|
|
| |
American
Anthropologist
Boas, Franz. The Classification Of American Languages. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22:367-376. In this article Boas recognizes the many specific differences in American Indian languages. He does so by providing examples of morphology, diffusionism, acculturation (by intertribal marriage) similarities and dissimilarities. His objective is to describe in detail the classification of languages based on comparison from the study of fairly closely related dialects, towards the study of more diverse forms. The study of grammar of the languages has demonstrated the occurrence of a number of morphological similarities between neighbouring stocks, however this does not accompany similarities with respect to vocabulary. Boas points out that if we were to consider the history of human languages we must take into consideration the history of human speech, he therefore states that; the problem of the study of languages is not one of classification but rather to trace the history of the development of human speech. The article continues to discuss in great detail the three fundamental aspects of human speech which he lists are; phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary. He continues to provide a geographical example of the study of phonetics. The study of phonetics indicates that certain features have a limited and well-defined distribution which, on the whole, is continuous. The extraordinary development of the series of k sounds and of laterals ( l sounds) is common to the most diverse languages of the North Pacific Coast, while in California and east of the Rocky Mountains this characteristic feature disappears. In terms of the study of morphology of American Indian languages, Boas notes that there are, definite areas of characterization; it is, for instance, most striking that reduplication as a morphological process occurs extensively on the Great Plains and in the Eastern Woodlands, as well as in the part of the Pacific Coast south of the boundary between British Columbia and Alaska. Similarities with respect to phonetics, morphology and classification, must be due to borrowing. Boas also makes reference to language isolates and their distinctions. Boas feels that the study of language ought to be directed not only to an investigation of the similarities of languages, but equally intensively towards their dissimilarities. Only on this basis can we hope to solve the general historical problem. To conclude, this article was very difficult to understand as it has been written in great detail. In the review summary I have narrowed the article down to geographical locations and provided two examples. Boas on the other hand accomplishes his objectives discussing in great detail by naming the specific tribal groups, their territories and their language influences upon one another. This type of information would go beyond the scope of this article summary. CLARITY RANKING: 3 EDNA NYCE University of British Columbia (John Barker)
Boas, Franz. The Classification of American Languages. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol. 22: 367-376 This
article examines the relationships between various languages throughout
Native American cultures responding to other contemporary studies
attempting to find a link between different Native American languages
and determining whether they share a single common background. Boas
proposes that the study of languages is not an issue of classification
but rather a task of understanding the history and development of
human speech. Boas
supports the idea that, originally, there were fewer languages spoken
in North America; and the diversification of the languages was a
rather recent historical phenomenon. To compare and contrast different
languages he uses the fundamental aspects of human speech: phonetics,
grammar, and vocabulary. Notwithstanding, Boas clearly states that
even if all the languages have a common source, "they have become
so much differentiated, that without historical knowledge of their
growth, the attempts to prove their interrelation cannot succeed"(369).
He focuses primarily on the phonetic and morphological (grammar)
commonalities amongst various languages in North America to obtain
evidence of a common original language. He indicates various processes
by which languages evolve or change, such as reduplication, incorporation,
the use of instrumentals, the use of true cases, and more importantly,
the "differentiation between nominal and verbal concepts, and
between neutral and active verbs"(370). He concludes that none
of these patterns provide any geographical coherence; therefore,
proving that geography or the proximity between communities had less
to do with language development than social interaction between different
native cultures. In this context, Boas questions the significance
and influence of acculturation as a major factor in language development.
In this context, acculturation is the catalyst of a process accomplished
through intertribal marriages by either peaceful means or as a result
of abduction and enslavement of women after violent conflicts between
tribes. Moreover, this evidence would support the idea that contemporary
native languages did not develop from one particular interaction
(stock); but rather, they are the product of a many combinations
of original languages (many stocks). Boas concludes that it is more
important to understand what the "dissimilarities" between
languages tell us about their histories, than what the "similarities" may
link. To do this he provides a basic scheme for understanding language
history. The first step is the study of the differentiation of dialects;
second would be to make a detailed study of the distribution of phonetic,
grammatical, and lexicographical phenomena; and last, the criteria
for any investigation must focus not just on the similarities between
languages, but most importantly their dissimilarities. This
article will be useful for individuals studying Linguistics and the
history of Linguistics, as Boas provides an excellent outline for
various criteria in the study of languages. CLARITY
RANKING: 4
Boas, Franz. The Methods Of Ethnology American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22:311-321. Taking a less ethnocentric view, Boas discusses the methods of inquiry into the historical development of civilization. He states that these methods, have undergone remarkable changes. Anthropologists such as Spencer, Morgan, Tyler, and Lubbock were under the spell of the idea of a general, uniform evolution of culture in which all parts of mankind participated. A newer development with respect to the remarkable changes goes back in part to the influence of Ratzel whose geographical training impressed him with the importance of diffusion and migration. So, during this time (second half of the last century) ethnological research is based on the concept of migration and dissemination rather than upon that of evolution. Boas continues to discuss and compare the American ethnological methods to those of European methods, in which he argues... are similar in function but not in evolutionary origin. The whole problem of cultural history appears to us as a historical problem. In order to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things are, but how they have come to be. With respect to the domain of ethnology in most parts of the world, there are no historical facts available, with the exception of the archaeological record however, he states that all evidence of change can be inferred only by indirect methods. Individual activities which Boas says, are determined to a great extent by his social environment, but in turn his own activities influence the society in which he lives, and may bring about modifications in its form. Conclusions which may be drawn from this study: the history of human civilization does not appear to us as determined entirely by psychological necessity that leads to a uniform evolution the world over. We rather see that each cultural group has its own unique history, dependent partly upon the peculiar inner development of the social group, and partly upon the foreign influences to which it has been subjected. Boas uses an example of a study on the Zuni culture where he states that the psychological explanation is entire misleading, notwithstanding its plausibility, and the historical study shows us an entirely different picture, in which the unique combination of ancient traits (which in themselves are undoubtedly complex) and of European influences, have brought about the present condition. In concluding Boas discusses Freud s underlying psychoanalytic studies, criticizing that, these studies may be fruitfully applied to ethnological problems, it does not seem to me that the one-sided exploitation of this method will advance our understanding of the development of human society. He challenges this farther by stating that there are many other factors which are of greater importance, for example the phenomena of language show clearly that conditions quite different from those to which psychoanalysts direct their attention determine the mental behavior of man. The general concepts underlying language are entirely unknown to most people. Boas has certainly rocked the foundation of nineteenth century anthropological thought. CLARITY RANKING: 4 EDNA NYCE University of British Columbia (John Barker)
Boas, Franz. The Methods of Ethnology. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol.22(4):311-321. The
methods of ethnology have changed dramatically over the years. During
the second half of the last century, there was a sense of a linear,
uniform evolution of culture in which it encompassed all human beings. Ethnological
research in England and Germany is based on migration and dissemination
instead of the concept of evolutionary change. According to Tylor
in "Primitive Culture," all cultures proceed the same in
terms of cultural development and livelihood. If we account for the
variety of cultures present, one single course of development cannot
be supported. The fact that there are inner causes that bring about
similarities of development is ignored in European thought. American
anthropologists are more interested in how and why that culture changed
in order to reconstruct the past. According to Boas, "in order
to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things
are, but how they have come to be." He emphasizes the problem
of dissemination in ethnology that has controlled the study since
it is much easier to prove rather than the problems made by inner
causes. It is most important that we observe and explain the changes
in a society at that time before trying to find the overall cause
of cultural development. Each culture has its own unique history;
therefore, no culture remains absolutely the same for hundreds and
hundreds of years. In the production of ethnology, all aspects of
a culture should be considered in order to have a complete understanding
of the past and the present. CLARITY:
3 JANI
TRINDADE York
University (Naomi Adelson).
Boas, Franz. The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22:111-126. Boas begins his discussion by describing what constitutes a tribe among the Kwakiutl. This information he submitted to the Annual Report of the United States National Museum in 1895. He makes note at the beginning, that these observations and inquiries were obtained with the aid of George Hunt (a Kwakiutl member), prior to 1895. Boas experienced a lot of difficulty in the definition of the tribal unit and of its subdivisions. There is no one single Kwakiutl tribe that is (at that time) an undivided unit. All tribes consisted of well-recognized subdivisions. A single locality is claimed as the place of origin of each division of the tribe, these divisions are fundamental units. Some of the tribal names are, geographical terms while there are a number of cases in which the relations between certain divisions of a tribe are explained by tradition. By example, the Kwagiul are considered as the descendants of two brothers, one of the elder, the other of the younger one. In another case the divisions of the tribe are considered each as descended from one of four brothers. Throughout the article Boas describes the divisions of the tribes in terms of structure, giving an illustration of an intricate mythological interrelations between the divisions that belong to a single tribe. In his past he has used the terms, gens and clan according to maternal or paternal descent. In this article he had decided to use the Kwakiutl term, numaym because of the peculiar characteristics. To clarify, the constitution of the numaym is made very difficult by the fact that the number of positions is at present greater than the number of members of the tribe, so that many individuals hold more than one position, in more than one numaym. Each numaym defends its rights based on descent. The fundamental principal is that the primogeniture, regardless of sex, entitles the first-born child to the highest rank held by one of its parents. Rank is determined by the order of birth. When a child is born to both a mother and father of equal ranking, the first born child may be assigned to one numaym and the next child to another numaym. Among some of the noble families, there is a strong desire to retain rights and privileges and this is done by means of endogamous marriages. The numaym is based on descent with a preference for the paternal line. Boas describes briefly the fundamental difference between the northern Kwakiutl whom are of matrilineal descent, there also seems to be a difference in the terminology of relationship in lineage. The mother s tribe is indicated by her tribal name and the privileges are individual property, and not property of the whole numaym as is the case with the Southern Kwakiutl. The article was difficult to understand in terms of lineage, there seems to be no consistency with respect to maternal and paternal social structures in Southern Kwakiutl social structure. There needs more of a clear understanding of an individual holding more than one position in more than one numayn. CLARITY RANKING: 3 EDNA
NYCE University
of British Columbia (John Barker)
Boas,
Franz. The Social
Organization of the Kwakiutl. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:111-126. This
1920 article by Franz Boas, the father of American Anthropology,
is a detailed and descriptive look at the social organization of
the Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. In
this presentation, he submits his current findings based on his years
of data collection. He begins his discussion by describing in the terms of the
Kwakiutl, what a tribe is. According
to Boas, a tribe in the “concept” of the Kwakiutl is made up of units
or divisions, where by each unit or division claims a place of origin
and the “localities not far apart” (p.112, 114). Boas
argues that the divisions, which are derived from one ancestor, include
individuals that joined the ancestor at an earlier time and are of
a different line of descent. Lines
of descent are based on various justifications. Divisions
are brothers with lines being older and younger or divisions may
have no relation at all yet represent local groups. In
his argument, Boas prefers not to use the terms “gens,” “clan,”or “sib” as
he feels they are misleading and do not fully represent the Kwakiutl
concept of unit ranking. He
therefore chooses the Kwakiutl term numaym to describe position,
rank and order. Numaym is
usually based on a paternal line of descent and birthing order. The
eldest, whether male or female, will acquire the highest rank from
the father’s line of descent. The
ranking of the siblings is then based on birth order with the youngest
child having the lowest rank. So
in summary, the numaym follows the paternal line and the highest
positions in the numaym are from the oldest lines with the
first-born having the most rank and privilege within those lines. The
transferring of position and rank through the giving of names is
a common argument in this article. Boas
very thickly describes the way in which rank, privilege and position
is transferred. Marriage
is a common way position and names are transferred to incoming family
members, usually the son-in-law. The
taking of names and position is not formalized until the son-in-law
gives a feast at which time he receives gifts from his father-in
law and then distributes them to the members of his numaym in
his tribe. By
the end of the article, Boas is comparing the Kwakiutl with other
Northwest Coast groups such as the Bellacoola, the Nootka, and the
Coastal Salish. He argues
the transferring of names and privileges is a very old tradition. He
then suggests that all the fore mentioned groups, except the Bellacoola,
have closed village communities and this forms the “basis of modern
social organization” (p.123). Boas
has presented in its early form a descriptive view of the Kwakiutl
social organization. If
were not for Franz Boas and his insistence on the highly descriptive
collection of data, diverse cultural information would have been
lost. CLARITY
RANKING: 3.5 DONNA EDMONDSON University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Delabarre, Edmund and Harris Wilder. Indian Corn-Hills in Massachusetts. American Anthropologist. 1920 Vol.22: 203-225 The
article details the facts surrounding the idea that mounds created
by Indians in New England exist, but are not acknowledged. The mounds
were used to plant crops for food. Given, are names of people who
identify the mounds found. One such person, Mr. William M. Cotton
is said to have located three localities in Massachusetts where "Indian
corn-hills" exist today. The corn-hills were cultivated by the
Indians some two hundred and fifty years ago. Further, one of the
men cited as having studied the corn-hills says that before white
settlers invaded North America, there were clear isolated hills that
were cultivated on by the Indians. The article then proceeds to discuss
the locations of where the corn-hills exist. Two areas are in the
woods. This is identifiable because the area is shown to be marked,
using pictures, with the decay of leaves and broken branches on the
ground. Spacing between corn-hills is then elaborated on. The Huron’s
apparently had two feet between each of their corn-hills. The article
says that there is indeed much proof that corn-hills exist today.
Many of the mounds are used as wasteland and not as historical cites.
The article then describes in detail what the mounds actually look
like. According to people who have studied them, the mounds are "usually
low roundish individual mounds, less than two feet in diameter, rising
above the intervals between them from eight to twelve inches in the
best preserved examples" (325). However, the mounds are not
always unattached, they sometimes join together to form a continuous
mound. The arrangement of the mounds is then discussed. Sometimes
they are located on a straight path, other times there is no clear
identifiable path. CLARITY
RANKING: 3 LAURA
DOBROVICKIY York
University (Naomi Adelson)
Delabarre, Edmund B., and Harris H. Wilder. Indian Corn-Hills in Massachusetts. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:203-225. Indian Corn-Hills in Massachusetts by Edmund Delabarre and Harris Wilder is a historical article that was written in 1920. The paper begins with what the authors call a “Historical Introduction” (p. 203). Here several actual sites of Indian corn hills are mentioned. The authors include these sites by means of inserting quotes by different people, who saw the actual cultivation of Indian corn. The accounts differ in locations through out New England and date from 1605 to 1855. The descriptions in each account vividly describe how observers viewed the Indian corn hills. Delabarre and Wilder compare the descriptions mentioned, to find connections. They then make generalizations about Indian corn-hill planting in the area. The second part of the article is an actual observation of an Indian corn-hill prepared by the authors. A valid argument is presented as to why the traces of ancient tillage could persist for so many centuries. This is provided by a brief history of the region, and proof that the techniques used by the Indians created a long-continued preservation of the hills. The authors survey the hills using maps, pictures, measurements and excavation of the site. Step-by-step they portray to the reader what they did, and “[a]ttempt to reconstruct in our mind’s eye the appearance of this little region” (p. 223). One by one comparisons of the findings are done with the accounts mentioned in the introduction. Lastly the authors state that major changes to the region are also taken in consideration, such as floods, building of a Dam and railroad embankment. In the conclusion the authors present good points for awareness and preservation of Indian corn hills. The techniques used by the authors appear to be imprecise because the actual accounts of people describing their own observation of Indian corn hills varied in locations and dates from 1604 to 1855. Additionally, the observation of only one corn hill was done centuries later. Nevertheless, the article does have considerable valuable data, including information on Indian agricultural techniques, tools used, nutritional habits, village life, division of labor, storage, linguistics of Indians of 16th century and of 19th century, evidence of plagues, possible communications between Indians, and geographic and social changes during the 16th century in New England. CLARITY RANKING: 5 ELDA GONZALEZ University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Frachtenberg,
Leo J. Eschatology of the Quileute Indians. American
Anthropologist. 1920. Vol. 22 :330-340 In
the article, "Eschatology of the Quileute Indians," Leo
Frachtenberg recounts his study of Quileute Indians and linguistics.
He describes eschatology as being, "the investigations conducted
into the beliefs held by primitive races, concerning after- life
and the composition of the human being, which reveal to us the deepest
and minutest philosophical thoughts of primitive man" (331).
The author makes a correlation between the Quileute Indians and Ancient
Greece, alleging that both provide clear examples of intellectual
and cultural accomplishments. Frachtenberg’s
describes his methods of collecting data for his research (e.g.,
by examining Quileute Indians viewed as specialists in their specific
arenas). He compares the language of the Chimakum Indians to that
of the Quileute Indians to illustrate his arguments regarding linguistics,
but mainly focusses on the practices of the Quileute. Frachtenberg
describes the soul, maintaining that the Quileute believed that each
human being, animal and inanimate object possesses a plurality of
souls upon dying and that these souls are called "telip’d." He
provides a thorough analysis of how the soul leaves the body , as
well as, the phases it goes through ( e.g., after leaving the body
the outer soul goes straight to the underworld). The
Quileute regard souls as belonging to a country of their own, called
the "Country of the Souls," which is located underground.
The author discusses the importance of souls and their restrictions
( e.g. souls of individuals who have recently died cannot cross over
to the other side at once), as well as the role of the Shaman and
their ability to connect to these souls. Frachtenberg
closes by explaining how the Quileute Indians believed departed children
lived in a separate underworld from adults. The children’s underworld
is imaged as being a peaceful, unadulterated, lovely place, where
children receive endless nurturing and refuge from women called "la’tc!as." CLARITY
RANKING: 3 DIMITRA LAZAROU York University: ( Naomi Adelson)
Frachtenberg, Leo J. Eschatology of the Quileute Indians. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:330-340. In this article Frachtenberg puts forth the theory that the intellectual achievements of other people can be gauged by their ability to philosophize about life. He specifically believes the American Indians of the Northwest Coast have achieved a high status of intellectual life. Frachtenberg looks at the complexity of the Quileute Indians views about death and the afterlife as an example of this achievement. To begin with, Fratchenberg compares the Quileute cultural achievements with what he terms as the “lewd mythology, the woeful attempts at philosophy, and the complete absence of any highly developed phases of material culture among the Indians of Oregon”. He also compares the Quileute with ancient Greece and other renaissance cultures. He ends this section with a brief history of the origins of the Quileute and their linguistic background. His next section is a detailed description of their beliefs about the soul, the physical body, and the afterlife. He describes their accounts of the soul as an entity made of three parts: the inner soul, the outer soul, and the ghost. Each part corresponds to a phase of an illness and death cycle. The outer soul leaves the person as soon as they are sick, the inner soul leaves a day or two before death and the ghost leaves at the exact moment of death. Frachtenberg recounts that the Quileute care nothing for the physical self, as it means nothing. His last section describes their visions of the afterlife that is known as the Country of the Souls. All souls come to this place and it is exactly the same as the living world. People carry on with their same trades and ways of subsistence. There is even the same amount of sickness as in the living world. The seasons also come and go in the same manner. The only difference in this afterlife is that children are separate and have their own country. There are caretakers in the children’s world but it is not clear how many of them there are or where they come from. CLARITY RANKING: 4 KRISTEN PRAHL University of Texas at San Antonio (James McDonald)
Gamio,
Manuel. Las
excavaciones del Pedregal de San Angel y la cultura arcaica del
Valle de México. American
Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:127-143. Manuel Gamio readdresses the issue of whether or not an archaic culture ever existed in the Valley of México; he focuses mainly on the findings discovered at Copilco Quarry located in a volcanic plain called the Pedregal de San Angel. Gamio begins his investigation by making reference to past anthropologist and archaeologists who had done work in the Valley of México and had been successful in finding evidence suggesting an archaic culture such as Professor Holmes, Zelia Nuttall, and Dr. Franz Boas. Their postulations were derived mostly from ceramic, human bones, and other artifacts that were found in quarries and other land formations throughout the Valley of México. Gamio uses their findings as the basis upon which to build his own argument---that archaic culture did in fact exist and it is the oldest culture exceeding that of the Teotithuacano and the Aztec cultures. Gamio relies heavily on Dr. Franz Boas’ tipo de los cerros, the category consisting of the ceramic and art found at a site in San Miguel Amantla. Boas found ceramic artifacts and art that resembled the Aztec culture, but seemed to be archaic in nature. He goes on to identify three culture types present in the valley according to antiquity: 1). Aztec; 2). Teotithuacano; 3). Archaic. Gamio views tipo de los cerros as clear evidence to there being an archaic culture present once in the Valley of México and to it being the oldest. However, Gamio is careful to state that it cannot be generalized that it is the same ancient culture dispersed throughout the rest of the Valley of México. Gamio moves on to the 1917 excavation of the Pedregal de San Angel. He provides a history of the geographical region and places it in the context of that time, explaining that much of rock from the quarry in the Pedregal de San Angel was used to construct many of the buildings that are now found in the capital of the republic, as he refers to it. At the excavation of the Pedregal de San Angel the following were unearthed: ceramics, human and animal bones, and cylindrical tombs. The place where many of these vital artifacts were found was in the Copilco Quarry located adjacent to the village of San Angel. Gamio explains that the quarry at once was a plain, but became concealed when a volcanic eruption took place, allowing many of the artifacts to become preserved within various sedimentary layers. He uses the geological history of the Copilco Quarry to reinforce the point that the ceramic, human remains, and other evidence of culture discovered there where representative of an archaic culture. In addition, he identifies three different sedimentary layers present at Pedregal: a) the layer of volcanic lava, b) the soft land structure where many of the archaeological vessels and human remains have been found, and c) the compact land structure where the cylindrical graves/tombs have been found and excavated. Gamio continues on to describe in extreme detail the ceramic, the human skeletons, and the tombs, some of which is not needed to prove his point. To close, Gamio reasserts his assumption of there being an archaic culture singly present in the Valley of México and happily confirms it. He validates his claim based on the ceramic art found at the Pedregal de San Angel. From this ceramic, Gamio is able to characterize both the geographical region and the people who inhabited it. This population, culture, and ceramic type that was referred to as tipo de los cerros by Boas and called montaña by Gamio himself, can at long at last be identified as “archaic,” or as it is called today, Otomí. Gamio’s lasting proposition/challenge is for American anthropologist to use the findings of Pedregal de San Angel for comparative study with other vessels that are discovered in the same region, but for them not to quickly establish with certainty that they are associated with those found at Pedregal. CLARITY RANKING: 3 GABRIELA DELAROSA University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Gamio, Manuel. Las Excavaciones Del Pedregal De San Angel Y La Cultura Arcaica Del Valle De Mexico. American Anthropologist November, 1920: 127-143. The article focuses on an archaeological discovery that aids in a redirection of opinions and speculations of the chronological order of Mexico’s past cultures. The quest may have started in 1907 the discovery of human remains and artifacts as ceramic were discovered in the valley of Mexico. Within these discoveries, a diversified representation of clay representing human form and other fragments of pottery were of the archaic type as well as others. Stratisgraphic evidence was missing links though studies done did agree of different types of stratifications (including archaic), but no chronological order was found. This could be because the area where the mixed artifacts were found historically had gone through a deluge. Dr. Frank Boas’ studied some of the fragments previously found and made cleared distinctions of varying colors, art, and components of it technique; finding a different form of clay-pottery varying with the Aztec’s and Teotihuacán’s . The antiquity of the artifacts couldn’t be further speculated because within the investigation, the water levels were found before the stratification of the end of the Aztec cultures’. This furthered the hunger to know of Gamio and others. Why were the diverse cultured artifacts mixed? Many excavations took place and discoveries of Aztec and Teotihuacana were found but none provided any of the archaic evidence. They did provide room to speculate the civilizations or cultures that blossomed from the valley of Mexico were only the archaic, the Aztecan, and the teotihuacana. The older being the archaic since it was found in the deepest layers, but Gamio says that generalizations can not be reasonably made just from this case. Gamio leads us
into the climax of his study at, “Del Pedregal
De San Angel”, in the valley of Mexico. In that era, extraction
of volcanic rock was done to use in the construction of buildings in
the area. Many of the ditches accidentally uncovered the fragments of
ceramic, and human and animal remains. The particular site in which Gamio
does his research contained was picked because of the abundance of material
and human remains found. In the chronological order of strata, first
was the volcanic layer, then a softer dirt layer containing artifacts
and human remains, succeeded with a more compact terrain containing cylindrical
graves. The artifacts were that of the archaic: representing anthropomorphic
multicolored sculptures, containers that were possibly ritualistic, mortars
used for grinding cereals, and even obsidian arrows. Gamio ascertained
or apportioned the measurements very accurately. I came to this conclusion
that he was disciplined in his measurements because of the description
given of the most complete skeleton. What sparked most interest in myself
was how they said that the chewing muscles were strong and potent by
grooves left by the muscles on the skull. CLARITY: 4 MARIEL ORENGO University of South Florida (Kevin A. Yelvington).
Goddard,
P. E. The Cultural and Somatic Correlations
of Uto-Aztecan. American
Anthropology Month?, 1920 Vol.22:244-247. Goddard’s
paper states that one of the undisputed claims of anthropology is
that culture being independent of biological inheritance is separate
from race or a particular biological strain. He also states that
the separateness of language and race was important to Europe and
America. However, a noted physician, Dr. Wissler has given evidence,
which shows that the conditions in America do produce a correlation
among physical types, language, and other elements of culture. He
illustrates that the Eskimo have skulls, which are uniquely different,
a culture of their own and a common language, which is shared only
by the Alieut. Wissler states that both language and culture
are inherited from your parents and grandparents, along with your
physical structure. He further states that if a valley occupied a
single family, one hundred generations would produce a definite biological
strain of uniformity, language and culture. In southern Utah there are two cultures, one is known as the Cliffdweller’s and the second as the Basket-maker’s. The Cliffdweller’s constructed roomed stone houses and pottery, while the Basket-maker’s produced small amounts of pottery. Shared elements practiced by both groups are the raising of maize, grinding it on a metate, the raising of cotton and weaving it and other vegetable fibers on a loom, wearing sandals and using spear throwers. The art of building houses and making pottery is assumed to have arose in the southwest according to the author, since evidence shows that present day highly developed religions, dramas and processions were also founded in the southwest. Although a variety of groups inhabited these areas, in 1907 an anthropologist combined them under the name Uto-Aztekan that produced a vast linguistic group. Since the range was very large, linguistic uniformity was never generated and instead three linguistic subdivisions were developed. CLARITY RANKING: 3 NEKEISHA MOHAMMED York University (Naomi Adelson).
Goddard, P.E. The Cultural and Somatic Correlations of Uto-Aztecan. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:244-248. In reading this article one can experience first hand the magnitude of the role of the ever-evasive culture concept. Goddard begins his paper with an attempt to pinpoint a suitable definition of culture and what it entails regarding the correlation of language and the Uto-Aztecan. Culture, as we have seen, can be defined in drastically different ways to suit the needs and purposes of the definer. From a historical perspective, this article proves yet again that the idea of this evasive, indefinable culture concept has transcended generations and now falls into the lap of the contemporary anthropologist. More Specifically, Goddard attempts to trace the movement of Native American peoples by linking it to the movement of culture. To find a correlation between a language and a culture which have no necessary relation Goddard sets up a hypothetical valley in which a family is left in isolation for one-hundred generations. He then substitutes the lowlands between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada/Mohave desert region as a series of similar valleys stretching from north to south and takes into account the differences that human contact and, hence, the transition of culture could create between them and his imagined, isolated society. Goddard goes on to provide examples. He focuses on two types of culture in southern Utah known as the “Cliff dwellers” and the “Basket Makers.” He traces biological difference (in the form of head shape) through cultures that have nothing but their biology in common. It is here where the subject of Goddard’s article becomes a bit hazy. Is he trying to prove the continuity of culture, biology, and language as entities that exist together on a historical timeline, or is he disputing the bonds between them? In reading this article it is apparent that the Western academic community followed a template consisting of a strict separation between language and race when examining Native American cultures. Is he following this template or reacting against it? What can best be learned from reading this article is the sustaining power of the confusion about the culture concept. While the absolute aim of this paper is unclear it can be seen that the concept of culture, what it is, how it moves through time, and how it is created, was present in the 1920s and will be present for the Anthropologists of future generations to contemplate. CLARITY RANKING: 3 MARK V. IBARGUENGOITIA University of Texas at San Antonio (James McDonald)
Goldenweiser, A.A. A New Approach to History. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:26-47. In this article, Goldenweiser discusses a prevalent theoretical debate among social scientists and historians of his day. The debate concerns scientific research methodology and analysis and how study results might be applied. He does so primarily through a critique of a work of F. J. Teggart who argues that social scientists should establish a set of constants through which their research is conducted and interpreted. Teggart presents his argument that mass migrations were caused by climatic change as one methodological constant. He asserts that these migrations were a major determinant of human behavior, belief systems, and the cause of political organization. In general, Goldenweiser negatively criticizes Teggart’s proposal. He argues that if history were to be studied through a set of constants, much of what is significant would be lost. Goldenweiser states that mass migration has occurred in numerous culture groups with no association to climate changes. He cites examples of the Athapascans in Canada, Southwest Puebloans and the Easter Island groups. He also provides evidence that migrations were not the cause of early Iroquois, African, or Polynesian political organizations. Though Goldenweiser agrees with Teggart’s assertion that the disciplines of social sciences and history need a more precise methodology, he does not agree that constants would prove explanatory, as they do in the study of exact sciences, because human history is so multifaceted. Goldenweiser holds no punches throughout his critique and he concludes that Teggart’s theory is simultaneously simple and grandiose. This article is a theoretical discourse and reflects the enlightenment concept of the 19th century and the cultural evolutionary model. Goldenweiser does not initially specify his argument or that the content of the article is primarily a critique. His introduction to Teggart’s work is tucked away, at the end of the first paragraph. The article may be interesting to the student of the history of ideologies and the evolution of scientific methods in social sciences and history; otherwise, it is a tedious read. CLARITY RANKING: 2 CATHERINE ELAINE DANIEL University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Goldenweiser, A.A. A New Approach To History American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22: 26-47. In A New Approach To History, A.A. Goldenweiser delivers a well-thought response to Frederick J. Teggart’s “recent” publication The Processes of History. Teggart’s proposition is to demonstrate “’what sort of results might be obtained by a strict application of the method of science to the facts of history’”(27). Goldenweiser is quick to point out that what Teggart is essaying is the “determination of constants” (28). He then proceeds to reveal the weaknesses of such a concept by offering counter ideas to those of Teggart’s. He begins with the assertion that, while the disclosure of a set of constants would greatly enhance “our insight into historical processes… it is but reasonable to expect that these constants would not prove a rationale of history, but of certain more or less prominent aspects of it.”(30) Teggart’s work then delves into the concept of a homogeneous history, which purports the idea that man everywhere has a history comprised of the “same fabric”(30). This he attempts to justify with the idea that the “varying experiences of human groups have been similarly conditioned by the varying aspects of the conformation of the globe” (30). Goldenweiser specifically focuses on Teggart’s claims of constants in the areas of: food deficiencies occurring in response to destructive climate changes, migration resulting from such deficiencies, “friction” (31) with the populations already residing at the “terminus of migration” (31), and lastly, the establishment of political organization. Goldenweiser then goes on to refute these ideas, pointing out the several faults that lie in these constants. One such fault being that migration is not always influenced by food deficiencies. Another concept that Goldenweiser is quick to counter, is Teggart’s idea that political organization is a “recent phenomenon” (33), one which is inherent upon migration. Goldenweiser then offers that “if… it is accepted that political organization is inherent in society, migration evidently has nothing to do with it.” (35) Teggart also proposes that there is a singular idea system. However, Goldenweiser is quick to respond In conclusion, while Goldenweiser does applaud Teggart’s “careful attention to the psychological factors involved in historic reconstruction” (46), it is clear to see that Goldenweiser is in direct opposition with Teggart’s theories. CLARITY: 4 MELISSA CORSON University of South Florida (Kevin A. Yelvington)
Grinnell, George Bird. Who Were The Padouca? American Anthropologist 1920 Vol.22: 248-260. George Bird Grinnell’s objective in this article is to examine historical documents in hopes of determining the true identity of the Padouca. Grinnell identifies the Padouca as indigenous peoples who lived in the "central plains from the Black Hills region south to the Arkansas or beyond" (1920:248). For Grinnell, the primary question is whether or not the Padouca peoples are the same as the Comanche peoples recorded in these documents. He provides an extensive list of historical accounts from Spanish and French expeditions during the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, which mention the Padouca or indigenous groups living around the area outlined above. However these accounts do not correspond, primarily due to conflicting names and areas. For example Grinnell refers to old maps that contain the word Padouca located in slightly different locations, as well as records from the expeditions of Lewis and Clark in the early nineteenth century that record names that they only interpret as representing the Padouca. In addition, Grinnell concludes based upon the majority of the documents that the Padouca most likely have lived in sedentary villages, while the Comanche are not recorded to have had permanent dwellings or to have been agriculturalists. Yet the author insightfully acknowledges that much of this information is composed of statements reported second hand, and therefore "generally must not be taken too literally" (1920:253). After reviewing these various sources, Grinnell finds no reasonable basis to assume that the Padouca were in fact the Comanche, and surprisingly states therefore they must be regarded as Apache. I feel Grinnell falls short in this additional conclusion as there does not appear enough documentation provided in order to make such an assumption. Grinnell provides numerable documents to support this conclusion, however it is somewhat difficult to keep track of all the various expeditions and exactly where the various indigenous groups were thought to have lived. CLARITY: 4 JAIME HOLTHUYSEN University of British Columbia, Vancouver, (John Barker)
Grinnell, George Bird. Who Were the Padouca? American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22: 248-260. This article is mainly concerned with finding out which North American Native group is the most likely candidate for the Padouca, a name that has long since been obsolete. The only remnants of this name come from eighteenth-century maps of the central plains region and early accounts by explorers and inhabitants of the area and its surroundings. Some regard the Padouca as the Comanche, the Cataka, or the Apache, among others. The Comanche, amongst them all, are thought most often to be the Padouca. Grinnell spends a great portion of his article trying to refute this claim. He reports that a Frenchman by the name of Bourgmont, who was passing the area that is said to be where the Padouca resided, noted that the group of people living in this area lived in houses for most of the year and also had some sort of agriculture. This is contrary to the Comanche, as told by the Pawnees, who did not live in permanent or semi-permanent houses or engage in agriculture. The great American explorers Lewis and Clark believed that the Padouca were actually the Cataka. Grinnell simply invalidates this claim by stating that Lewis and Clark received most of their information of the plains Indians second-hand by other Indians and men who had been around the area. Since they did not see themselves, then there can be no factual basis for their claim. In the mind of the author, the most likely candidate for the Padouca are the Apache. He states that the Apache, like the Padouca, had the same kind of living arrangements; semi-permanent to permanent housing with agricultural means of survival. At the very end of the article, Grinnell states that there is no definite evidence of the actual identity of the Padouca, but he is convinced that the Apache, not the Comanche, are the winners. CLARITY RANKING: 2 ZANETA L. MARTINEZ University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Handy, Edward S. Some Conclusions and Suggestions Regarding the Polynesian Problem. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol.22:226-236 In this article Handy attempts to determine which of the Polynesian Islands were inhabited first, based upon regarding various Polynesian Islands as forming a hierarchy of sophistication. He sees the island peoples of the east as being the most sophisticated. Handy is taking a cultural evolutionism perspective in the analysis of these various Polynesian Island peoples. This notion is based on literary research primarily focusing on religion and its manifestation in ceremonial architecture. From these various forms of architecture Handy associates them to levels of religious and cultural sophistication. He creates three groups: ‘the Slab Users,’ ‘the Stone Builders’ and those who used a combination of these two methods in ceremonial architecture. The ‘Slab Users’ are Polynesian islands, which use stone slab seats as exemplified in New Zealand. The ‘Stone Builders’ are those who use large stones in the construction of monuments as exemplified by Hawaii. The central region between these islands showed evidence of a combination of these two methods. Handy links these two distinct styles of ceremonial architecture with various religious traits such as ‘Slab Users’ being associated with cannibalism or ‘Stone Builders’ associated with embalming or use of tombs. Handy sees the question of colonization as whether it was the ‘Slab Using’ culture or the ‘Stone Building’ culture who first colonized Polynesia. Handy concludes by suggesting that the ‘Slab Users’ appear to be the more primitive group, and thus colonization began with this culture in the west. Handy presents interesting data, however, this data is based on second hand accounts. His biases, and those of the times, are revealed in his list of religious characteristics of the in which the ‘Stone Builders’ are viewed as more sophisticated, due to real or imagined similarities to Christianity such as an ‘organized priesthood’ or ‘true prayer.’ CLARITY: 4 JAIME HOLTHUYSEN University of British Columbia, Vancouver (John Barker)
Handy, H. S. Some Conclusions and Suggestions Regarding the Polynesian Problem. The American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22:226-236 Handy’s
objective is to present several conclusions about Polynesian culture.
He admits that his points are lacking in evidence due to time restraints
and are simply "tentative suggestions based on the limited data
now available." Though "time and space" have limited
him in proof his discussion of their culture is detailed and organized. The
article is divided into three different sections that discuss different
topics in relation to the Polynesian culture. In the first section
Handy discusses the differences and similarities of the different
areas within Polynesia. He discusses how "the places of burial
of sacred chiefs were places of public worship in Hawaii, the Society
islands, the Marquesas, Tonga, and New Zealand." He explains
certain beliefs held regarding the stone tomb and temple forms in
Hawaii, the Marquesas and Easter Island. He briefly explains some
environmental issues and the "effects of political development." He
explains that in all of the areas studied there was a "sacred
area." "The sacred place usually consisted of a mound,
platform, or pyramid." The second part of the article is about stone slab seats and their association with sacred places. He presents a hypothesis "that the cultural stratum, of which the use of stone slab seats was characteristic and which was represented by the chiefs in New Zealand, and elsewhere….was being presented by commoners." The third, and last section of the article is an analysis of the religious aspects in Polynesia and the association of this to "the use of stone slab seats and large stone construction." He explains how "those who brought the use of stone slab seats have been called Slab Users, and those who utilized the stone construction, the Stone Builders." These elements varied in different areas. In order to show the differences and similarities and to have a better understanding Hardy uses a list of typical elements of the Slab Users and Stone Builders. CLARITY: 4 SARAH RICHARDSON York University, Toronto, Ontario (Naomi Adelson)
Handy, Edward S. Some Conclusions and Suggestions Regarding the Polynesian Problem. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:226-236. In this article, the author addresses the lack of research present within Polynesian archaeology. Despite this major shortcoming, he focuses upon the evidence for burial areas and compares the differential architecture of these sacred places across the Polynesian regions. The article attempts to summarize previous research in these areas in hopes to show that the “the greater part of the culture of Polynesia was made up of the combination of two great cultural infusions”(p. 235). The two cultural infusions of which the author discusses are the use of large stone construction, named Stone Building, as opposed to the utilization of stone slabs, or Slab Using. Handy argues that the presence of such particular architecture in sacred places is based upon the local environment and concomitant political development. The author draws on the assumption that the lack of stone slabs in Hawaii is due to the surrounding environment. Instead, the author proclaims that a differentiated political structure led to the seclusion of commoners from burial worship sites and, hence, the rise of great walls surrounding the large stone temples. More interestingly, the author reflects that religious elements in Polynesian culture correlate with the surrounding construction types. Accompanying Stone Building, scholars can expect to find evidence for a more complicated and advanced worship system, including an organized priesthood, extensive craftsmanship, and structured prayers. Slab Using, on the other hand, would exemplify more simple religious aspects, such as ancestral cult worship and primal dancing groups. All in all, the article provides a rich description of the differences between the two architectural elements in Polynesian culture and how these elements interact with the dominant religious system. However, it would have been useful for the author to have theorized as to what particular characteristics of the environment led to the divergence between Stone Builders and Slab Users. Nevertheless, the author continually apologizes for the lack of evidence in this field and directs future scholars to research Polynesian migration patterns in order to develop more accurate explanations as to why there was a split in the cultural development of the region. CLARITY: 4 LAUREN E. GULBAS University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Harrington, J.P. Old Indian Geographical Names Around Santa Fe, New Mexico. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol .22 : 341- 359. The main concept
of the article is on the nomenclature of loci in the area of Santa
Fe, New Mexico as described in ethno geographic
terms by
the Native American inhabitants of the area. Place names are compared
between the current (1916) name and Spanish and Native American forms.
The complete study is published in the Twenty-ninth Annual Report of
The Bureau of American Ethnology, 1916. Harrington’s article of
1920, however, draws out and centers on specific place names he has deemed “the
most important”. The argument is that these places are valid in
reference to the archaeology within the region. Thus, a relationship
exists between the etymology of the name of a place and its proposed
function within the past cultural community relative to the current (1916).
In certain instances, Spanish names and Native American names of a place
have similar meaning suggesting ambiguity in origin of the name, however,
Harrington concludes cultural relativity between a place and its name
remains observable. CLARITY: 3 DORIE ERDMANN University of South Florida (Kevin A. Yelvington)
Kidder,
A. V. Ruins of the Historic Period in the Upper
San Juan Valley, New Mexico. American
Anthropologist 1920 22: 322-329. This
article is an expansion on an article written in the American
Journal of Archaeology which was a brief summary of a paper written
on some pueblo ruins in northern New Mexico. This expansion was to
be written earlier, but this publication was postponed due to the
loss of the field notes and a hope of further visits to the sites.
Since these visits never occurred, and the notes were never recovered,
it was thought best to present the data available without further
delay. The
three ruins that were visited lie in Gobernador and Largo canyons,
near the Colorado-New Mexico border line. These three settlements
are described as "practically identical in situation and general
appearance." Being perched on spurs in the mesas, these sites
were easily defensible positions with "wide outlooks up and
down the canyons and back across the level tablelands behind them." Kidder
then proceeds to describe the specific houses and remains of buildings.
He explains the building methods using good-sized logs or hewn planks
laid side by side. The roofs were formed similar to the walls, and
those still intact bore marks clearly from the use of metal axes. Other
findings at the sites included cow and sheep bones, as well as many
various forms of pottery. Kidder spends much of the remainder of
the article describing the decorations and styles of the three main
types of pottery found at the sites. The article is completed with
a note from the editor about a recent trip into the Largo canyons
by N.C. Nelson. He comments on the findings of several other sites,
all similar to those described by Kidder. CLARITY RANKING: 3 MICHAEL FILLITER York University, Toronto (Naomi Adelson)
Kidder, A. V. Ruins of the Historic Period in the Upper San Juan Valley, New Mexico. American Anthropologist, 1920 Vol.22:322-329. A.V. Kidder writes about some historical pueblo ruins he visited in New Mexico in 1912. That same year, he published a brief summary of his findings in the American Journal of Archaeology XXII after presenting his data at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute. He had planned on publishing a more extensive piece but unfortunately misplaced his field notes. Though he held out for some time, he never again got the chance to revisit the site, so he finally decided to publish what he could recall from his original visit some eight years prior. The article is clear, concise, and relatively deferential for its time. Kidder begins by describing the location of the three nearly identical sites he examined. He notes that the sites are all in strategic positions, both by their being atop mesas, thus having wide views all around, and by said mesas’ enclosures within high, sealed walls. Next, he describes the individual ruins within the settlement, noting that there are two types: stone, pueblo-like structures; and wooden structures, commenting on their similarity to Navajo hogans. Kidder is quite certain that the beams used in both types of buildings were hewn with metal axes, and it is from this evidence of sophisticated metal tools (plus the remains of cattle and sheep bones), that he surmises the site is of an historic date. After describing the dwellings, a simple exploration of the three types of pottery found at the site follows (blackware, thick two and three-color painted ware, and thin three-color painted ware), to which he draws a parallel to the modern painted ware of the nearby Pecos and Tano peoples. What A.V. Kidder infers from these settlements is that the dwellings are from the historic period, and that the people who made use of them probably had some type of contact with the Navajo people. Furthermore, he proposes that the inhabitants here were “indigenous;” had relationships with more southerly tribes who in turn were in contact with the Spanish; and did not make permanent use of these dwellings. In support of this latter position is a rather derisory account of Spanish relations with various native bands of New Mexico, from which Kidder makes a final supposition—that these people could actually be the Jemez, who had fled into Navajo country in 1696. Following this article is a brief addendum, which describes ruins found in 1916 in the same region by N.C. Nelson of the American Museum that are similar to those explored by Kidder. However, no further theoretical implications are considered. CLARITY: 4 LINDSAY MILBURN University of Texas at San Antonio (James H. McDonald)
Kroeber, A.L. Games of the California Indians. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22:272-277 This article looks at the various games played by the indigenous peoples of California, and the role of these games in society. Kroeber examines the distribution of games played throughout this culture area in terms of an ecological perspective, a social perspective and finally what may be seen as a psychosocial perspective implying the concept of psychic unity. First of all, these games vary in practice according to everyday life and the environment. For example, the Tolowa who subsist mainly on salmon played a version of the hoop and dart game that used salmon vertebrae as the hoops, while the Mohave who are primarily agriculturalists used pumpkin rinds (273). Next Kroeber looks at the function of these games, and recognizes the benefits of practicing the elements of speed and endurance that are needed for several of these games. Games are also perceived as a means of socialization, as they are incorporated into public rituals, dances and even mourning ceremonies (275). Throughout the article there are various comparisons made between the games of indigenous Californians, and ‘us,’ (the assumption is that ‘us’ refers to North Americans of European descent). Kroeber concludes by noting that there is an "underlying human similarity of the emotional processes connected with the practice [of playing games]" (277). Luck, a key component of both these games, appears to be linked with notions of sex and success with the opposite sex. To illustrate this point Kroeber points out that European North Americans have the saying lucky in love, unlucky at cards and vice versa, while Indigenous North Americans believe that sexual activity will cause good luck to disappear (277). Upon the initial reading of this article it appears as if it is essentially a description of the various games played by different groups of indigenous peoples of California. Although Kroeber never blatantly states his purpose or methods of examination he does however provide an informative in depth look at the role of games in society from an ecological perspective, a social perspective and a psychological perspective. CLARITY: 4 JAIME HOLTHUYSEN University of British Columbia, Vancouver (John Barker)
Kroeber, A.L. Totem and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis. American Anthropologist 1920 Vol. 22: 48-55 Kroeber discusses a critical analysis of Sigmund Freud’s hypothesis on the origin of socio-religious civilization with respect to totemism. Freud’s thesis states, that the beginning of religion, ethics, society, and art meet in the Oedipus complex (Freud: p. 258). Freud concludes that totemism (and exogamy) had emerged from guilt which was caused by a primitive act of patricide (primitive sons killing and eating their father in order to appropriate the females). Kroeber asserts his criticism very clearly juxtaposing the Darwin-Atkinson supposition in relation to Freud’s theory whereby he states is of course only hypothetical (p. 4). At this time very little of Freud’s work was being noticed by anthropologists. This article uses terminology such as primitive, the beginnings, at a very early period, primal horde, and there is no distinction to a particular clan (tribe) and/or society in terms of human civilization. Kroeber challenges this hypothesis pointing out that this conjectured method of interpretation of social components fails to address historical ethnology and states that, much cultural anthropology may come to learn more on the historical instead of the psychological method (p. 53). Kroeber’s final criticism-- if psychoanalysts wish to establish serious contacts with historical ethnology, they must first learn to know that such an ethnology exists (p.55). This article must be read more than once in order to understand Kroeber’s critiques of Freudian hypothesis. Further exploration into Freud s psychoanalysis would be recommended. Kroeber’s conclusion points out that since we (anthropologists) know nothing directly about the origin of totemism, our business is first to understand as thoroughly as possible the nature of these existing phenomena; in the hope that such understanding may gradually lead to a partial reconstruction of origins--without undue guessing (p.55). CLARITY RANKING: 3 EDNA NYCE University of British Columbia (John Barker)
Kroeber, A. L. Totem and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis. American Anthropologist: Vol. 22 (PP) 48-55, 1920. A.L.
Kroeber, in Totem and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis,
explores the issues of totems and their taboos based on Freud’s thesis
about the beginnings of religion, ethics, society and art in relation
to the Oedipus complex. Kroeber illustrates how expected sons of
a primitive horde band together and execute their father, eat him
and appropriate the females of the tribe. Freud believed that in
committing this type of behavior, one satisfied the same hate impulse
that is a normal infantile trait and the basic root of neuroses,
eventually leading to unconscious "displacement" of feelings,
especially upon animals. Freud also comments that what the fathers
presence once prevented, the sons now themselves prohibit in the
psychic situation of "subsequent obedience". This created
the two fundamental taboos of totemism, exogamy and totem abstinence.
Whatever its complete significance, there is no doubt about the striking
similarities between the phenomena of magic, taboo, animism and primitive
religion and neurotic manifestations. Kroeber also mentions how Freud
argued that the two were by no means the same and that the ultimate
difference lies in the fact that neurosis are asocial creations based
on the escape from a dissatisfying reality. Kroeber goes on to mention
the insight and imagination Freud had brought to the field of anthropology. Kroeber further points out the many criticisms aimed at the weakness or lack of concrete fact/proof of Freud’s theory. It is believed that like every other branch of science, the field of anthropology is work and not a game of lucky guesses. It cannot be something based on a hypothetical situation and fabricated events, but rather on substantial situations and worthy factual information and subjects. Therefore, one cannot arrive at conclusions about the origins of totemism, or any other social phenomena at that, before thoroughly examining the information about the phenomena as they exist or have existed, in order to understand the nature of the existing phenomena. Kroeber goes on to demonstrate how this process helps to ensure that such an understanding will eventually lead to a partial reconstruction of such origins, without any unnecessary guessing. CLARITY RANKING: 4 LEILA BAHRAMI York University (Naomi Adelson)
Kroeber,
A. L. Totem
and Taboo: An Ethnologic Psychoanalysis. American
Anthropologist, 1920 Vol. 22(1): 48-55. In this article, Kroeber provides a criticism on the work of Freud. Kroeber feels that Freud will have an impact in different disciplines. The author states that the work of Freud is not acceptable for various reasons. He lays out eleven points in which he explains his criticism of Freud. Among these criticisms are a lack of proof, that some of the conclusions drawn are assumptions, or are not applicable to the areas Freud is writing about. He also states that some of the work is pure guess, doubtful, in need of more verification, and that some of his work goes “unexplained.” Kroeber elaborates on each of these points. Kroeber goes on to state that Freud has weak arguments. |
.jpg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}