Tt is peshaps inthis context that we must undettand 4 minor but continuing preoecupation of E, B, Tylor: which present group of savages was infact the most primitive, i, provided the mot satisfactory lower base point for reasoning in tems of the com: paative method, Furthenow, i sms eident—and a3 we shall fe, Tylor himself in later ie came conscions of thi—tt over * perio of thity-Gve yen evolotionisn Bad been elaborated into 2 lope supertractae based on a sather navrow trmework of assumptions which were increasingly called into question by what rnight be regaded in Kuboian texms as empiscal anomalie® Finally, T would suggest tat the study of the evolutionary “pura ign" we can ell it that—has a pertcue relevance to present trends in socal seience, which in a munber of areas ate boginning to retum to questions Hat were eential concems of evoltionary theory, and to reoasider—although in the context ofthe work of the intervening yent—arsers in some respects similar to those the evolutionists offered? quite ase from these issues of method, this esay (previously un published) does, 1 hope, succeed in drawing together, from 4 more general pont of view than the earlier discussion of poly nit survival, alge portion of the framework of racial astump- tion against which Frans Moas diected The Mind of Primitive Man. ut Tose popcinn y a rani ben sealy- sis reve polygenr survival in late ninetenth-century ae though, backaard step brings ino focus the neework of evel tionary belt in which they were eaanged, Tarn-of-the-entary social scientists were evolutionists almost ro a man, and their ideas Primitive Mian in Booleionary Amsbropology 183 place their evolutionary racial chought in context, it may help to Took at certain aspects ofthe thinking of Charles Darwin. ‘When Darwin turved to the problem of Te Descent of Mam in u8y1, there was no generally accepted fossil evidence t0 sup- port the hypothesis of man's evolution from anthropoid forms. Although in general inclined eo dismiss such gaps in the fossil record as adventitious, Darwin did ery co fill this one To fill, he drew on various currents of anthropological though. (One of these was the notion of a bierarchy of Inman races which, although it had roots io such ancient intellectual orienta tions a5 the “Great Chain of Being,” was largely the product of the carly nineteenth-century miliea that nourished polygenism in anthropology. By Darwin's time, a rough sore of hierarchy of human races was n accepted part of conventional anthropologi= al wisdom, Darwin simply thrust it into the fossil gap. The gree break in the onganie chain beeween man and his nearest alles” depended "merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct: [Ac some fare period, aot very dan a messed by cents, the ASaRoF SSS Lan‘ die ary eterna nd ec, fh mage tics thughou he World At che sane tne the mee rooorpis apes" Wil no die be exterminated. ‘The break wil {ica be tended ‘wider, for ie wl fvevene between mun i some moe cvlled fate" tun the Caves, and some ape low at 1 baboon, neat ofa ar ree between the neo or Ati and the gor Bur a rack! hierarehy was not all that Darvin borrowed from anthropology. He borrowed also from the social evolutionary theories of his contemporaries E. B. Tylor, John MeLennan, and. Sir John Lubbock, who had shown that min had risen to civil zation “Feom a lowly condition tothe highest standards as yet at= tained by him in knowledge, morals, and religion.” * ‘As we have already seen, the proximate origin of this socal ‘evolutionism isto be found in che later eighteenth-cencury sind fof “conjectural,” "theoretical" or “natural” history. As the re- sult of the extension to humanistic studies of Cartesian assumptions of the uniformity ofthe laws of nature, it became widely accepted % ace, CULTURE, axD EvoLUrION toward ptfecton, Dating sesame petod, te vel neat of uropesn expansion was pig up information onthe eal sot- ces of anipoal nan which often showed siting say 10 Shore of ance Etrope. Many writers were led a contin Iter epitomized by Herders ear that only a few centres ad elipued "nce the nba of Germany were Praga” From the middle ofthe ceary on, the “eonjectra™ iran drew upon this bay of infomation and assumption to delnste the eure of man's progres, or, 8 Waker Bag te id of ‘Aun St, co show how, "rom bing savage, man foe tobe 2 Scotch" * “This reconsercton was based on a typeof analysis that came tobe knowa a the comparative method” the atari des er for che ote pat lckng, thi was ot an Ieper problem, sce the witers were concerned with the “nora oF Uru devlopoenal sequent: the sequence of socal forms which followed ineviably from the uniformity of the ws of tate snd of hima sate unimpeded by lal or scedetl ct umanee. Suc inpedmess hed in fact cated the neal progres of diferent hunan group wo tat the vaio socees Eig in the contemporaty wot!) reproeated lferent stages inthe progres of mankind. By comparave sudy of these soe ttis—te Compatizon was of cours fou Buropean sandardthe ener history of man's soci development could be deduce {Ketbence of seta! hicokalresords Human history eave this to be viewed as sng evolutionary development Unough Seis of tges which were often lanl refered fo se vogery, barbarism, and civilization. * ¥ eo Alehogh thi sort of specultion went through a psi of relative deine inthe carly nneerath century esa & ourgance in the ion and was realy avable to. Darwin whe he wrote the Deseo, Darwin fad stand nowy of the natives of southenimant Aerie, but he interpreted en this tzildont framework. Reaing his own etonsiaen upon fist Salting a party of Fcgins,atoluely naked and Gedo th pain che "mothe Frothed with excirent” his remembered Dury was an echo of Herder "such were our ancestors” And hhe appealed to this same framework of belie in his readers: once Primi Men in Bvoltionary Anthropology 1s, rn of this “there can hardly be a donbe—then i ould noe stn our senses to extend kinship co the baboon, who was intmany ways a mach more woke fellew:* ‘Darwin’ debt to socal erohongm one more bit of vk dence to support he argument advanced by varios writers rane Bows and hi scenes ere mistaken in chartering the ital easy ther ofthe ic ny hisipplitions of Darwinin biological evolutionism. But dis evidence ako soggee that these soi evolutionary eas tnd not been tant unchanged fom the eighteenth entoy, tnd a they id wot ext lo holtion fom he bilgi eve toni ofthe Darvin lle or further evidence ofthis, et wx consider the problem af the “peyehic ity of mankind” the ssjor premise of the compare lve method in ethnology. Although the pase i of mich ler orig, the ids manfaton of the ghoentivcemry view that reason waste sae in all men and equally posed by al” Tope of diference of race Teaco core thi onifornity of human naire which waste bs of the reglay of human tock development. Of the three major Victorian eroations wh € will one sider here, EB Tylor i the one who departed lest from the tighten century fodel nhs thinking on the paythic wy of snun Tylor argued thea, Hk para general wa sbjet 20 tfor nay and tha twas “no more reasoablc to spose the Ins ofthe mind differently conte in Austla and in Bae lan, the ine ofthe enve-dwelers and in he tne of x hee itor houses, than to spore thatthe laws of hernia conn ton” would vary from one age to another. One could therefore “recontroct Tost htory without scrple, esting t0 general knowledge of the prinepes of haman thowghe and ston as = ude in puting the fae thle proper ender” The lat story Athich mos encered Tyloc waste nucendve age” of ant Inellce, and Primitive Culture way be considered in a sense « Sz in tena evluin, For the mos pre this evolution was imply an increasing ulltion of ban whom susie night js s well have remained the same: as the man knows more th the savage, who is prone to such errors of reasoning as those whieh underlie the Belief in magic" ‘Thus far Tylor's psychic unity was essentially that of che eighteenth century. Bat there is other evidence to suggest that Fylor regarded, or eame co regard, the mental evolution of savage co civilized maa as structural as well as functional. In con tng on differences in bran size and complexity of convol tions between Europeans and Africans, be suggested in 1881 that there showed “a connexion between a more full and inteicate system of brain-cells and fibres, and a higher inelleetwal povees, in the races which have risen in the scale of civilization.” Tylor ‘went on to sy chat che “history of eivillzation teaches, that up £0 4 cercain point savages and barbarians are like what our ancestors ‘were and our peasants sil are, bur from this common level che superior intellect of the progresive races has raised their nations to heights of culeure.” Ici not clear whether Tylor fel that these mental differences were cause or consequence ofa higher eviliza- tion; in either case they are an important qualification of the cightceoth-century view of psychie unity. = ‘This modification is more clearly apparent in che work of Lewis Henry Morgan, the most prominent of nineteenth-century American anthropologists, Adopted by Major John Wesley Powell, Morgan's evolutionary scheme was especially influent mong the anthropologists who worked ia the Buresta of Ame ‘can Ethology in the last ovo decades ofthe nineteenth ceneu Although the subject of his magnum opus wes the evolution of socal institutions, Morgan's Ancient Sactety may also he regarded tthe explication of a scheme of mental evohition. Tnstittions developed out of ideas ia the human mind, out of “germs of though” whose evolution though the succestive periods of man's history-the seven “stages” into which Moxgan divided savagery, brhatisn, and civilization-had been "guided by a natural logie ‘which formed an esental attribute of the brain itself.” "So Un- czingly has his prineiple performed its Functions in al conltions fof experience, and in all periods of time, that its resus are unis form, echerent, and teaceable in theie courses” Bue the evolution fof these germs was more than cultura it involved a Lamarckian ‘evolution of the structure of the brain itself. “With the produc- Primitive Man in Boolutionary Amibropology 617 mind necsssly grew and expanded and we tre led to recogoize a gradual elagenent of the brain ioe rca ofthe cerebral porcio,” In this feamework,payehic Sey wer nteve organ che 0 make He ec aud tanking, bu rather, groweh Soh experenee, Ht ll he feat pasion abd power ofthe ad Mans mental nity 8 thos pret only! the epeation of de harman od” were uni- formin se condont of sock “Tyloc and Morgan wete excl clr! antopologss [Exeept nota a ther evolonny aunt cane inerpreed fs systems of mental evolution, hy were not parila dnec- Stel inthe process of biological evolution, Herbert Spencer ‘work on the other hand, was much broader both in pont of view niin its inuence, His Privepsy of Soilogy were part of @ fami evlationry scheme which inca both the “orga Sn the “apetorganie’” Ie wa Spencer's Principles which gely Strctured the thinking of the two generations of American socal Scents before about iso. Tn Spencers work the modation Of the egheenth-centary concepin of hana nature was made Caplin eanly fe we have been taught tht bun meat toerybere the same. Thi error we ans rephcs by the tr that the wr of thought ae everywhere the sme" Spencer ttn act nich concerned wih eubhing the ways in which “early human noe difered from later human mitre” on the bass of deduction from his own Prinipler of Paycbology and theappllention of th comparaive method to "hoe exiting races fof en which, an ged By tele vibe characters and he i plenens,approteh most nearly to priv ma or Spence, the crcl ator a the formation of pimive snenalty was te closnes of the primitive mind coi eterna tnvirnivnt. The sensory perceptions ofthe savage were notr- cisly sete, bit a ea of the antago between "percep. Give” and "vellectve”sctity, hs metial proces ately rome sSove the level of seston ache “sinple representative feigs finery sociated with hem.” Inproven, ced inepable ‘of abstraction, his behavior was primarily a matter of reflexive or tions, the hun ne ace, COLTURE, AND EVOLUTION the most extreme fixity of habit and the rule of unchinking custom, since his “simpler nervous system, sooner losing its plasticity” was “unable to take on a modified mode of action.” Inherent savage mentality produced a certain type of socal lifes bue savage socal life, by a circular Lamarckian proces, also pro: duced the heredicary savage mentality. LF the savage lacked the higher mental faculties, ic was because ic was “only as societies ‘grow, become organized, and gain stability [that) . . . there aise those experiences by asimilating which the powers of thous develop.” The development of the “higher intellectual faculties has gone on pari pau with social advance, alike as canse and consequence.” Primitive man “could not evolve these higher intellecrual faculties in che absence of a fit environment,” but here, a5 in other respects, “his progress was retarded by the absence of capacities Which only progress could bring.” © Tn view of these changes in the concept of human paychie nity, ies necessary to qualify several widely held beliefs about the Victorian social evolutionists. ‘Tylo’s work has been described as an attempt to salvage the eighteenth-century comparative rnethod after a sixty-year period of doubt in which religious conservatives had argued the degeneration rather than the progsest of ankind and polygenists had alleged the incapacity of "in- fecior” races for soctal progress. Furthermore, it is commonly held that in theie applicstion of the “comparative method” the Viecorian social theorists argued that all human groups necessarily developed through the same “uniliness” sequerice of social ot incelletual stages, and that in this process the “diffusion” of Culeutal innovations from one group co another was much less Jmportane than their “independent invention” in different groups hy similar human minds stiolated by simile: physical and eul- ‘ura environments. Finally, die Vietorin social evolutionists are spoken of as “men of good will” who rejected any notion that people on a lower rung of the evolutionary hndder “were of Inferior capacity” or thar cultural differences implied “innate racial difetences." Ie is quite true that many of the cultural evolutionists, hei to he monogenist tradition in early nineteenth century anthropology, were litle inclined to racial determinism, and there is no denying dhat many of chem were indeed glven to Primitive Man in Evolutionary Antbropolony 119 of specific call cements or insituions such a han ma tage: Bu if vone of these eharacerations i witht eel bas, alte bjs to importantqualifenticn ‘Although Tylt salvaged che comparsive method be did ox svage npr form Eightcetrcentury social eveltonins ind generally sumed tht all human races could ascend ee evo™ Inionary seal othe cop, bc tere were many Vitrins who, though aden soci evoitionisy, no longer mae thi prin, By the begining ofthe climactic perio of European expusion, polygeni con of ic rach seemed to lave been bore Se by che fare of many atv peoples soap to white elie tin, and even by thet extinction fn the face of Hs advance. Franklin Giddings reflected the change in his suggestion tht tere ws “ho evidence thatthe now extne: Tasmanians tad che ably toe, They were exexminted so ely that hey evenly had neither the power of resitance nor any adapta.” I this Cone the cern “uninea.” however applicable to cighteenh-comry wes whe thinking was hey cond sned by the Chat of Being, ace uly adequate co deicrbe the Social evlitionian ofthe Victorians Despite reqenty dogmatic “Cine” manifeens, heir eveludoniem i perhape ber called “ntgratve” or "pyramidal ints broader sme Kwa ore generalization aboot the overall cour ofthe pat delay nt of inning axa whole rather than 2 descripeon oF pre- diction ofthe coun of devepmenc in parca hasan group. Seclal evolution ws a pocet by which» multi of man groupe developed slong ines wich novel in gener twat the Soci and cultural forms of westem Europe Along the way Giferenegroops hd diverged tnd reprened, stood sll, or eve wiki te Kini of thelr petlar rac capaci, which their ferent environmental Naorie adn fact created. The progress of the lower races had been retarded or even stopped, Bet the eal leva bad aways advanced the ear innovators of the prior” oo progresive” races were difsed cough much of te world. ‘The proce J perhap bx sre in Morgan, SS yispe ich lmruee od ecvan a tlio vanced portion of the human race” was periodically halted in its ‘upward progress “until some great inven ‘now impulse forward. In the interim, “the ruder tribes" ap- proached their status, “for wherever a’ continental connection tested, all the wibes must have shared in some measure in each other's progress” Leadership would change funds, and “the destruction of the ethnic bond and life of particular tribes, fol lowed by their decadence” may frequently have arrested “the upward flow of human progress” “From the Middle Period of barbarism, however, the Aryan and Semitic families seem fatly to represent the central threads of this progress, which in the petio! of civilization has been gradually assumed by the Aryan faanily alone.” Ifthe Victorian evolutionists were not grestly occupied with discussions of racial differences, i was because in che re-creation of the overall pattern of evolution, the racial diferences which ‘had caused the lower race to lag behind or to fall by the wayside ‘were not important, But differences existed novetheles, snd they ‘were such thae only the large-brained, whiceskinned races had in fact ascended to the top of the pyramid. ‘Their superiority was in 4 confased and somewhat contradictory way boc cause and produce of their ascent, The larger brains and higher mental process were products of their cultural evolution; but theie tuleural evolution was at the same time conditioned by environ= mentally acquired racial characteristics However, it was not simply that the assumptions of social evolutionism about human natuce and human progress had been modified in their transit from he eighteenth century. Social evolutionism emerged from that transit into a Darwinian milieu, where it quickly became integrated into the total sequence of organic evolution, helping to fill the tremendous gap between sthropoid and man, Several factors facilitated this integration. ‘As we have noted, these cheories of socal evolution were often cher implicely or explicitly theories of mental evolution as wel ‘Tylor wrote about the origin of language as a problem in the ‘evolution of hioman culture, but it was also a problem in the evo- lution of ape eo man, and when George Romanes in 1889 dealt with Mencal Evolution in Man, he incorporated some of Tylor’s Primitive Man in Boolutonary Autbropology eat hhad co be studied indirectly, he proposed to borrow the “com parative method” as well asthe substantive arguments of ethnolo- fists: “When we come to cansder the eas of savages, and chrough them the cave of prehitorie man, we shall find that, ia the great interval which les between such grades of mental evolution and four own, we ate brought far on the way toward bridging the psychological distance which separates the gorilla from the gentle man.” Compare this phrasing to Bagehow’s quip about Adam Smith, and one has a sense of the changed significance of the ‘comparative method inthe post-Darwioian milieu. ‘The Darwinian context also affected folklore studies in the same petiod. In discussing Tyloe’s work in this area, the editor of the Journal of American Folklore, W. W. Newell suggested that it was “to Edward B. Tylor [that] comparative anthro- pology, on the moral side, chat science which undertakes to Investigate the development of the human mind, chrough its vari- fons sages of animal, savage, and civilized life, owes more than t0 fother man.” ‘Tylor fad not in fact spoken of an animal stage, but in an evolotionary context, his work was so interpreted. The sudy of folklore, which constcated a large part of Tylor’ thropology, was not infrequently associated with a mental evoli- ‘lon extending from modem upper-class, western European man back to a subhuman level. In discussing the origin of animal myths, Charles Edwards argued that thei evolution had proceeded “concomitantly with thit of the mind and body of man” from 4 poi in the Pliocene, “when the ancestors of the races of apes tnd the races of men were one and the same race."* ‘Ar this point fe should be evidene thae when Darwin, in the perorution to The Descent of Men, linked himself to Fuegian and Ebon, hein effect placed the Fuegians and other living savages in chain which ran from ape to European, and in which the racial hierarchy of nineteenth-ceneury polygenism and the cultural Iierarchy of the eighteenth-century historias became part and parcel of one scheme of universal organic evolution. ‘Thus when the Vietorian epigoni of Condoreet and Adam Ferguson used the adjectives “savage” o¢ “barbarons” or “uncivilized,” the connot- tions were no fonger what chey had been before soo, Along with eidenitver Geciaaemaanennnrenr ned sisal ity, although stil in the fist instance cultural, was now in most ceases at least implicily organic as well, Darwinian evolution, cvolutionary ethnology, and polygenist race cus interacted to Support a raciocultursl hierarchy in eerms of which civilized men, the highest products of social evolution, were large-beained white ‘men, and only large-brained white men, the highest products of ‘organic evolution, were Fully civilized. ‘The assumption of white superiority was certainly not original with Vietorian evolutionists; yet the interzelation of the theoties of coltural and organic evr Haden wi et implic irrhy of rss, gre « new ‘Some of the further implications of that rationale can be ithuminated by considering the work of the slightly later genera- ton of evolutionary social scientists ative in the United States betoreen 180 and spro, These decades were the pesiod in which the social sciences were established as subjects of graduate and tundergraduace study in American universities, and in which the ‘major professional journals and orgaaizations were founded. ‘This was alto a period which saw the beginnings of 2 widespread reaction against certain aspects of evolutionist chought. Sociol- gists were emerging (vom the spell of Herbert Spencer's “organic analogy.” Some anthropologiss were even criticizing the theory ‘of social evolution itself. Bue aside from this small group of Critical anthropologists who were shaping the modern positon fon the problem of race and culture, the bulk of social scientific thinking in this atea was stil carcied on lnggely in an evolutionary ttadicion which ean bes be called Spencerian. Sociology, fathered bby Comte and nurtured by Spencer, was coextensive in origin and sill ( a great extent in subject matter with social evolotion- fam—no much so thatthe revole against Spencer cook place largely ‘within the uncoascious warp of evolutionary thought. Elsewhere fn the soci sciences, the impact of Darwinism and the tradition ‘of the comparative method had by no means exhausted themselves Indeed, in some writers evolutionism seemed to have entered a phase in which, hardened into dogena, it was given on almost Tocoeo elaboration in is application to specific aspects of human social life! ‘Among the anthropologists of evolutionism’s Jater rococo Primitive Men in Bvoluionary Antbropolony 123 simply baggage feom the eighteenth century, was bailed asa “dis covery" of Victorian ethnology indeed the “grandest fact ofall” those t had uncovered. Bueven more than in Tylor and Morgaa, “payehic unity” was quite a diffrent thing than it had been in the eighteenth century of was tobe agin for the anthropologists of the antievoluionary resction, Daniel Garrison Briton and John Wesley Powell-after Morgan's death the two most impor- zane American anthropologists~were such dogmatically unlinar evolutionists that they argued that ey cutoral iniarity whatever ‘erween wo peoples “should be expuined by borrowing or by

    Você também pode gostar