10 2307@40459221

The Anthropogeographic Theory of Franz Boas
Author(s): William W. Speth

Source: Anthropos, Bd. 73, H. 1./2. (1978), pp. 1-31
Published by: Anthropos Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40459221 .
Accessed: 01/12/2013 02:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Anthropos Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropos.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Anthropogeographic
Theoryof FranzBoas*
William W. Speth
Themindsofmendo notthrowup suddenstrayideaswithout

ancestorsor precedents.
Historyis perfect
continuity.
(José Ortega y Gasset)
Contents :
I. Boas and the HistoricistParadigm
II. The Anti-environmentalistPolemic
1. Repudiationof PositivistAnthropogeography
2. Critiqueof GeographicalDeterminism
3. Contextsof the Critiqueof Environmentalism
III. The Environment Problem
1. Environment as a Determinantof Culture
2. Phrasingthe Problemof Environment
IV. Boas and Possibilism
1. Convergence ofVidalianGeography and Boasian Anthropology
2. The Uniquenessof BoasianAnthropogeography
Summaryand Conclusion
The historyof positivistanthropogeography, latterlytermedcultural

ecology,is imperfectlyunderstood. Commentators on Franz Boas' anthro-
pologyand the ecologicalapproachoftenmisrepresent the natureof Boasian
theoryconcerningthe conditioning of cultureby environment. Chroniclers
assertor imply(1) thatBoas' environmental thoughtcontainsonlya critique
of geographicdeterminism 1,(2) that his workhas no continuitywithJulian
* The substanceof thisarticleappearsin my unpublisheddoctoraldissertation

versionofthispaper,"Comments
ofOregon,1972),pp. 60-88.A preliminary
(University
on the Backgroundof EcologicalAnthropology", was read beforethe Twenty-fifth
AnnualMeetingoftheNorthwest Conference
Anthropological heldin Portland,Oregon,
March23-25,1972.
1 Harris 1968: 265-267and 286; Lesser 1968: 101.
73. 1978
Anthropos 1

2 William W. Speth Anthropos73. 1978
Steward's ecologicalexemplar2, or (3) that his theoryexpressespossibilist

doctrine3.Othercontributorsrevealno awarenessoftheanthropological back-
groundof environmental theoryand controversy 4. Some students,however,
recognizethe dualisticnatureof Boas' anthropogeography, but are not con-
cernedto elaborateeitherthe structureor the historyof his thinkingon the
environment problem5. This inquiryseeksto understandhow the contentof
Boas' anthropogeographic theorywas organizedand when and how the
contentand structurechanged.
I. Boas and the HistoricistParadigm
Franz Boas was bornin 1858 and rearedin Germany6. At the age of
twenty-three, he receivedthe doctoratefromthe University of Kiel underthe
RitterianTheobald Fischer. Field experience in Baffinland (1883-1884)com-
plementedby study and work in Berlin,before and after his polar venture,
followed.Boas acceptedan appointment in physicalgeographyat the Uni-
versityofBerlinin 1886,whileaffiliatedwiththeRoyalEthnographic Museum.
UnderMuseumauspices,he travelledto BritishColumbiafora reconnaissance
oftheKwakiutlpeoples.Subsequently, he resigned hisUniversity post,decided
to remainin NewYork City,and appliedforUnitedStatescitizenship. During
the nexttwo years,Boas servedas geographicaleditorforScienceand wrote
his last articleon geography.By 1889, his interesthad been directedfrom
geography to ethnology,andhe acceptedthedocentship in anthropology offered
by G. Stanley Hall at ClarkUniversity. Boas taught at Clark University
from1889-1892and guidedthe researchof the firstrecipientof a doctorate
2 Helm 1962: 630-631; Freilich 1967: 26-30.
3 Sahlins 1964: 132 and 146; Geertz 1963: 1-3; Vayda and Rappaport 1968:
479_483.
4 In his"Geographic Perspectivesin Anthropology" (1967: 634)MarvinMikesell
fancifully claimed: "Anthropologists can approachecologicalproblemswithan open
mind,fortheyhave neverhad a vestedinterest in provingor disproving environmental
influence. In thissenseat least,naivetecan be a virtue."See also Lewthwaite 1966
and Spate 1968a.
5 At thetimeCarl Sauer beganhiscritiqueofenvironmentalism ; H. E. Barnes,
the historian,declared:"The culturalanthropologists [Boas and his pupils]... have
madeit possibleto avoidthetwoequallyundesirable extremes oftheusualignoring of
geographical factorsin history,and thenaivedoctrine ofgeographic determinism which
is oftensetforthby anthropogeographers. It is to theculturalanthropologists, farmore
thanto all othertypesof socialscientists combined, thatwe owe ourpresentscientific
and discriminating appraisaloftheinfluence ofthegeographic factorin history"(1925:
290): See also Stern 1959: 219-220.A recentinterpretation is foundin E. Hatch 1973a:
64-65 etpassim,and 19736:231-233.Hatch does not differentiate clearlybetweenthe
limiting andthemodifying rolesofthenaturalenvironment nordoeshieplacehisanalysis
in a framework of scientific
worldviews.By emphasizing the limiting roleof environ-
ment,he identifies Boas and his followers withthe possibilists. However,he properly
viewsJulian Steward's theoryas a continuation, albeittransformed, ofBoas' environ-
mentalthought.
6 Stocking 19686; Goldschmidt
[edit.] 1959; Kroeber 1943; Boas 1938a; 1936.

Theoryof FranzBoas
The Anthropogeographic 3
in anthropology in thiscountry.WorkwiththeField Museumand theAmeri-

can Museumof NaturalHistoryoccupiedthe nextfouryears.His impactas
a teacher,however,didnotbeginuntilhisappointment in ColumbiaUniversity
in 1896. Boas servedfortyyearswiththe Departmentof Anthropology at
Columbiaand becameemeritus in
professor 1936, a statushe enjoyed untilhis
deathin 1942.
In the role of pedagogue,Boas transmitted to severalgenerationsof
studentsthe loreassociatedwithhis name7. In 1919,Boas himselfremarked
that mostof the anthropological workin the United States was beingdone
then by personswho had passed throughhis department.In 1931, Ruth
Benedict observedthat "almosteveryAmericananthropologist has been a
studentof Boas". A. L. Kroeber (1952: 147) summarized the forceofBoas'
impacton ethnologyten yearsafterhis mentor'sdeath:
"Boas, beginning about1885and developingtheessentialsofhispositionby 1900,
had hisworkexerting on theworldonlyaround1925and continuing
itsfulleffects until
today.... In onesense,accordingly, is alsotheperiodofdominance
muchofourhalf-century
of the Boasianapproach."
The anthropological paradigmadvancedby Boas subsumedhis anthro-

pogeographic theory. paradigmis a disciplinary
A worldview comprisedof
cognitiveelements,includingpresuppositions, methodology, generalizations,
and catchwords,
definitions, and coloredby an affective tone8.Theseelements
areco-determinative,interdependent, andlogicallyconsistent onewithanother.
A specificconfigurationofcognitiveand affective traitsis employedand trans-
mittedinstitutionallyby a community of scholarsand assimilatedby pupils
and kindred personnel. Commitment and consensusundergirda particular
researchcommunity (school)and foster continuation ofa particularparadigm
(tradition).Proponentsof different paradigmsnecessarily pursuetheirscience
in different worlds. Opposing intellectualtraditionsentail conceptionsof
scienceand a rosterofproblemsand permissible solutionsoverwhichthereis
disagreement. Looking in a given directionat the "samephenomena",thetwo
groupsof scientistssee different things.Misunderstanding and debate result
whentheoriesand definitions, forinstance,assumemeaningsand relationships
that differand conflict.Given theirincongruousnatures,paradigmsare in-
compatibleand irreconcilable intellectualviewpoints.
Boas1 disciplinary world view was essentiallyan extensionof the
"Geisteswissenschaften" protest,led by Wilhelm Dilthey in thethirdquarter
ofthelast century,againstsubordinating thehumanstudiesto thelaw-seeking
"Naturwissenschaften" 9. The "cardinal difference" betweenthese sciences,
wroteHerman Friess, is that:
7 Stocking 1968c:296; Benedict 1931: 280; Kroeber 1952: 147.

8 For the synthesis
thatfollows,I have drawnliberallyfromT. S. Kuhn 21970:
148-150and 181-187; Kaplan 1964:23-24,86-87,108,295-298,and 349-350;Parsons
1937: 20-27; and Lovejoy 1957: 3-23.
9 Brinkmann1931; .Landgrebeíyji; de kuggiero iy^ ana jjilthey i^oi.

4 William W. Speth 73.1978
Anthropos
"the Geisteswissenschaftenare not only interestedin genetic and causal explanation,

but also in understanding(Verstehen)the meanings and significancesin their subject-
matter,while the Naturwissenschaften abstract fromthis and concentrateupon descrip-
tion and explanation alone" (Friess 1930: 402; see also 1929).
Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911)soughtto disassociatethe methodol-

ogy theworldofnaturefromthatoftheworldof humanactivity.General
of
laws, continuouswithnaturallaws, are inapplicablein the culturalsciences.
Rather,explanationof phenomenain the humansciencesfollowsfromdeter-
minationof the "concreteindividuality of the specifichistoricalcase" (Par-
sons 1937: 477). The significance of the "Geisteswissenschaften" rests,then,
on theirchronicoppositionto extensionof naturalsciencemethod,or posi-
tivism,to culturaleventsand on clarification of the historicalmethod.
As academic professionalization proceededin America,the outlookof
the Germanhistoricalsciencesbecame transmuted in anthropology by Boas
intoa scholarlyworldview.Withinthe contextof anthropogeographic think-
ing, Boas' paradigm(historicist anthropogeography) became a denial of an
alternative(positivistanthropogeography) and a particular kind of answer to
the question: How does surrounding natureinfluence 10
culture? The following
antitheses
historicist-positivist are :
illustrative historicistthoughtemphasizes
diffusion(culture contact and transmission),the psychologicalapproach
(symbolic-meaningful understanding), genetic description,priorityof non-
materialaspects of culture(idealism),cultureas the extra-environmental
factorin culturegrowth(environment is inert,or passive,and culturecomes
fromculture),function followsform,unlikecausesproducelikeeffects, and an
inductivescienceof actuality.Positivistaccentrests,respectively, on parallel
development (adaptationto nature),the objectiveapproach(functional-causal
explanation),correlations,primacyof technology and economy(materialism),
environment as the extra-culturalfactorin culturechange (environment is
creative),formfollowsfunction, likephenomenahave likecauses,and assump-
tionofa deductivescienceofabstraction. Abstractcomponents, suchas these,
reverberated with
characteristically emotional overtones. Berthold Laufer,
whoservedwiththe JesupNorthPacificExpeditionunderBoas (1898-1899)
and taughtwith him at Columbia University(1905-1907),embodiedthe
affectivetonethatpervadesthe critiqueof environmentalism whenhe wrote:
"The fact that environmenthas a rather insignificantshare in the formationof
cultureis patent to everyone who can thinkobjectively; nevertheless,in the face of the
many pretensionsmade by that infertilepseudo-science,anthropogeography, it becomes
our duty to antagonize its hollow dogmas on every suitable occasion" n.
10 The word "historicist"is used to identifythe Boas tradition,but "idealist",

"phénoménologie", and "subjective" are synonyms. An instructive analysis of the
"mutuallyaggressive"paradigms of idealism and positivismhas been provided by Tal-
cott Parsons 1937: 473-487. See also Lee and Beck 1954; Herbst 1965; Natanson
[edit.] 1963: vn-x and 185-188; and Aron 1964: 110.
11 Laufer 1918: 90; see also Hummel 1936; Thompson and Hobson 1935. The
affectivecomponent of historicismwas not, of course, limited to anthropology.In
discussing mechanistic psychology in the late nineteenthcentury,Hughes observed

Theoryof FranzBoas
Accordingly,historicism
and positivismare discordantworldviewsthat
in thenineteenth
assumeddistinctconfigurations century.The schismbetween
Germanhistoricism and Europeanpositivismpersiststodayin Americansocial
scienceand is organizedaroundthesemutuallyantagonisticparadigms12.
Polemic 13
II. The Anti-environmentalist
Today, Boas is usuallyremembered forhis attackon geographicdeter-

minism, a view that obscures the positiveemphasishe gave to the environ-
mentalfactor.His anthropogeographic theory,however,is complex,forit
contains seemingly contradictory strands.Boas consistently stressedthatthe
naturalenvironment limitsand modifiesculturein all its aspects,yet he was
tirelessin hisrejectionofcrudeenvironmentalism. Thus,Boas' theoryincludes
both reinterpretation of the ancientcritiqueof environmentalism and lawful
propositions concerning culture-environment interaction.
1. Repudiation of PositivistAnthropogeography
Boas began to sensesome of the conflictbetweenhistoricism and posi-

tivismabout 1880 14. However, he did not express the presuppositionsof
historicismuntil1887. In "The Studyof Geography", whichsummarized the
changes in his scientific
philosophysince 1880, Boas enunciatedthe incon-
gruitybetween a physicalistanthropogeography an historicistcosmo-
and
graphy possibleapproachesto geography.
as At thistime,he heldthatneither
that"themechanistic, materialist,
naturalistic, and positivistlanguage(in thepolemics
ofneoidealism thetermsare almostinterchangeable) thatcharacterized late-nineteenth-
century psychology suggesteda deadly threatto man's freedom ofwilland theautonomy
of his spirit"(1964:43). Advocatesof the humanstudiesbelievedthat spiritualand
freedom
intellectual werenegatedby the deterministic framework of positivism.
12In asking about the futureof ethnologyas history,Margaret Hodgen
remarked:"... thisquestionhas been and stillremainsone of the mostcrucialin the
wholefieldofthesocialstudies.Farfrombeinga 'dead horse',as so manywouldliketo
thinkit, culturalor social evolutionism versusdated historyremainstheintellectual
dilemmain thestudyofmanin thetwentieth century"(1964:453 and 461). As a kind
of history,culturalevolutionism is positivist(logical,conjectural,or philosophical),
universalin intentand abstracting fromconcreteinstances.Dated history, on theother
hand,seeksto reconstruct the past based upon actual,specificdates and places. See
also Abbagnano1967; Hughes 1958: 33-66; Aron 1964: 107-117; and, forexample,
Guelke 1974.
13I becameaware of the anti-environmental polemicwaged by Boas and his
a
pupilsby reading passage in Kroeber (1943: 10), wherehe wrotethat "as soon as
Boas had definitely establishedhimselfin anthropology, he provedto be muchmore
concerned withculturalfactorsas such than with environmental ones,and in timecame
to be classedas an anti-environmentalist.This again was not quite accurate,but it is
clearthatnearlyall theyounger peoplehe trainedorinfluenced wereanti-environmental-
istsor wentthrougha phaseof beingso."
14Stocking 19686: 140; see also Buettner-Janusch1957 and Harris iyo8:
261-263.

5 William W. Speth 73. 1978
Anthropos
of the approachespossessedgreaterworththan the other. He preferred,

nevertheless,thehistoricist
approachto thestudyofgeography, whoseobjects
are "the phenomenacaused by the distribution of land and water,by the
verticalformsof the earth'ssurfaceand by the mutualinfluence ofthe earth
and its inhabitantsuponeach other"(1940[1887a] : 646etpassim).Boas main-
tainedthat geographywas cosmography, in Humboldt's sense of the word,
and thatits purposewas the thoroughunderstanding of phenomena:
"Cosmography, as we maycallthisscience,considers
everyphenomenon as worthy
of beingstudiedforits own sake. Its mereexistenceentitlesit to a fullshareof our
attention; and theknowledgeofitsexistenceand evolutionin spaceand timefullysatis-
fiesthe student,withoutregardto the laws whichit corroborates or whichmay be
deducedfromit" (642).
Those who wouldtake geographyas "anthropo-geography" claim"that

the ideal aim of scienceoughtto be the discoveryof generallaws"; it is,
therefore,"instructiveto considerthoroughly
theirdefinition
of geography" :
"Theydeclarethatthe domainof thissciencecomprises neithermagneticaland
nor geologicalphenomenaand processes.They generously
meteorological grantit the
studyofthedistribution ofanimalsand plants,as faras physiologists
and evolutionists
willpermit;but all agreethatanthropo-geography - thelifeofmanas faras it depends
on the countryhe livesin - is thetruedomainof geography" (640).
The methodof cosmography is that of the historian,that of anthropo-
geographythe naturalist.Hence, the
"contestbetweengeographersand theiradversariesis identicalwiththeold controversy
betweenhistorical
and physicalmethods.One partyclaimsthattheideal aim ofscience
oughtto be thediscoveryofgenerallaws; theothermaintainsthatit is thedescription
and explanationòf phenomenathemselves" (641).
The anthropogeographer
"joyfully ... sees thateveryprocessand everyphenomenon whichseemto the stranger
an irregular and incomprehensibleconglomerateis a linkin a longchain.Losingsight
of the singlefacts,he sees onlythe beautifulorderofthe world"(644-645).
The conglomerate characterofall terrestrial

phenomena,includingman
and his works,thus becomesneatlyorderedin "an objectiveunity"by the
anthropogeographer. The "true domain of geography"construedon the
physicalistmodel is, however,untenable,for "physiological, and, to a still
higherdegree,psychologicallaws are not sufficiently well knownto allow
theirbeingtreatedin the same way as physicallaws". Boas concludedthat
"the inventionof geographicalsystems... mustbe consideredas useless,and
classifications
mustbe made onlyas faras geographical phenomenaofa simi-
lar kindmustbe explainedby different causes" (640 and 646) 15.Accordingly,
15Boas believedthatlikeeffects did not necessarily

arisefromlikecauses,that
thedevelopment ofsimilarhistorical
phenomena fromunlikecauseswas farmorelikely
thanits alternative. of phenomena
Hence,classification shouldnot markthe beginning
of investigation,
but rathershouldresultfrominvestigation of the phenomenathem-
selves.See Stocking 1974: 2-4.

Theoryof FranzBoas 7
Boas rejecteda naturalisticexplanationof psychologicalphenomenaand,

withit, anthropogeography, the approachto geographythat was based on
the questionablephysicalmodel.
A year later,in "The Aims of Ethnology",Boas reiteratedthe break
witha naturalistic
anthropogeography and launchedhis anti-environmentalist
polemic that spanned a half century.Inadequatelybased theoriesdetract
fromhealthyscientific growthas seen in "the attemptto explainhistoryas
determinedby the natureof the countryin whichthe people live". Boas
continued(1940 [1889]: 637):
"A relationbetweensoiland history cannotbe denied,butwe arenotin a position
to explainsocial and mentalbehavioron this basis and anthropo-geographical 'laws'
are valid onlyas vague,emptygeneralities. Climateand soil exertan influenceupon
thebodyanditsfunctions, butit is notpossibleto provethatthecharacterofthecountry
findsimmediate expressionin thatof its inhabitants."
Boas spurnedgeographyas a fieldof studyby 1888 and, as ethnologist,

insistedon psychologicalunderstanding of ethnicphenomena.Thereafter,
he conceivedthe environment instrumentally as a determinantof culture
- one amongseveral(Boas 1904: 515; 1940 [1896]: 276).
The anthropogeographic doctrinebecamevariouslydesignatedby Boas :
a "far-reaching" theory,a "hypothesis",a "formula",a "closed systemof
laws", or simplya "theory",and the generalizations that formpart of the
or
theory, system, were but "vague" and or
"empty" "common-places" 16.The
theory found root in the minds of and
ethnologists geographers alike. Boas
challengedthe idea held by someethnologists that geographical environment
could be "the commoncause forsimilarityof actionsand beliefsof peoples
and tribeswidelyseparated,belongingto different races,and beingon certain
stages of cultural development"(19116: 159; 1940 [1896]: 278). When he
criticizedthe anthropogeographical logicof Fritz Graebner, he wrote:"The
idea that in cases of independentoriginof the same culturalphenomena
identityof environment can give the onlysatisfactory explanationis deeply
rootedin Mr. Graebner'smind..." Boas arguedthat "as soon as the cultural
basis is distinct,even the most absoluteidentityof environment cannotbe
assumed to lead to the same result" (1940 [1911c]: 297). The problem,then,
ofexplainingculturalsimilarities absorbed the attention of ethnologists,some
ofwhomstressedtheexternalenvironment in theirexplanations.Geographers
who applied anthropogeographic reasoning,however,tended to emphasize
thatenvironment determined in directmannertheformofcultureas a whole.
Boas charged(19116:163; 19116 [1938]: 192):
"At thispointthe studentsof anthropo-geography who attemptto explainthe
wholeculturaldevelopment environmental
on the basis of geographical conditionsare
wontto claimthatthesehistoricalcausesthemselves are foundedon olderconditions,
in whichtheyhave originatedunderthe stressof environment .... this claimis inad-
of everysingleculturalfeaturedemonstrates
missibleas longas the investigation that
16Boas 1940[1889]: 637; 1940[1896]: 278; 1940[1920]: 283-284;1940[1930a]:

268; 1928: 229; 1911a: 53.

8 William W. Speth Anthropos73. 1978
the influenceof environment bringsabout a certaindegreeof adjustmentbetween

environment and sociallife,butthata completeexplanationoftheprevailing conditions,
based on the actionof environment alone,is neverpossible.... no matterhowgreatan
influencewe may ascribeto environment, that influencecan becomeactive onlyby
beingexertedupon the mind;so that the characteristics of the mindmustenterinto
theresultantformsof socialactivity."
Boas maintainedconsistently that "historicalcauses" are the primary

molderofculture."Whilefullyacknowledging theimportance ofgeographical
conditionsupon life",he declared,"I do not believethat theycan be given
a place at all comparableto that of cultureas handed down,and to that of
the historicalinfluenceexertedby the culturesof surroundingtribes..."
(1911a: 56; 19116: 162; 1940 [1896]: 276).
2. Critiqueof GeographicalDeterminism
Withthepublicationofhisthirdbook "Anthropology and ModernLife",

-
in 1928, Boas renamedpositivistanthropogeographythe "hollowdogma"
that he opposed- "geographicaldeterminism". The basis of Boas' attention
to nomenclature is clear. Between1911and 1928,Americangeography, aside
fromthe Berkeleyschool,became definedin termsof a searchforhuman
responsesto geographicstimuli(Spencer 1974: 26). Ellen Semple's book,
"The Influencesof GeographicEnvironment", appearedin 1911, and Ells-
worth Huntington was risingto professional prominence 17.Semple, whose
advocacy of Ratzel's biologicmodel was largelyresponsibleforthe redefini-
tionofAmericangeography, praisedRatzel intheopeningpagesofherwork18:
"Ratzel performed the greatserviceof placinganthropogeographyon a secure
scientific
basis. He had his forerunners in Montesquieu,Alexandervon Humboldt,
Buckle,Ritter,Kohl,Pescheland others;but he firstinvestigatedthesubjectfromthe
modernscientific pointof view,constructedhis systemaccordingto the principles
of
evolution,and based his conclusionson world-wide forwhichhis predeces-
inductions,
sorsdid not commandthe data."
To thisnewexpressionofenvironmentalism,
Boas responded(1928: 229
and 231):
"The studyof theculturalhistoryof any particulararea showsclearlythatgeo-
graphicalconditions by themselves
have no creativeforceand are certainly no absolute
determinants of culture
The errorof the theoryof geographicdeterminism lies in the assumptionthat
thereare tribeson our globewithoutany culture,thatmustlearnto adapt themselves
to theenvironment in whichtheylive.We do notknowofanytribewithoutsomeform
of cultureand evenin timesof the olderstoneage ... thisconditiondid not exist.The
environment can onlyact upona cultureand theresultof environmental influencesis
dependentuponthe cultureuponwhichit acts."
Following1928, "geographers"wereviewedas promulgators of a crude

system"intendedto explaintheintricacies
ofculturallifeas dependentupon...
17 See Martin 1973; Spate 1968&.

18 Semple 1911 : v; see also Sauer 1934 and Wanklyn 1961 : 23 and 31-33.

geographicalconditions"(1940 [1930a]: 265). "Geographers", claimedBoas,

"tryto deriveall formsofhumanculturefromthe geographicalenvironment
in whichman lives" (1940 [1932]: 255). In his integrating article,"Anthro-
pology", written for the Encyclopaediaof the Social Sciences,Boas noted:
"Attentionhas also been directedto the stimulating or enervatingeffectof
climateupon the individual,but no directrelationbetweentheseconditions
and the developmentof earlyculturehas been provedto exist" (1930&:99).
Duringthisperiod,Boas namedor impliedRitter and Ratzel, Vidal de la
Blache and Brunhes, and Guyot, Semple, and Huntington as carriersof
the environmentalistbanner19.Circumstances thusemergedthat engendered
the "debates"that Carl Sauer (1927: 175) notedamongenvironmental geo-
graphersand anthropologists (see also Wissler 1913: 164).
3. Contextsof the Critiqueof Environmentalism
Throughpublication,teaching,and conference,Boas conductedhis

polemic.His criticismencompassednot only environmentalism, but other
"all-embracing systems"(Lo wie 1943: 184). Boas to
sought "disproveand
qualify" the exhuberant claims of evolutionists and and he
diffusionists,
attackedmonisticinterpretations of social phenomenabased on economics
and race as well as environment he censuredthe exag-
20.Characteristically,
gerationsof a deductivescheme or single-factor interpretationwhile not
its
denyingentirely explanatory significance.
Over a periodof fiftyyears,Boas disputedthe environmentalist credo
in at least a dozen articlesand books, mainlyin methodological contexts.
Moreover,as a teacherat Columbiaforfortyyears,he "forcibly"urgedhis
critique of environmentalism and, thereby,"adequately inoculated" his
pupilsagainstgeographic determinism (Lowie 1960 [1947]: 435; 1956: 1003).
Accordingly, in the roleof pedagogue, Boas indoctrinated
severalgenerations
of studentsin the historicistmode of conceptualizing environment (Speth
1972: 193-194,198-202).Boasian anthropogeography was sustained,but by
no means uniformly, by A. A. Goldenweiser, E. Sapir, A. L. Kroeber,
R. H. Lowie, P. Radin, L. Spier, and M. Herskovits, all of whomreceived
theirdoctoratesunderBoas at Columbia.Scholarswho did not take their
degreesunderhim wereswayed,also, by his thinking.Personswho studied
ordidfieldworkforbriefperiodsunderBoas and whofurthered environmental
theoryincludeC. Wissler, who belongswith Kroeber's generation,A. M.
19WhyWilliam Morris Davis, leadingfounderof the Association of American

and
Geographers exponent ofevolutionarygeography,is not mentionedby Boas remains
question.Davis was criticized
an interesting by Berkeleygeographers, forhe arguedin
1903,forexample,that 'the essentialin geographyis a relationbetweenthe elements
environment
ofterrestrial and theitemsoforganicresponse'- and manbelongedto the
organicrealm(Wright1952:170).
20EditorialStaffofSeligman[edit.]1930Vol. 1 : 201("TheDevelopment ofSocial
Thought and War
Institutions: and Reorientation";
pp. ;
189-228) forexample, see Boas
19116[1938]: 193-195.

Anthropos
Tozzer, W. D. Wallis, R. B. Dixon, and R. Linton. Historicistanthropo-

geographywas perpetuatedby men who came to Boas as maturescholars:
B. Laufer and P. E. Goddard. Ofcourse,numerousscholarswereinfluenced
indirectlyby Boas, throughhis pupilsand his publications.In thisgroupare
C. O. Sauer andJ. Leighly at Berkeley, whereKroeber and Lowie mediated
Boasian lore21.
In stillanotherarena,Boas and his disciplesexpressedthe critiqueof
environmentalism. In 1911 and 1913,conferences wereorganizedon the sub-
ject of culture and environment 22.At the annual meetingof the American
Anthropological Associationin D.
Washington, C, in 1911,the programfea-
tureda symposiumon thistheme.The identityof the symposiumoriginator
remainsobscure;however,threeof the fourparticipants(Wissler, Sapir,
and Lowie) were Boas' pupils. At Boas' suggestiontwo years later,two
inter-university conferenceswerearrangedbetweenanthropologists and geo-
graphers for "the of
purpose exchanging views on the problemof the influence
of geographicalenvironment on humanculture".Isaiah Bowmanand Ells-
worth Huntingtonrepresented geography;Boas, Goldenweiser, Wissler,
H. Spinden, and Lowie werethe leadingspokesmenforanthropology 23.
Bowman'ssummaryof the conferences, perceivedby John Wright as
a signof the "maturing"of geography, underscored agree-
inter-disciplinary
menton "fundamental principles":
"Interestcenteredaroundthe questionof the degreeto whichgeographic con-
ditionseitheroriginated or guidedculturaldevelopment. The geographic pointof view
is generally
misapprehended, but discussionmadeit quiteclearthattheanthropologist
and the geographer are, afterall, wellagreedas to fundamental It was the
principles.
generalsenseoftheconference thatgeographic factorsare ofvitalimportancein human
development, lessas originatorsofculturalelements thanas guidingforcesaftercultural
21Sauer, personalletters,
June30,1971andMarch3, 1972,andLeighly 1937;133.
22Maccurdy 1912: 142; Anonymous 1913; Bowman1913: 203-204.- Interest
in anthropogeography was firmly establishedin preacademic geography and ethnology.
The NationalMuseum,forinstance,sponsored, in 1896,a seriesof lectures"arranged
withtheview of illustratingthe relationsof lifeto environment". The secondpart of
the seriesconcerned"humanlifein its relationsto lowerorganisms, as well as to the
inorganicworld".See Powell 1896: 625-626.
23The lecturesby Wissler ("The
Psychological AspectsoftheCulture-Environ-
ment Relation")and Sapir ("Languageand Environment") deliveredin 1911 were
publishedin thefollowingyearin theAmerican At theJanuary27, 1913,
Anthropologist.
meeting,papers includedHuntington^ "ClimaticInfluencesin Human Activity",
Bowman's"The Physiographic Environment of the MachigangaIndiansof Peru",and
Wissler's "Cultureand Environment". BesidesHuntingtonand Bowman,Yale Uni-
versitywas representedby the socialevolutionist A. G. Keller, whoread a paperon
"The NaturalSciencesas theBasis oftheSocial Sciences".Papersoffered at thesecond
conference on February19 were Boas' "ArcticEnvironment and ArcticCulture",
Goldenweiser's "Some TheoreticalAspectsof thé Culture-Environment Problem",
Spinden's "Geographical
Environment andtheSouthwestern CultureArea",andLowie's
"Geographical Environment and the PlainsIndians".Wissler publishedhis lecturein
the PopularScienceMonthly (1913) as "The Relationof Cultureto Environment from
the Standpointof Invention".Goldenweiser's paper,retitled"Cultureand Environ-
ment",appearedin 1916in theAmericanJournalofSociology.

Theoryof FranzBoas
elementshave been 'invented/The invention itselfmaybe purelypsychologic, though

evenheretheenvironment mayoffer
stimulating conditions.The conclusionthatenviron-
mentis staticand culturedynamicin characterarousedmostdiscussion;the idea was
acceptedthata changing
finally environment is establishedin thecase ofhumanmigra-
Theconference
tionsovertractsofdiverseclimateandrelief. closedwithan ablesummary
by Professor Boas, in whichhe emphasizedthe fundamental importance of geographic
factorsin thestudyofmanyphasesofhumandevelopment, in spiteofthelargenumber
of culturalelementswhoseoriginsare eitherremotely relatedor whollyunrelatedto
physicalsurroundings" (Bowman1913: 204; see also Wright 1952: 171-172).
Bowman, however,did not dwell on the middle term of culture-

"dynamicin character"- thatthe anthropologists elaboratedin theirpresen-
whethertheanthropologists
tations24.It is notclear,therefore, also recognized
accordwithgeographers. the
Notwithstanding, Boasians continued to direct
theirdialecticagainstgeographers long after1913.
III. The EnvironmentProblem25
In controvertinga naive anthropogeography that became in name an

equally naive geographicdeterminism, Boas neverrejectedthe geographic
factor.Boas repudiatedexaggeratedforceof environment, but he retained
externalnatureas a determinant of cultureand urgedstudyof the relations
betweenenvironment and culture.Robert Lowie has remarkedupon Boas'
awarenessof geographicconditions:
"Othermen'sviewshe oftentreatedin a way likelyto misleadthe immature,
forby concentrating on controversialissueshe sometimes conveyedthe impression of
totalcondemnation whentherewas merelypartialdissent.One mighteasilycarryaway
the idea that he had a low opinionof Tyloror Ratzel,as was certainlynot the case.
His critiqueof environmentalism, forinstance,was urgedso forciblythat foryears
I failedto grasphowcarefully he tookcognizanceofgeographicalfactors"(1960[1947]:
434-435).
Perhaps Lowie's reactionis explainedin part by the quality of his

mentor'sprose. Boas1 writingshowsno orderedarrangement of his theory
into negativeand positiveparts. Rather,his critiqueof environmentalism
and statementofenvironmental law or problemoftenappearentwinedin the
same paragraph or section of an articleor chapter.However,the affirmative
and programmatic aspectsof his theoryare explicit.
24Of Americangeography in the openingdecadesof the presentcentury, Carl

Sauer wrote:"It was the tenor of the time to regardgeography as the expressionof
physicalgeographyin human ....
activities It was notrealizedthatphysical environment,
site,and resourceweretermsof culture,not of nature,and that the studyof habitat
neededto reston knowledge of culture"(1966: 70).
25I have borrowedthe expression"the environment problem"fromClark
Wissler, who developeda positivistanthropogeography in the 1920's.Wissler knew
that the fundamental key to the environment problem"dependsupon our conception
ofthenatureofculture", an understanding thathebuiltuponbypioneering theecological
approach(1912: 224). In the idealistconceptionof culture,the environment is inert,

Anthropos
1. Environmentas a Determinantof Culture
Boas began his professionalOdysseywith an interestin the natural

environmentitself and its possible connectionswith mental phenomena
(psychophysics) (Stocking 19686; 1974: 8-9, 59-60). This interestpersisted
throughout his career.Epistemologicalcuriosityabout the relationsbetween
the objectiveand the subjectiveworldsled Boas, finally,fromphysicsto
ethnologyby way of geography.By 1888, when his primaryinteresthad
shiftedto ethnology, he had relinquisheda materialistworldview and with
it a beliefin geographicdeterminism. Near theend ofhis longlife,Boas com-
mentedon the natureand backgroundof his attitudetowardenvironment
(1936: 137-138):
"If in laterwritings The CentralEskimo',1888] I did not stressgeo-
[following
graphicalconditions the reasonmust be soughtin an exaggerated
beliefintheimportance
of geographical determinants withwhichI startedon myexpeditionin 1883-1884and
the thorough disillusionment in regardto theirsignificance
as creativeelementsin cul-
turallife.I shallalwayscontinueto considerthemas relevantin limiting and modifying
existingcultures, but it so happenedthatin mylaterfieldworkthisquestionhas never
cometo the foreas particularly enlightening."
AlthoughBoas chose not to contributesubstantively to the themeof
environment and culturein his matureyears,his involvement in the contro-
versy over environmentalism and his méthodologie interest in the environ-
mentproblemdirectedthe attentionof his followers to thissubject.
Boas neitherignorednor deniedenvironmental influence.Long before
the modernconnotationsof culturehad been hammeredout by American
fieldanthropologists,
Boas reliedon thephysicalsurroundings to helpexplain
ethnological phenomena 26.His earliestdetailedtreatment of the issueoccurs
in "The Limitationsof the ComparativeMethodof Anthropology", written
in 1896, in whichhe criticizedculturalevolutionism.At this time, Boas
referredto theenvironment as an "external"factorthatinfluences theculture
ofmankind.Concerning thepossibility that"similarityofgeographical environ-
mentis a sufficientcause forsimilarity of culture",he objected(1940 [1896]:
271-272,276, 278):
"Environment has a certainlimitedeffect
uponthecultureof man,but I do not
see how the view that it is the primarymoulderof culturecan be supportedby any
facts.A hastyreviewof the tribesand peoplesof our globeshowsthat peoplemost
diversein cultureand languagelive underthe same geographical as proof
conditions,
ofwhichmaybe mentioned theethnographyof East Africaor of New Guinea.In both
theseregions wefinda greatdiversityofcustomsinsmallareas.Butmuchmoreimportant
is this: Not one observedfactcan be broughtforwardin supportof thishypothesis
playinga subordinatepart,as comparedwithpurelyculturalfactors,inthedetermination

of culture.Biologicallyconceived,cultureis man's meansof adaptingto environment,
in thewidestsense,and thenaturalenvironment is takenas a potentexternalstimulus
and determinant of culture.When linkedwithothertheoreticaland methodological
elements,the opposingconceptionsbecomeparts of mutuallyexclusiveparadigms.
Such conflictingmeaningsare not simplya matterof emphasis.
26Boas 1940 [1889]: 637 and 1887&:588; see also Stocking 1974: 18-19 and
1968d: 230.

Theoryof FranzBoas
whichcannotbe muchbetterexplainedbythewellknownfactsofdiffusion ofculture; for

archaeology teachus thatintercourse
as wellas ethnography betweenneighboringtribes
has alwaysexistedand has extendedoverenormousareas Therefore, it seemsto my
mindthatwhereamongneighboring tribesan immediate ofenvironment
influence cannot
be shownto exist,thepresumptionmustalwaysbe in favorofhistorical
connection."
Applicationof the preferredhistoricalmethod(diffusion)may disclose

the "environmental conditionswhichhave createdor modifiedculturalele-
ments",as well as "psychologicalfactors"or "historicalconnections"that
have shaped a culture.
The priorityof Boas' recognitionof environmental forcewell before
1900 is confirmed of
by his works.The persistence his "ecological"viewpoint
is seenin a statementpublishedoverthirtyyearslater.The idea thatenviron-
menthas a "certainlimitedeffect"uponculture,utteredin 1896,was,by 1930,
elaboratedin theseterms:
"Environment modifiesculture,and culturemodifiescertainaspects of the
environment. The limitingeffects of environment are clear.The absenceof vegetable
productslimitsthecultureof the Eskimo,the absenceof snowthatof theinhabitants
of CentralAfrica.... On the otherhand geographical conditions are a creativefactorto
a slightdegreeonly.Fertility ofthesoildoesnotproduceculture.It helpsin thedevelop-
mentof agriculture wheretheart is known....The influence of environment is confined
to modificationbroughtabout in pre-existing culturalforms.The directionwhichthe
stimulustakesdependsuponculturalfactors.The hardsnowof the Arcticenabledthe
Eskimo,but nototherArctictribes,to inventthevaultedsnowhut.... Givena certain
typeof culture,the effects of environment may be tracedin manyimportant aspects
of life,but onlyin this sensecan environment be consideredas a determinant. The
periodicityofthe seasons,the habits of animals,the generalconfiguration of the country
all exerttheirinfluences. Periodsof activityand of leisure,the locationof villages,
movements ofthetribefromonelocalityto another, theforms ofmeansoftransportation
and thelimitsofpoliticalunitsare so affected .... The foodsupplyalso controlsthesize
of communities thatdo not importfoodproductsand thusexertsan indirectinfluence
oversocialand politicalorganization. The experiences withwhichtheimagination ofthe
people occupies itselfare furnished by the environment in which they live. Hence their
traditionaltales,theirmetaphorical expressions and eventheirreligiousbeliefsrequire
fora fullunderstanding, a knowledge oftheinfluence ofenvironment upona pre-existing
cultureand of its importance as furnishingmuchof the available sense experience"
(19306:99; see also 1940[1932]:255 and 19116[1938]:191).
From theseratherextendedand uninhibited remarksalone, it is clear
that Boas knew that in or
helping hindering culture development, environ-
mentis at mosta co-determinant. Here, too, is the classic negation- by no
-
meansoriginatedby Boas but vigorouslyurgedby him of environmental
potency:environment cannotexplainculturebecause the identicalenviron-
mentis consistent withdistinctcultures.He knew,moreover, thatculturetype
directed,if not elicited,environmentalstimulus in both material and non-
materialaspectsof culture.Boas had elegantlyexpressed the latterprinciple
in 1911 (1911c:297-298):
"As soon as the culturalbasis is distinct,even the most absoluteidentityof
environment cannotbe assumedto lead to the sameresult.It is a curiousviewthatis
so oftenheld,that whenwe speak of the influence of environment upon the human
mind,only the environment need be Is
considered. not in everyproblemof interaction
thecharacter of each of theinteracting
phenomena of equal importance?"

Anthropos
"The environment", proclaimedBoas, "has not the same meaningfor

the hunterand forthe herder;but herdingwas not inventedowingto the
stressof environment" (1928: 230; see also 1911a: 54). The essenceof Boas'
reiteratedlaw is this: to environmental conditionscan be ascribedno more
than a modifying influence a
upon pre-existing culture.
By 1930, verylikely in an effortto assimilateand therebymute the
materialism of Clark Wissler, Boas outlinedthe meansby whichenviron-
mentaffects culture.He wrotethattherelations betweenenvironment and econ-
omy are "close" and that "the environment acts the
through intermediary
of economicconditions.These,beinga partofculture,are muchmoreclosely
relatedto othermanifestations of culturallife than environment" 27.Con-
tinuingin 1938, Boas criticizedthe naturalisticconceptionof cultureareas
(Wissler), but acknowledged that"undersimilarmethodsofobtainingsuste-
nance, whichare controlledby geographicconditions,whole complexesof
objectsand activitiesare commonto fairlylargeareas" (1938e: 670). Thus,
in the modification of culturallifeby geographicenvironment, Boas appre-
an
ciatedthemediatingroleofeconomicform.He favored,however, historicist
solutionto theenvironment problemratherthanan analysisframedin positi-
vist terms,such as Wissler's humanecology28.
Boas' culturaltheoryof environment was complemented by his insis-
tencethat the problemof environmental influencewas worthwhilestudying
in detail. From 1901 until his death, Boas advocated investigationof the
relationsbetweenenvironment and culture29.Here was a fundamental prob-
lem of anthropology, the natureof the relationsof groupsto "theorganicand
inorganicouterworlds".In one of his last methodological papers,Boas set
down "the greatproblemsof anthropology", whichincluded:
"...the multitudeof relationsbetweenman and nature;the procuring and pre-
servationof food;thesecuringof shelter;thewaysin whichobjectsofnatureare used
as implements and utensils;and all variouswaysin whichmanutilizesor controlsor is
controlledby hisnaturalenvironment : animals,plants,theinorganic
world,theseasons,
and windand weather"(Boas 19386:4).
27Boas 19306:100; see also 1940 [1930a]: 261 and 267. - Long beforethe
Thirties,Boas understood thenatureofWissler's ecology;however, Boas dislikedthe
all-embracing and abstractquality of his student'sscheme.For instance,whenBoas
wrote"The CentralEskimo"in 1585,he discussedsettlement in termsof
distribution
environmental factors(floeice, winds,currents, seasons,and faunalhabits)and sub-
sistenceactivities(seasonalmodesofhunting) (1888:460-461),buthe did notemphasize
thesefactorsand activitiesin his substantive works.
28A. H. Gayton's "Culture-Environment Integration:External Referencesin
YokutsLife" is one of the fewsubstantivepiecesthat have appeared,analyzingthe
environment problemin termsof the Boasian paradigm.Gayton acknowledged the
theoreticallegacyof Wissler, hermentorKroeber, and Boas, whodid not"omitthe
environmental factor".Melville Herskovits,whoreceivedhis doctorateunderBoas
and who practisedhis anthropology withinthe receivedhistoricist
framework, tacitly
recommended Gayton'spaperwhileignoring theanomalousecologicalimportofJulian
Steward's studies.Gayton 1946: 253-254; Speth 1972: 159-164.
29Boas 1940[1932]:256; 1901: 281-282and 289; 1904: 521; 19306:73 and 79;
1940[1930a]: 261.

Theoryof FranzBoas
By rejectingthe exaggeratedclaimsof environmentalists and by recog-

nizingtheenvironment of
as a determinant culture, Boas achieveda synthesis
ofanthropogeographic theory.He wentbeyondthelimitations oftheenviron-
mentalistthesis and his own environmentalist critique and assertedthat
environment limitsand modifiesculture.He wentfurther by urginginvesti-
gation of the determining roleof environment. However, chosenot to con-
he
tributesubstanti vely to the subject, and he did not toleratea positivist
solutionto the problem.Nevertheless,by provisionallyframingthe "eco-
logical approach",Boas gave a bent to interestand inquirythat was sus-
tainedand extendedby manyofhis pupilsand followers. But, it is necessary
now to returnto the body of Boas' anthropogeographic thoughtand some
residualelementsof phraseology that requirecomment.
2. Phrasing the Problem of Environment
Recurrentwords and phrasesand special usages furthercharacterize

Boas' anthropogeographic theory.Since Boas' historicism inhibitedconcern
withelaboratingthe meaningof "environment", the fullsense that he gave
the termmust be drawnfromscatteredsources.His polemicalstatements
normally concerned thenatural,oras he spokeofit,the"geographical" environ-
ment,but Boas used environment in an inclusivesense,as well.Environment,
or "surroundings", is the"physicalconditionsofthecountry, and thesociolog-
ical phenomena, i. e.,therelationofman to man" (18876: 588). Causesofvaria-
tionsin universalideas(Bastian) are "eitherexternal, thatis foundedon envi-
ronment - takingthetermin its widestsense- or internal,thatis foundedon
psychological conditions" (1940[1896]: 271). In thePrefaceto "Primitive Art",
Boas defended primitive mentality the
as essentially same as civilized
mentality
and again used environment in its widestsense: "Each culturecan be under-
stoodonlyas an historicalgrowthdetermined by the social and geographical
environment in which each people placed and by the way in whichit
is
developsthe cultural material thatcomesintoits possessionfromthe outside
or throughits owncreativeness" 30.Thus,Boas recognizedexplicitly thesocial
or culturalcomponentof a group'stotal environment.
Usually,Boas referred to the naturalaspect of a society'ssettingas
the geographicalenvironment, but occasionallyhe reliedon synonyms, such
as "environment", "geographicalconditions","nature", or the "organicand
inorganicouterworld"31.However, Boas' protracted earlyinfluenceon
and
Americananthropology is revealedby the factthat shortlyafterhe arrived
in the United States, he designatedsurrounding nature as "country"and
"soil" (18876: 588; 1940 [1889]: 637). Compositelyviewed,his environment
includedthe conventionalcategoriesused by studentstoday: availablemate-
rials, plants,animals,water,land forms,soil, and climate32.The natural
30 Boas 1955 [1927]: 4; see also 1940 [1930a]: 266 and 19386: 667.
31 Boas 1911a: 53; 1928: 229; Boas 19386: 4 and Boas 1940 [1930a]: 261.
32 Boas 19116: 159-160; 1928: 231; 19306: 99.

Anthropos
surroundings, moreover,wereinconstant- not onlyin the sense of different

culturesdefiningthe "same" environment but in the sense that
differently,
the environment is inherently changeful.Boas was cognizantof culturalad-
justmentsto the variablespatialand temporalsidesofthe environment when
he wrote"The CentralEskimo"in 1888. In 1911,he asserted:"We may also
recognizethat the distribution of the produceof a country,the difficulties
and ease of travel,the necessityof reachingcertainpoints,may deeplyin-
fluencethe habitsof the people." An inconstantnatureis disclosedhere,as
well as in a latergeneralization:"The periodicity of the seasons,the habits
ofanimals,thegeneralconfiguration ofthecountryall exerttheirinfluences" 33.
Late in life,Boas definedthe naturalenvironment as "animals,plants,the
inorganicworld,the seasons,and windand weather",but before1900 he had
insistedon a culturalbasis fordetermining environmental (19386:
significance
4; 1940 11896]:278).
Boas did not shirkfromgrantinggeographical"influences" on ethno-
logical phenomena. Certaingeographical conditions "may deeply influence
the habitsof the people". "All we knowis that everycultureis stronglyin-
fluencedby its environment ..." (1911a: 54; 1940 [1932]: 255). The forceful
term influencewas easily transmutedto "modify","stimulate","favor",
"affect","facilitate","compel",and "limit"34.In subsistencecommunities,
the foodsupplyindirectly "controls"social and politicalorganization. Fertile
soil will "induce" a farmingpeople whose membersare increasingsharply
to improveits agricultural methods(19306:99; 19116 [1938]: 190). Cultures
become "accomodated", "adjusted", or "adapted" to their geographical
environment 35.In acknowledging thatenvironment conditioned culture,Boas
stressedthat geographydoes not find"immediateexpression"in behavior,
that geography,at most,"helps to determinethe special formsof customs
and beliefs".It is "fruitless"
to tryto explainculturein environmental terms
alone36. "Geographicalconditions",wrote Boas, "become operativeonly
whenculturalconditionsmaketheirutilizationimportant .... Accordingto the
33Boas 1911a: 54; 19306:99; 19116[1938]: 189.

34Boas 19306:99; 1940 [1930a]: 266; 19116:162; 1940 [1932]: 256; 1928: 231;
19386:668.
35Boas 1911a: 53; 19116:163; 1928: 229. - The expressions that Boas freely
employedare the namesthatCarl Sauer abjuredin his critiqueofenvironmentalism :
control,influence,adjustment. In 1927, Sauer wrote that "therehas been a distinct
tendency[in Americangeography] to softenthetermthatexpressestheenvironmental
relation.Control,
influence,connection,bearing,relationare sucha seriesoflessand less
confident names"(1927: 169; see also Leighly 1955: 313). Boas, moreover, acknow-
ledgedenvironment as "a determinant" of culture,whereasC. Daryll Forde, who
was a Commonwealth Fellowat Berkeleybetween1928and 1930,was morerestrained
thanBoas in depicting theroleofenvironment. Forde maintained that"physicalcon-
ditions"enterculture"not as determinants ... but as one categoryof theraw material
ofculturalelaboration" (1963:464). Forde hereexemplifies thehistoricistoutlookmore
fullythan Boas, whosename is synonymous withthe neo-idealism of the historical
schoolof anthropology (cf.Boas 19306:99).
36Boas 1940[1888]: 637; 19116:162; 1940[1930a]: 266.

Theoryoí FranzBoas
culturalpossessionsof peoples,the same environment willinfluence culturein

diverseways"37.Boas, moreover, did not accept the rationalisttendencyto
assume that culturesadapted perfectlyto their surroundings, for many
customsare disadvantageousto a people'ssurvival(Boas 19116 [1938]: 191;
1911a: 55).
Inconsistency and obscuritymark,to a degree,someof Boas' efforts to
describeenvironmental strength, perhapsbecause the environment question
was ofno particular interestto him.For instance,he observedthattheenviron-
menthas a "limitedeffect"upon culture,thatenvironment "limitsor favors"
humanactivities,that it exertsa "limitingor modifying power"on culture,
as well as notingthe "limitingeffects"of environment 38.To limitimplies
absenceor dearthof an environmental phenomenon, such as the absenceof
vegetablefoodamongthe Eskimoor of snowin Polynesia.Similarly,a geo-
graphicfeaturethatrepresents to a peoplea barrierrevealsfurther thelimiting
of
power nature, as in the case of pack ice in
forming melting the Arctic.
and
The limitedeffect thatenvironment has uponcultureis contingent : onlywhen
the culturebase is knownis it possibleto assess environmental stimuli. This
is not all. Withinthe same year (1930),Boas concededthat "geographical
conditions area creativefactorto a veryslightdegreeonly"and that"environ-
mentalconditionsmay stimulateexistingculturalactivities,but theyhave
no creativeforce"39.Subsequently, however,he deniedthat a creativeforce
inheredin the geographicalenvironment 40.By 1936, Boas statedthe deter-
miningrole of environment in termsof "limitingand modifying" existing
cultures.The limiting (andfavoring) effectsofenvironment were "self-evident"
or "clear".On theotherhand,culturaladjustmentto geographical conditions,
whetherfavorableor unfavorable, caused modification in cultures (Boas 1936:
137-138; 1928:231).
Accordingly, Boas gave the widestmeaningto the termenvironment.
Whenhe spokeofthe naturalaspectofenvironment, he understoodfullythe
difference between the subjective and objective viewpointsin perceiving
37Boas 1940 [1930a]: 266. - The principleof utilizationwas propounded, also,

by Carl Sauer (1925: 349): "Whatman does in an area becauseof tabu or totemism
or becauseofhis ownwillinvolvesuse ofenvironment ratherthantheactiveagencyof
the environment" (see, in addition, Sauer 1927: 172).
38Boas 1940 [1896]: 278; 19116:162; 1928: 231; 19306:99.
39Boas 19306:99; 1940 [1930a]: 266; 1940 [1896]: 276.
40Boas 1940 [1932]: 255; 19386: 668; 1936: 137-138.- In Julian Steward's
anthropogeography,
positivist theenvironment is subsumedunder"adaptiveprocesses"
a
and given quasi-creative role. Steward wrote,but not quite accurately,that the
culturalrelativists relegated environment "to a purelysecondaryand passiverole.It is
considered prohibitive or permissive, but not creative."The environment, accordingto
Steward, is an element in theadaptiveprocess that, in turn,is "among moreimpor-
the
tantcreativeprocessesin culturechange".As partof his ecologicalmethod,Steward
introduced the"localenvironment as theextraculturalfactorin thefruitlessassumption
thatculturecomesfromculture"(Steward 1955: 21 and 35-36).A clearand divergent
emphasison environmental potency,belongingto opposingparadigmas,is thus dis-
cerniblein thethoughtofBoas and Steward. See also Speth 1973: 117-119.
Anthropos 73. 1978 2

Anthropos
nature.Further,environmental elementsare changefulin space and time,

and culture,not nature,primarilygovernsenvironmental forcein affecting
cultureforms.Nevertheless, it is clearthat Boas' earlyencounterwithmate-
rialismrevealsitselfin thesemanticcomponentofhis theory.Onlyfullappre-
ciationof his idealistoutlookin a contextof controversy will preventthe
studentfrommisreading his treatmentof the environment problem.Culture,
finally,is limitedand modifiedby environment, but the role of environment
in culturemust not be exaggerated.Given the foregoingconfiguration of
Boas' anthropogeographic theory, can we place Boas in the possibilistcamp?
IV. Boas and Possibilism

Reactionto geographicaldeterminism stimulatedFrenchhumangeog-
raphy as well as American culturalanthropology41.The environmentalism
of Ratzel's complexanthropogeography was rebuttedalikeby humangeog-
raphers(and social morphologists) in France and culturalanthropologists
(andculturalgeographers) in theUnitedStates.Throughthesustainedcritique
of environmentalism usheredin by Paul Vidal de la Blache (1845-1918),
theFrenchschoolofhumangeography reformulatedthe"exaggeratedRatzel-
ian notions of environmental determinism"into the "moreelasticconcepts
ofpossibilism" in theyearsbetween1890and 1910 42.The obfuscatingattempt
to match Boasian anthropogeography with Vidalian possibilism,we will
argue,is a by-productof the paradigmshiftin Americananthropology that
has witnessedthe eclipseof monolithicBoasian historicism.
1. Convergenceof Vidalian Geographyand Boasian Anthropology
Resemblencebetweenpossibilismand Boas' anthropogeography is not

limitedto dialecticorigin.The development of the cultureconceptby ethnol-
ogistsin Americahad its counterpart in the notionofgenrede vie,fashioned
and extendedby Frenchgeographers 43.The conceptsthat resultedshow a
tantalizinglikeness.Genrede viehas receivedvariousinflections : "patternsof
living","life-style", "modes of life", "way of life",and "culture"44.Luker-
mann(1965: 131) wrotethatgenrede vie is "explicitlyan historicalaccumu-
lationof habit. ... an expressemphasison the historicalbackgroundof social
behaviourand on the forceof social habit as the mechanismof relationship
withthe physicalenvironment" (see also Sorre 1948: 399-415).Accordingto
Buttimer,the termwas firstdefinedas :
41Buttimer 1971:27-40; 1968:134-145; Dickinson 1969: 192-193; Spate

1968a: 93-94: Sauer 1925: 347-348.
42Buttimer1968: 136; Monbeig1968: 316-317.
43EditorialStaffof Seligman[edit.]1930Vol. 1: 202 [see note20].
44Buttimer1968: 136; 1971: 41 and 52-57; Dickinson 1969: 208; Wagner and
Mikesell [edit.]1962: 370; Lukermann1965: 131.

"that unified,functionally organizedpatternof living which characterizedcertain

livelihoodgroups,e. g., the pastoral-nomadic
and agricultural
genresde vie. Livelihood
providedthe label, the core aroundwhicha wholenetworkof physical,social,and
bondsevolved"(1971: 53).
psychological
As constructedby Boas and his followers,
culture,too,was an historical
accumulationof habits.
Perhaps thefirstexplicitdefinition
ofcultureby Boas
appearedlate, however:
"Cultureembracesall the manifestations
of social habitsof a community,the
by thehabitsof thegroupin whichhe lives,and
reactionsoftheindividualas affected
theproductsofhumanactivitiesas determined by thesehabits"(19306:79).
Boasiajis saw cultureas a historicproducttakingformsas the result
of manydetermining factors.
Withgenrede vie,one of Vidal's "favoriteanalyticaltools" (Buttimer
1971: 53), the Frenchhuman geographersapproachedBoas1 principlethat
"as soon as the culturalbasis is distinct,even the mostabsoluteidentityof
environment cannotbe assumedto lead to the same [social] result"(Boas
1911c: 297). In breakingwiththe necessitarian philosophyof the nineteenth
century,Vidal assertedthat social facts intervene betweenman's behavior
and naturalconditions,that environmental possibilitiesdependedupon his-
toricalprobabilities 45.Jean Brunhes, one of Vidal's disciples,stated the
basic possibilisttenet as follows:"But if the naturalfacts have a certain
effectupon the aptitudesand vocationsofhumangroups,it is because there
are intermediary factsby whichthe contactbetweenterrestrial activitiesand
the humanactivitiesis revealedand by whichthe influenceof the former
uponthelattercan be explained"(Brunhes 1925: 67). Consistently, Brunhes
pointed out that the relationsof man to his earthly home rest on compromise
and chance (Lukermann 1965:129; Buttimer 1971:60). The historian,
Lucien Febvre, who soughtto enlighten someof his colleaguesby exposure
to the doctrineof possibilism,put the characteristic axiom of the doctrine
in thesewords: "There are no necessities,but everywhere possibilities;and
man, as master of the is
possibilities, the judge of their use" 46.Thus,culture
and social facts were added as mediating terms to the model of man's rela-
tionshipto the earth.Insofaras human conduct was influenced by natural
facts,it was throughthe mindor idea.
The outlooksof Vidal and Boas agreefurther in theirrelianceon the
principle of limits(Glacken 1967: 623-625, 632-637, 710). By the eighteenth
century,the notion that the environment sets limits to man's actionshad
beenasserted;it is distinctfromolderconceptions ofenvironmental influence.
Where Boas acquired the idea is unknown.He may have borrowed the
principle,fromVidal or Brunhes, but thisis not suggestedby the context.
On the otherhand,giventhe pervasivenessand persistenceof ideas, French
<5 Monbeig1968: 316-317;Lukermann1965: 130 and 132; Buttimer1971: 51.

46Febvre 1925:236; see also Braudel 1968:348-350; Tatham 1951: 151;
Buttimer1971: 80-85.

Anthropos
geographyand Americananthropology may have independently assimilated

the concept.Whateverthe sourceand flowof intellectualstimuliconcerning
limits,we findVidal stating,"Each groupdiscoveredhelps as well as ob-
stacles[limits]in the particularenvironment whereit had to establishitself"
(1926: 12 and 24; see also Buttimer 1971 : 48-49).Boas stressedthat"environ-
mentis important only in so faras it limitsor favorsthe activitiesthatbelong
to any particulargroup"(19116:162; 19386:668). Similarly,Brunhes spoke
ofthe "importance ofthefreeplay ofhumanactivitywithinnaturallimits..."
(19256:56). Consequently, a commonoriginin the controversy overenviron-
mentalinfluence,relianceupon like seminalconcepts,and use of the prin-
cipleoflimitshave producedparallelsbetweentwodisparateparadigms47.
2. The Uniqueness of Boasian Anthropogeography
The interdisciplinary critiqueof environmentalismcontainslogicalele-

so
ments congruent that it has beguiled studentsinto treatingtheoretic
resemblances as identities.The recentdiscoveryof Lucien Febvre's "A Geo-
graphicalIntroduction to History"by Americananthropologists has enabled
criticsoftheBoas schoolto applythenameoftheFrenchgeographic doctrine
to Boas' position.Sahlins spoke fora numberof ecologicalanthropologists
and geographers whenhe declared:
"Frommorerecentforebears, notablyincludingAmericanfieldanthropologists
of thiscentury,we are heirto an opposedposition[opposedto environmental deter-
minism],environmental sm, whichholds that culturesact selectively,
possibili if not
upontheirenvironments,
capriciously, exploitingsomepossibilitieswhileignoringothers;
thatit is environment thatis passive,an inertconfiguration and limits
of possibilities
to development, the decidingforcesof whichlie in cultureitselfand in the historyof
culture"48.
sincea fewelementsdo not con-
Such parallelsat best are incomplete,
stitutethetotalityofa complexworldview.Also,one seeksin vainforthreads
of continuityand dependencebetweenBoas and possibilism.The assumed
congruenceobscuresthe historicalrealityof conflictbetweenthe paradigms
and theirpersonnels.
Marked differences in the rosterand perceptionof personalitiesare
foundin the opposingcamps. As Dickinson (1969: 193) insisted,the "work
47In paraphrasing the idea of limits,Anglo-American geographershave intro-

duced interesting permutations that are consistentwithpositivism.George Tatham
stated,"Thelimitssetby Natureto man'sactionvaryfromplaceto placeon theearth's
surfaceand fromone historical periodto another"(1951: 156). Underpossibilism,wrote
Preston James,the "physicaland bioticenvironment is conceivedas settinglimits,
offeringopportunitiesamongwhichthe inhabitantshave severalchoices"(1954: 12).
For Richard Hartshorne, the possibilistalternativeto determinism entailedthe
concept"that naturedoes not determine whatmen do, but does determine a limited
numberof possibilitiesfromwhichmen may select" (1959: 57). In each statement,
natureis active,settinglimits,offering or determining
opportunities, possibilities.
48Sahlins 1964: 132; Helm 1962: 630-631;Geertz 1963: 1-6; Mikesell 1967:
627; Vayda and Rappaport 1968: 479-483; Hatch 1973: 231-232; Netting 1971: 2.

Theoryof Franz Boas
of Ratzel on humangeographywas the springboard forVidal de la Blache

so thatbothdirectlyand indirectlyRatzel's workprobablyhad a fargreater
influenceon futuredevelopmentsin France than in his own country"49.
was acceptedby Vidal
spiritof Ratzel and his predecessors
The naturalistic
and his pupilJean Brunhes. The conceptionofterrestrial
unity,wroteVidal,
"didnotbecomepartofotherbranchesofgeography untilourownday,and then
largelythroughthe knowledge of the atmosphere
of circulation whichgovernsclimatic
laws. Moreand morewe have cometo acceptcertaingeneralisations withreferenceto
the worldorganism. FriedrichRatzel verywiselyinsistson sucha conception, making
itthecorner-stone ofhisAnthropogeographie[vol.2]. Thephenomena ofhumangeography
unityby meansofwhichalonecan theybe explained.Theyare
are relatedto terrestrial
everywhere relatedto the environment, of physical
itselfthecreatureof a combination
conditions" (1926:7).
From the point of view of the French geographers,Ratzel's chief
contribution lay in extendingthe limitsof biogeography to includeman in a
unified,terrestrial ecology. Boas saw the worth of Ratzel's work in his
emphasison diffusion, of
the concept marginalpeoples (culturalsurvivals),
and the analysisof distributions. Vidal praisedcontributors to the idea of
environmental influence, includingMontesquieu, Buckle, and Ritter, as
"wise men... seekingin physicalenvironment the explanationof whatever
was particularlystriking in the characterof the inhabitants".In contrast,
Boas identifiedhis adversariesas Ritter, Guyot, Ratzel, Vidal de la
Blache, and Brunhes, who attempt"to explainculturalforms[by]studying
their relationto geographicalconditions".For Boas, the attemptswere
methodologically "unsatisfactory" 50.Thus, Vidal invokedauthorityin the
figureswhom Boas criticized,Boas attackedthe possibilistsby name,and in
the same student(Ratzel) Vidal and Boas saw differentmethodological
tendenciesand values.
49If it is remembered that Durkheimcontributed to the criticismof Ratzel's

anthropogeography, therebyaugmenting and coloringFrenchpossibilism, Kroeber's
assessment of the French is
sociologist illuminating: "Durkheim... may be rated a
an
positivist; empiricist in principle,but with only mild urgetoward the use of wide
context ; likemostofhiscountrymen, moreinterested in sharpprinciplesthanin variety
ofcomparative data; notethnocentric but yetlittlegivento relativistic and pluralistic
recognitions; and continuing to the end to believethat culturalphenomena can be ad-
equatelysubsumedunderpurelysocialconcepts.Durkheimlefta school,but his actual
constructive influenceoutsideFrancehas been slight,excepton and throughRadcliffe-
Brown"(Kroeber 1952:146; see also Parsons 1968:311-320;Buttimer1971:40).
50Speth 1975: 230-233;Vidal de la Blache 1926:4-6. - If Boas, orhispupils,
knew literature
the ofpossibilism, theychosenotto base thesubstanceoftheirwritings
on it. Thereis virtuallyno recognition ofpossibilism by Americanfieldanthropologists
as an intellectual positionsimilarto or informing theirown outlook.Two exceptions
supportthe argument.Roland B. Dixon, who participatedatypicallyin the stream
of Boasian anthropogeography, revealedpossibilistinfluencein his major published
contribution to environmental theory"The Buildingof Cultures"(1928). Also,Clark
Wissler's workwas anomalousin the sub-field of anthropologicalanthropogeography.
Championing the "geographic point of view", Wissler pioneeredhuman ecologyagainst
a resistantBoasianhistoricism. See Speth 1972: 171-182and 127-155.

22 William W. Speth 73. 1978
Anthropos
Conceptualdifferences betweenVidalian possibilismand Boasian an-

thropogeography, in additionto theadaptation-diffusion
antiphony,are noted
readily.The metaphysical naturalism of the French caused
geographers them
to attributeto environment a creativeforcethatcontradicted
Boas' cultural
idealism.Vidal notedthat,
"humansocieties,likethoseofthevegetableand animalworld,arecomposedofdifferent
of environment.
elementssubjectto the influence No one knowswhatwindsbrought
themtogether, norwhence,norwhen; but theyare livingsideby sidein a regionwhich
has graduallyput its stampuponthem"(1926:17-18).
Vidal's geography fromthe

was a naturalscience,takingits inspiration
idea of terrestrial
unity.Geography'sspecial task was to determinehow the
physicaland biologicallaws thatgoverntheuniverseworkin theirapplication
to earthlylandscapes(Febvre 1925: 62). Thus, Vidal soughtgenerallaws,
whichaim Boas criticizedas inapplicableto humansocietyand unpromising.
From Boas' standpoint,Vidal placed excessiveand unwarranted value on
the environment in understanding human activity51.
Jean Brunhes (1925: 66-67) testified that his workand teachingwere
"characterized preciselyby a reactionagainstthe too abstractand indefinite
featuresofRatzel'swork"but thattheywere"in agreement withthetendency
whichhis teacher... gave to Frenchgeographicalscience".In his depiction
of Vidal's methodology, Brunhes revealedpossibilistdebt to the natural
sciences:
"In recallingthe concreteidea of the physiognomy of the earthas modified by
man,in perceiving notonlyan intervention ofmanin theequilibrium ofinorganic nature
but also that class of relationswhichplaces menat odds and in competition withthe
otherlivingbeings,in studying thehumanfactsonlyin theirrelationwiththe surface
fromwhichtheredevelopthesemultipleactions,incessantly repeated,in utilizingthe
methodofthebiologicalsciences,... in takingaccount,as a starting-point,ofthegeneral
factsofdistribution, and in arriving
at a sortof'oecology'or conception ofthecomplex
bondsexistingbetweena countryand its inhabitants, withoutneglecting theinfluences
fromelsewhere- in all thesepointsthisdoctrineis characterized. But it is a question
whether we maycall it a doctrineat all and not rathera perspective or pointof view,
whichVidal de la Blache successfully endeavoredto communicate to his students"52.
51The youngerVidal sought"to findin a sequenceof events'a manifestation

of the terrestrial
organism"'.Vidal's earlyattribution of a creativeforcein environ-
mentwas supplemented and modified lateras he incorporated into his pointof view
the notionof man as a geographical factor.His humanizing of geography, however,
was imperfect and, to his opponents,contradictory (Monbeig 1968: 317 and Sauer
1927: 170). Furthermore, Buttimer(1971:44 and 47) statesthatVidal "was skeptical
of a priorilaws of environmental Yet, he presupposed
relationships". the "unityof all
earthphenomena" and derivedhumanecologicallawsin accordancewithhispresupposi-
tion.If theFrenchgeographer proposeda "conceptually lessambitiousdesignthanthat
of his Germanpredecessor [Ratzel]", his design,nevertheless,was takenby Boas as
environmentalist - naturalistic,
deductive,and law-seeking.
52The tone of thisand relatedutterancesled George Tathaw to observethat
"at timesBrunhes'statements are couchedin languagecloselysimilarto thatofdeter-
ministwriters"(1951: 156).

Theoryof FranzBoas
The aspect of Frenchgeographicalsciencethat was untenableto its

criticswas the study of "humanfacts"with the "methodof the biological
sciences"in orderto reach an ecologicalunderstanding of man - an under-
standingthatstressedrelationsand "complexbonds".Therewas no objecting
to the "idea of the physiognomy of the earthas modifiedby man" nor to
recognizing "influencesfrom elsewhere",essentialnotionsin culturalas well
as humangeography 53.
Paul Vidal de la Blache's naturalismcolored,moreover, his idea of
genre de vie, withwhich he conceptualized the environment problem. Genre
de vie was the embracivetermthat "echoed the integrationof place, live-
lihood,and social organizationin a group'sdaily life"(Buttimer 1971: 53).
Livelihoodshapednot onlythe physiognomy ofa place but,as an expression
of the naturalenvironment, it imprintedthe social and mentalformsof a
group.Not unexpectedly, then,Mikesell remarkedon the convergenceof
culturalecologyand Frenchhumangeography, writingthat,
of featureswhichare
"Steward'snotionof the 'culturalcore',the constellation
most closelyrelatedto subsistenceactivitiesand economicarrangements, coincides
almostexactlywiththe Frenchgeographic conceptofgenrede vie" (1967:633; see also
Dickinson 1969: 210).
Julian Steward's conceptand methodof culturalecologyis the con-

temporaryexpressionof rationalisticapriorismin anthropogeography, the
spiritualdescendantof the Ratzel- Vidal mode 54.In addition,ambivalence
and ambiguitymarkedVidal's expressionofthe relativesignificance ofhabit
and habitat.In thisregard,Boas differed fromVidal as wellas fromRatzel.
Afterhe establishedhimselfin anthropology, Boas promptlyand withlittle
indecisionaccentuated cultural factorsin dealing with the integrationof
environment and culture(Buttimer 1971: 52-54; Kroeber 1943: 10).
Furtherdifferences in outlookbetweenthe Frenchschooland Boas are
reflectedin language.One or two exampleswill suffice.Possibilistsspoke of
a dialoguebetweenman and naturein whichone entertains"man's choice",
or man freeing
"possibilities", himselffrom"Nature'scontrol".Theypersoni-
fiednatureas permissiveand offering opportunities 55.Contraryto the wont
of the possibilists,Boas construedenvironment as a subject of culture.At
most, nature was a co-determinant of human conduct, a forceof secondary
in
importance molding behavior.
53In geography, Carl Sauer pickedtheFrenchhumangeographers as polemical

target.Sauer, who anthropogeography
reinterpreted in and
historicist chorologicterms,
was not "muchimpressed" by Vidal's rationalist
geography thatemphasizedrelations
betweenearthand man,and he perceivedBrunhes as an intellectualdescendentof
Ritter, exponentof thecontemporary stageof theenvironmentalistthesis.See Sauer
1925: 348; 1927: 169-170.
54In thecontroversy withinAmerican anthropology, bothWissler s
Boas resisted
humanecologyand Steward's methodology of paralleldevelopment(culturalecology)
(Speth 1972: 149,177,and 246-247).
55Tatham1951: 156; Buttimer1971: 51 and 57; Febvre 1925: 181-182.

Anthropos
Accordingly, Vidal's conceptof genrede vie entaileda biologieinter-

pretationof societyin which nature was given exaggeratedimportance,
whereasBoas employedthe moreinclusivenotionof culturethat tendedto
reducenatureto a social institution.The centralelementsofthe cultureidea
thatstemmedfromthe workof Boas are variouslyand intimately relatedto
a conceptualgraspofenvironment thatdiffered dramaticallyfromthat given
by genrede vie. If genrede vie remaineda "purelydescriptivedevice" that
illuminatedthe mannerin whichmilieuinfluenced mind,thenculturewas a
theory of mindthat explained man's utilizationof environment
56.The intel-
lectualconfigurationsofla traditionvidalienneand Boas' anthropogeography
bearsuperficial
resemblance only.The one cannotbe substitutedfortheother,
as theirdisciplinaryworldviews differed in tendency,method,and term.
Boas' anthropogeography, then,is a speciesapart fromVidal's possibilism
in the taxonomyof environmental theory57.
Summaryand Conclusion
In late nineteenthcenturyGermany,deep conflictexisted between
indigenoushistoricismand Europeanpositivism, hereunderstoodas scientific
worldviews. Historicismsoughtunderstanding of humanactivitiesthrough
geneticexplanationofphenomena in theiradheringsymboliccontext.Extend-
ing the methodsof the natural sciencesinto the human (mental)realm,
positivismabstractedfromits data and concentrated on analyticand func-
tionalexplanation.Methodologie schismin the social scienceshas continued
intothepresentcentury, therespectiveparadigmsshapingtheirgivensubject
matterinto radicallydifferentconfigurations.
Franz Boas (1858-1942)was a productof the historicist reactionand
his
developed anthropogeography according to idealisttenet: externalnature
cannotact directlyon mentalphenomena,forenvironmental in
significance
the humanstudiesdependsupon the middletermof culture.As positivist
anthropogeography appearedin European and Americanacademicquarters,
it was doggedlyattackedand qualifiedby Boas in Americananthropology.
Boas' historicist
anthropogeography thusconstituted a denialofthepositivist
alternativein explainingthe place of environment in human behavior.In
resolvingthe environment problem,the historicistparadigmis symbolizedby
emphasison cultureas theextra-environmental factor,thepositivistby stress
on environment as the extra-cultural
agency.The distinction betweenposi-
56Stocking 1968d:230; Buttimer 1971: 56 and 53. - Vidal did not examine
theinnerorganization oflivelihoodgroups; rather,
he usedthislabelas an "explanatory-
fact"in understanding humanlandscapes.
57In my interpretation, Lewthwaite's "spectrum", in whichdeterminism and
represent
possibilism oppositepoles,requires revision.
Historicallyand logically,anti-
environmentalismis the antithesisof geographicdeterminism (environmentalism), and
becomesproximateto thelatterin the spectrum
possibilism (1966: 17 and 23).

tivismand historicism in anthropogeography is useful,then,to identifythe

subjectof natureas expressedin humanactivitiesand to indicatethe diver-
gentmodesof treatingthe "same" materials.
Boas' environmental theorywas complex,encompassing seemingly con-
tradictory strands. His refutation of naive anthropogeography was welded to
the principlethat cultureis limitedand modifiedby surrounding nature.In
1887,he rejectedthenaturalistic explanationofpsychological phenomenaand,
withit,theapproachto geography based on therationalist modelofanthropo-
geography.Duringensuingdecades,Boas disputedthe claims of positivist
anthropogeographers, and as environmentalism burgeonedin Americangeog-
raphy in the 1920s, he renamed the doctrine geographicaldeterminism. He
thereby broadenedhisdialectictargetto includegeographers as wellas ethnol-
ogists.In writing,teaching,and debate,he promulgated his critiqueofenviron-
mentalismfornearlya half-century.
By both challengingthe exaggeratedclaims of environmentalists and
recognizing the environment of
as a determinant culture, Boas achieved a
synthesisof anthropogeographic theory.He went beyond the negationof
crude environmentalist reasoning,perceivedexternalnature as a factorin
culturalcausation,and encouragedstudyof the relationsbetweenenviron-
mentand culturein a generalprogramof anthropological research.The core
ofhis environmental theorycontainsfourpropositions1) : environment alone
cannot explain culture because identical environmentis consistentwith
distinctcultures;2) geographicaldeterminants limit(or favor)and modify
existingcultures;3) the directionthat an environmental stimulustakes and
the meaning that environment has dependsupon culture type; and 4) the
relationsbetweennaturalenvironment and culture are mediated generallyby
economicconditions.
Boas gave thewidestmeaningto thetermenvironment, recognizing the
natural and cultural He
components. distinguished between the objective and
subjectiveviewpoints in understanding a naturethatvariedin space and time.
Althoughman and his worksare adjusted to naturalcircumstances, Boas
maintainedthatcultureis the creativelocus ofhumanconductand is histori-
cally derived.
Boas' synthetic exemplar,however,was imperfect. Whileacknowledging
in
the place ofnature culturetheory, he was not himself motivatedto pursue
the environment question.In méthodologie he
statement, urgedinvestigation
of environmental influences on culture,but, apart fromBaffin-Land, he pro-
ducedno substantiveworkon the theme.As bearerofthe historicist banner,
he was, moreover, intolerantofpositivistsolutionsto the problem.Neverthe-
less, Boas helped frame what now is termedthe ecologicalapproachin an-
thropology and shaped interestand inquiryamonghis pupilsand followers.
His rolein the historyof anthropogeography transcendedmereperpetuation
of anti-environmentalism.
French possibilismand Boas' anthropogeography shared a common
originin environmental debate, relied upon similar concepts{genrede vie and
culture),and appropriatedthe extant notion of natural limitsto human

Anthropos
activities.However, the intellectualpatternsof Vidalian geographyand

Boasian anthropology bear superficialresemblanceonly.Paradigmdissonance
is registeredvariously.The same scholarlyfigureswerelauded by Vidal de
la Blache and criticizedby Boas, the list of Boas' adversariesincluded
Vidal and Brunhes, and Friedrich Ratzel's workwas apperceivedin dis-
cordantmannerby Vidal and Boas. In short,undera metaphysic ofnatura-
extendedthescopeofbiogeography
lism,possibilists toincludehumansocieties.
The spiritofthenaturalsciencespervadedVidal's possibilism, whereasBoas'
anthropogeography developed in accordancewiththecultural
sciences.
Accord-
ingly,two contradictory sets of animated
principles French geographyand
Americananthropology in theirquestto understandtheenvironment problem:
historicalrealityis distortedwhenBoas is placed withpossibilism.
Bibliography
Anonymous
1913 Lectureson Cultureand Environment. AmericanAnthropologist 15: 147.
Abbagnano,N.
1967 Positivism.In: P. Edwards [edit.], Encyclopediaof Philosophy.Vol. 6:
414-419.New York.The MacmillanCompanyand The Free Press.
Aron, R.
1964 GermanSociology.Transi,by Mary and Thomas Bottomore. Glencoe,
Illinois.The Free Press.
Barnes, H. E.
1925 The New Historyand the Social Studies.NewYork.The CenturyCompany.
Benedict, R.
1931 ProfessorFranz Boas, Presidentof the AmericanAssociationforthe Ad-
vancementof Science.Scientific Monthly 32: 279-280.
Boas, F.
1887a The Studyof Geography. In: Boas 1940: 639-647.[Science9: 137-141.1
18876 The Occurrenceof SimilarInventionsin Areas WidelyApart. Science9:
485-486and 587-589.
1888 The CentralEskimo. (Sixth Annual Reportof the Bureau of Ethnology
1883-1884.)Washington. SmithsonianInstitution.
399-669.
1889 The Aimsof Ethnology.In: Boas 1940: 626-638.[Firstpubi,in German.]
1896 The Limitations oftheComparative MethodofAnthropology. In : Boas 1940:
270-280.[Science4: 901-908.]
1901 The Mindof Primitive Man. Science13: 281-289.
1904 The Historyof Anthropology. Science20: 513-524.
1911a Influence of Environment on Language.In: Handbookof AmericanIndian
Languages.(Bulletinof the Bureau of AmericanEthnology, 40/1):53-56.
Washington. Smithsonian Institution.
1911&The Mindof Primitive Man. New York.The MacmillanCompany.[Rev. ed.
1938 and 1963.]
1911c Reviewof Graebner 1911.In: Boas 1940: 295-304.[Science34: 804-810.1
1920 The Methodsof Ethnology.In: Boas 1940: 281-289.[American Anthropol-
ogist22: 311-321.]
1927 Primitive Art.New York.Dover Publications.[21955.]
1928 Anthropology and ModernLife.New York.W. W. Nortonand Company.
1930a SomeProblems ofMethodology intheSocialSciences.In : Boas 1940: 260-269.

Theoryof Franz Boas
In: Seligman [edit.]Vol. 2: 73-110.

19306 Anthropology.
1932 The AimsofAnthropological Research.In: Boas 1940:243-259.[Science76:
605-613].
1936 Historyand Sciencein Anthropology: A Reply.American Anthropologist38:
137-141.
Credo.The Nation147: 201-204.
1938a An Anthropologist's
1940 Race, Languageand Culture.New York.The MacmillanCompany.[21955.]
Boas, [edit.]
19386 GeneralAnthropology; pp. 1-6 and 666-686. New York. D. C. Heath and
Company.
Bowman,I.
Conference
1913 Inter-University on "Cultureand Environment". Bulletinof the
AmericanGeographicalSociety45: 203-204.
Braudel, F.
1968 Febvre,Lucien.In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 5: 348-350.
Brinkmann,C.
In: Seligman [edit.]Vol. 6: 600-602.
1931 Geisteswissenschaften.
Brunhes, J.
1925 Human Geography.In: Barnes [edit.],The Historyand Prospectsof the
Social Sciences;pp. 55-105.New York.AlfredA. Knopf.
Buettner-Janusch,J.
1957 Boas and Mason:Particularism American
versusGeneralization. Anthropolo-
gist59: 318-324.
BUTTIMER, A.
1968 Social Geography. In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 6: 134-145.
1971 Societyand Milieu in the Jbrencù ueograpniciraaition. (Associationoi
AmericanGeographers, MonographSeries,6.) Chicago.Rand McNallyand
Company.
Clifton, J.A. [edit.]
1968 Introduction to CulturalAnthropology: Essays in the Scope and Methods
of the Scienceof Man. Boston.HoughtonMifílin.
Dickinson,R. E.
1969 The Makersof ModernGeography. New York. F. A. Praeger.
Dilthey, W.
1961 Patternand Meaningin History:Thoughtson Historyand Society.Edited
by H. P. Rickman.New York.Harperand Row.
Dixon, R. B.
1928 The Buildingof Cultures.New York.CharlesScribner'sSons.
Febvre, L.
1925 A Geographical to History.New York.AlfredA. Knopf.
Introduction
Forde, C. D.
1963 Habitat,Economyand Society:A Geographical Introductionto Ethnology.
[1934] New York. E. P. Duttonand Company.
Freilich, M.
1967 Ecology and Culture: EnvironmentalDeterminismand the Ecological
Approachin Anthropology. 40: 26-43.
Quarterly
Anthropological
Friess, H. L.
1929 WilhelmDilthey.Journalof Philosophy 26: 5-25.
1930 The Progressof GermanPhilosophym the Last HundredYears.Journalof
27: 396-415.
Philosophy

Anthropos
Gayton, A. H.
1946 Culture-Environment in YokutsLife.
Integration:ExternalReferences
Southwestern 2: 252-268.
Journal of Anthropology
Geertz, C.
1963 AgriculturalInvolution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia.
Berkeley. Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Glacken, C.
1967 Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culturein WesternThought
fromAncientTimesto theEnd oftheEighteenth Univer-
Century.Berkeley.
sityof California
Press.
Goldenweiser, A. A.
1916 Culture and Environment.AmericanJournal of Sociology21: 628-633.
Goldschmidt, W. [edit.]
1959 The Anthropology of FranzBoas. (Memoirof theAmericanAnthropological
Association,
89.) San Francisco.HowardChandler.
Graebner, F.
1911 Methode der Ethnologie. Heidelberg.
GUELKE, L.
1974 An IdealistAlternative
in Human Geography.
Annalsof theAssociation
of
AmericanGeographers64: 193-202.
Harris, M.
1968 The Rise of AnthropologicalTheory: A History of Theories of Culture.
New York. Thomas Y. Crowell.
Hartshorne, R.
1959 Perspective on the Nature of Geography. (Association of American Geo-
graphers,MonographSeries, 1.) Chicago. Rand McNally and Co.
Hatch, E.
1973a Theories of Man and Culture. New York. Columbia UniversityPress.
19736 The Growthof Economic, Subsistence, and Ecological Studies in American
Anthropology.Journal of AnthropologicalResearch29: 221-243.
Helm, J.
1962 The Ecological Approach in Anthropology.AmericanJournalof Sociology67 :
630-639.
Herbst, J.
1965 The German Historical School in American Scholarship. New York. Cornell
UniversityPress.
Hodgen, M. T.
1964 Early Anthropologyin the Sixteenthand SeventeenthCenturies.Philadelphia.
Universityof Pennsylvania Press.
Hughes, H. S.
1958 Consciousnessand Society: The Reorientationof European Social Thought
1890-1930. New York. AlfredA. Knopf.
1964 History as Art and as Science. New York. Harper and Row.
Hummel, A. W.
1936 Berthold Laufer: 1874-1934. AmericanAnthropologist
38: 101-111.
James, P. E.
1954 Introduction: The Field of Geography. In: P.E.James and C.F.Jones
[edit.],American
Geography : Inventory
andProspect.
Association
ofAmerican
Geographers;pp. 3-17. SyracuseUniversity
Press.

Theoryof Franz Boas 29
Kaplan, A.
1964 The ConductofInquiry:Methodology forBehavioralScience.San Francisco.
ChandlerPublishingCompany.
Kroeber, A. L.
1943 FranzBoas: The Man.(American Association,
Anthropological Memoirs,61) :
5-26. Menasha.
1952 The Historyand PresentOrientationof CulturalAnthropology. In: The
of ChicagoPress.
Natureof Culture;pp. 144-151.Chicago.University
Kuhn, T. S.
Revolutions.
ofScientific
21970 The Structure ofChicagoPress.
Chicago.University
Landgrebe, L.
1931 Dilthey,Wilhelm(1833-1911).In: Seligman [edit.]Vol. 5: 144.
Laufer, B.
1918 Reviewof Lowie 1917.AmericanAnthropologist 20: 87-91.
Lee, D. E. and R. N. Beck
HistoricalReview59: 568-577.
American
1954 The Meaningof "Historicism".
Leighly, J. B.
1937 Some Comments on Contemporary GeographicMethod.AnnalsoftheAsso-
27: 125-141.
ciationofAmericanGeographers
1955 What Has Happenedto PhysicalGeography?Annalsof theAssociation of
45: 309-318.
AmericanGeographers
Lesser, A.
1968 Boas, Franz.In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 2: 99-110.
Lewthwaite, G. R.
1966 Environmentalismand Determinism: Annalsof
A SearchforClarification.
56: 1-23.
ofAmericanGeographers
theAssociation
Lovejoy, A. O.
1957 The GreatChainofBeing:The StudyoftheHistoryofan Idea. Cambridge.
[1933JHarvardUniversity Press.
Lowie, R. H.
1917 Cultureand Ethnology.New York. Douglas C. McMurtrie.
1943 Franz Boas, Anthropologist.The Scientific
Monthly 5b: I0J-I04.
of
1956 Reminiscences Anthropological Currentsin AmericaHalf a CenturyAgo.
AmericanAnthropologist58: 995-1016.
1960 Franz Boas, 1858-1942.In: C. du Bois [edit.],Lowies SelectedPapersin
[1947] Anthropology;pp. 425-440.Berkeleyand Los Angeles.
LUKERMANN, F.
Cana-
and theÉcole Françaisede Géographie.
1965 The "Calculdes probabilités"
dian Geographer9: 128-135.
Maccurdy,G. G.
at theWashington
1912 Anthropology Meeting, oftheAmerican
withProceedings
14: 142-177.
Associationfor1911. AmericanAnthropologist
Anthropological
Martin,G. J.
1973 EllsworthHuntington:His Life and Thought.Hamden,Connect.Archon
Books.
Mikesell, M.
Annals of the Associationof
1967 GeographicPerspectivesin Anthropology.
57: 617-634.
AmericanGeographers

Anthropos
MONBEIG, P.
1968 Vidal de la Blache,Paul. In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 16: 316-318
Natanson, M. [edit.]
1963 Philosophy ofthe Social Sciences:A Reader.New York.RandomHouse.
Netting, R. M.
1971 The EcologicalApproachin CulturalStudy.A McCabeModulein Anthro-
pology.Reading,Massachusetts. Pubi. Company.
Addison-Wesley
Parsons, T.
1937 The Structure
of Social Action.New York.McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
1968 Durkheim,Emile.In: Sills [edit.]Vol.4: 311-320.
Powell, J.W.
1896 Relationof PrimitivePeoples to Environment.Illustratedby American
Examples.(AnnualReportof the SmithsonianInstitution,
1895): 625-637.
Washington.
DE RUGGIERO, G.
1934 Positivism.In: Seligman [edit.]Vol. 12: 260-266.
Sahlins, M. D.
1964 Cultureand Environment: The Study of CulturalEcology.In: Sol Tax
[edit.], Horizons of Anthropology;
pp. 132-147. Chicago. Aldine Pubi.
Company.
Sapir, E.
1912 Languageand Environment.
AmericanAnthropologist
14: 226-242.
Sauer, C. O.
1925 The Morphology of Landscape. In: Leighly [edit.] 1963,Land and Life:
A SelectionfromtheWritings of Carl OrtwinSauer; pp. 315-350.Berkeley.
Universityof CaliforniaPress.
1927 RecentDevelopments in CulturalGeography. In: E. C. Hayes [edit.],Recent
Developments in the Social Sciences;pp. 154-212.Philadelphia.J.B. Lip-
pincottCompany.
1934 Semple,Ellen Churchill (1863-1932).In: Seligman[edit.],Vol. 13: 661-662.
1966 On the Backgroundof Geographyin the UnitedStates.Heidelberger Geo-
graphische 15: 59-71.
Arbeiten,
Seligman,E. R. A. [edit.]
1930- Encyclopaediaof the Social Sciences.15 Vols. New York. The Macmillan
1934 Company.
Semple,E. C.
1911 The Influences of GeographicEnvironment. New York.Holt, Rinehartand
Winston.
Sills, D. L. [edit.]
1968 International
Encyclopediaof the Social Sciences.17 Vols. New York. The
MacmillanCompanyand The Free Press.
Sorre, M.
1948 The Conceptof Genrede Vie. In: Wagner and Mikesell [edit.] 1962:
399-415.
Spate, O. H. K.
1968a Environmentalism.
In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 5: 93-97.
19686 Huntington,
Ellsworth.In: Sills [edit.]Vol. 7: 26-27.

Theoryof FranzBoas
Spencer, J. É.
1974 The Evolutionof the Disciplineof Geographyin the TwentiethCentury.
Geographical
Perspectives 33: 20-36.
Speth,W. W.
1972 HistoricistAnthropogeography : Environmentand Culturein American
AnthropologicalThoughtfrom1890-1950.[Unpubl.DoctoralDissertation,
Universityof Oregon.]
1973 Obituary:JulianH. Steward(1902-1972).Geographical Review63: 117-119.
1975 FriedrichRatzel and the Shapingof AmericanAnthropology. Proceedings
oftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers 7: 230-233.
Stern, B. J.
1959 FranzBoas as Scientistand Citizen.In: HistoricalSociology:The Selected
Papersof BernhardJ. Stern;pp. 208-241.New York.The CitadelPress.
Steward, J. H.
1955 Theoryof CultureChange: The Methodologyof MultilinearEvolution.
Urbana.University of IllinoisPress.
Stocking,G. W.
1968a Race, Cultureand Evolution:Essays in the HistoryofAnthropology. New
York.The Free Press.
19686 FromPhysicsto Ethnology.In: Stocking 1968a: 133-160.
1968c The ScientificReaction AgainstCulturalAnthropology, 1917-1920.In:
Stocking 1968a: 270-307.
19680*FranzBoas and theCultureConceptin HistoricalPerspective.In: Stocking
1968a: 195-233.
-- [edit.]
1974 The Shapingof AmericanAnthropology 1883-1911:A Franz Boas Reader.
New York.Basic Books,Inc. Pubi.
Tatham,G.
In: G. Taylor [edit.],Geography
and Possibilism.
1951 Environmentalism in the
Century;pp. 128-162.New York. Philosophical
Twentieth Library.
Thompson,J. E., and R. L. Hobson
1935 Obituary.BertholdLaufer:1874-1934.Man 35: 28-29.
Vayda, A. P., and R. A. Rappaport
In: Clifton [edit.]1968: 477-497.
1968 Ecology,Culturaland Noncultural.
Vidal de la Blache, P.
1926 Principlesof Human Geography.Edited by E. de Martonne. New York.
HenryHolt and Company.
Wagner, P. L., and M. W. Mikesell [edit.]
1962 Readingsin CulturalGeography. of ChicagoPress.
Chicago.University
Wanklyn,H.
1961 FriedrichRatzel: A BiographicalMemoirand Bibliography.Cambridge.
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Wissler, C.
1912 The Psychological Aspectsof the Culture-EnvironmentRelation.American
14:
Anthropologist 217-225.
1913 The Relationof Cultureto Environment fromthe btandpomt ot invention.
PopularScienceMonthly 83: 164-168.
Wright,J. K.
1952 Geography in the Making:The AmericanGeographical Society,1851-1951.
New York.The AmericanGeographical Society.


10 2307@40459221

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

10 2307@40459221

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Anthropogeographic Theory of Franz Boas

Author(s): William W. Speth

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

Themindsofmendo notthrowup suddenstrayideaswithout

The historyof positivistanthropogeography, latterlytermedcultural

* The substanceof thisarticleappearsin my unpublisheddoctoraldissertation

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

Steward's ecologicalexemplar2, or (3) that his theoryexpressespossibilist

I. Boas and the HistoricistParadigm

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

in anthropology in thiscountry.WorkwiththeField Museumand theAmeri-

The anthropological paradigmadvancedby Boas subsumedhis anthro-

7 Stocking 1968c:296; Benedict 1931: 280; Kroeber 1952: 147.

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

"the Geisteswissenschaftenare not only interestedin genetic and causal explanation,

Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911)soughtto disassociatethe methodol-

10 The word "historicist"is used to identifythe Boas tradition,but "idealist",

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

Today, Boas is usuallyremembered forhis attackon geographicdeter-

Boas began to sensesome of the conflictbetweenhistoricism and posi-

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

of the approachespossessedgreaterworththan the other. He preferred,

Those who wouldtake geographyas "anthropo-geography" claim"that

The conglomerate characterofall terrestrial

15Boas believedthatlikeeffects did not necessarily

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

Boas rejecteda naturalisticexplanationof psychologicalphenomenaand,

Boas spurnedgeographyas a fieldof studyby 1888 and, as ethnologist,

16Boas 1940[1889]: 637; 1940[1896]: 278; 1940[1920]: 283-284;1940[1930a]:

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

the influenceof environment bringsabout a certaindegreeof adjustmentbetween

Boas maintainedconsistently that "historicalcauses" are the primary

Withthepublicationofhisthirdbook "Anthropology and ModernLife",

Following1928, "geographers"wereviewedas promulgators of a crude

17 See Martin 1973; Spate 1968&.

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

geographicalconditions"(1940 [1930a]: 265). "Geographers", claimedBoas,

3. Contextsof the Critiqueof Environmentalism

Throughpublication,teaching,and conference,Boas conductedhis

19WhyWilliam Morris Davis, leadingfounderof the Association of American

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

Tozzer, W. D. Wallis, R. B. Dixon, and R. Linton. Historicistanthropo-

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

elementshave been 'invented/The invention itselfmaybe purelypsychologic, though

Bowman, however,did not dwell on the middle term of culture-

III. The EnvironmentProblem25

In controvertinga naive anthropogeography that became in name an

Perhaps Lowie's reactionis explainedin part by the quality of his

24Of Americangeography in the openingdecadesof the presentcentury, Carl

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

1. Environmentas a Determinantof Culture

Boas began his professionalOdysseywith an interestin the natural

playinga subordinatepart,as comparedwithpurelyculturalfactors,inthedetermination

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

whichcannotbe muchbetterexplainedbythewellknownfactsofdiffusion ofculture; for

Applicationof the preferredhistoricalmethod(diffusion)may disclose

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

"The environment", proclaimedBoas, "has not the same meaningfor

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM

By rejectingthe exaggeratedclaimsof environmentalists and by recog-

2. Phrasing the Problem of Environment

Recurrentwords and phrasesand special usages furthercharacterize

This content downloaded from 216.165.126.139 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 02:59:14 AM