|
|
| |
Current
Anthropology
1965
Arkell,
A. J. and Peter J. Ucko. Review
of Predynastic Development in the Nile Valley.
Current Anthropology April, 1965 Vol.6(2):145-166. Arkell
and Ucko survey the development of predynastic culture in Egypt while
showing the need for further excavation.
Their main goal, however, is to determine whether the Nile region
was distinct from traditional Neolithic development in the Near East. The
authors hope this will influence future research. The
survey of predynastic Egypt is separated into four chronological
groups:
Neolithic, Badarian, Naqada I (Amratian) and Naqada II (Gerzean).
The Neolithic portion consists of site overviews on Fayum, Merimde,
and Khartoum. The authors
state that the Lower Egyptian sites of Merimde and Fayum are possibly
related, but the majority of this section is spent on Khartoum.
Fayum and Khartoum share many similarities such as: the presence
of amazon-stone beads, the use of fire pits and hearths, the absence of
cemetaries, the possible eventual domestication of animals, the burnishing
of pottery, and the flaking and partial grinding of stone celts.
Next, they list the characteristics of Badarian culture.
Arkell and Ucko believe that the “Tasian” culture in Upper Egypt
is synonymous with the Lower and Middle Egyptian Badarian. The Khartoum
Neolithic and Badarian share the characteristics of shell fishhooks, black
top and ripple pottery, and flat-topped axes. They finish the
survey with an overview of the Naqada cultures. Throughout
the article, Arkell and Ucko list problems caused by the lack of
excavations.
Little is known about Merimde, and Fayum has no real evidence of
domestic animals, as the faunal samples were lost.
Carbon-14 dates for Fayum, Merimde, and especially Khartoum, are
criticized and the authors propose that the sites actually date earlier
than the results. Dates from
most predynastic sites are taken from a single sample, so they are much
less accurate than a series of C-14 dates.
While there is no stratigraphic evidence that the age of Fayum
is older than Badarian culture, technological improvements support this
idea. Since no Gerzean sites
have been found in the Delta, it is the authors’ opinion that the Naqada
II culture need not originate in that area.
Finally,
Arkell and Ucko conclude by emphasizing that the lack of modern excavations
at predynastic sites leads to difficulty in locating the origins
of Egyptian
development. While they believe
the wheat, barley, and flax grown at Fayum, the eldest of the Neolithic
sites, must be of Asian origin, Arkell and Ucko do not see a continuing
foreign influence in Egypt. Despite
similarities to Beersheba, the authors support the theory that the development
from Badarian to Naqada to Dynastic civilization was a natural and peaceful
evolution, not an infiltration or conquest by Asiatic peoples. This
theory is supported by stratigraphic evidence, similar iconography
and comparable techniques. COMMENTS Most
commentators commend the authors for specifying the lack of predynastic
excavations in Egypt, but a few objected to Arkell and Ucko’s dismissal
of early work in the area. Most
disagreements were small or trivial.
Kennedy, in particular, finds numerous objections to the authors’
categorization among other points of dissension. Commentators Butzer and H.S. Smith believe that more attention
should be paid to geology and the role of the environment in the course
of predynastic Egypt. Clark
agrees with Arkell and Ucko’s theory of native Egyptian development,
while Baumgartel, Philip Smith, and Mellaart believe that outside influence
is apparent or probable. REPLY Arkell
and Ucko respond by stating their goals when writing the article:
to
show a need for further excavation; to present a review on predynastic
development;
and to influence subsequent field work.
They point out that geological evidence raised by various commentators
contradict each other. The authors then choose to show that Kennedy's
objections have already been answered in the original article, in other
commentators’ replies, or in his own comments. Despite objections
raised by their colleagues, Arkell and Ucko reaffirm their belief that
Egypt's development is not based on major foreign
interaction with native peoples. CLARITY:
4 JACQUELINE
F. PETKEWICZ
Marquette University (Jane
Peterson)
In this article, Arkell and Ucko examine the prehistory and predynastic development of the Nile valley. They use classic as well as contemporary views to support their overview of predynastic development. They state that recent finds have pushed the dates for Neolithic culture back 3000 years earlier than any site dated in Egypt. This poses questions as to whether the Near East is in fact where civilization was born. The authors state that Egyptian predynastic development has not been discussed extensively because most excavations in the Nile valley are about sixty years old. They believe that this article can guide future research in order to address important questions that have yet to be answered. Arkell and Ucko begin by tracing different cultures in the Nile Valley, from the Neolithic to the Naqada II. In the section discussing Neolithic culture they examine the sites of Fayum and Merimde. They discuss the characteristics of these sites and the relationships that may have existed between them. Arkell and Ucko discuss the problems with C-14 dates at these sites and the difficulties in determining sites as earlier, contemporary with or later than the Fayum Neolithic. They also bring up the Khartoum Neolithic, which may be contemporary to the Fayum Neolithic. Characteristics of the Badarian culture are then described. There is no stratigraphic evidence to prove that it is later than Fayum Neolithic, but the authors state this is indicated by archaeological evidence. The next culture to exist in the Nile Valley was the Naqada I, or Amratian. The characteristics and origins of this culture are described. The last culture discussed is the Naqada II, or Gerzean. The authors argue that there is no evidence for the popular view that this culture is a complete break from the Naqada I as a result of the movement of and possible invasion by Asiatic peoples into the Nile Valley. Foreign contacts increased at this time, but population increases, increasing social stratification and cultural developments were also responsible for the changes that took place. In the conclusion, Arkell and Ucko reiterate the absence of well excavated predynastic sites in the Nile valley, and stress the importance of continued work in the area. Comments The commentators have two major concerns with Arkell and Ucko’s review of predynastic succession in the Nile valley. The first issue is that they explain the changes in Naqada II as being the result of development, and not the invasion of Asiatic peoples into the area. Some of the commentators also feel that Arkell and Ucko do not pay enough attention to environmental factors as playing an important role in the choice of site location, as well as the fact that these sites changed over time. Reply With regard to the issue brought up by the commentators that the invasion of Asiatic peoples played an important role in the changes that took place during Naqada II, the authors reply by saying that they did not mean to say that development was the sole reason for the changes that occurred, but that contact with foreigners also played a role. The authors say that the evidence for invasion or occupation by Asiatic peoples is not convincing but contact between the two groups is highly likely. With regards to the commentators criticism that the authors do not pay enough attention to environmental factors, Arkell and Ucko reply that they can only rely on archaeological evidence because the environmental evidence is controversial. They point out that even the two geologists commenting on their review of predynastic development cannot agree on the environmental history of the Nile valley. CLARITY 3 KARLA DOW Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)
In
a letter to Current Anthropology readers, Claerhout posed a problem
concerning the terms “primitive art” and “ethnological” or “ethnic art” and
the negative connotations he felt they emit. He invited his colleagues
to discuss the
old terminology and, more importantly, formulate and justify new terms. COMMENTS Out
of the eleven responses, only three agreed with Claerhout that an
alternate
terminology is desirable. Archey, while still holding that the art
produced
by preliterate people is indeed “primitive” in form, suggested “tribal
art” as a more appropriate descriptor of the less civilized communities
that created the art. Fraser feels “primitive” correctly reflects the
inherent limitations of the societies where the art was produced; likewise,
Lewis notes that the “early” and “first” connotations of “primitive” need
not be embarrassing and indeed are not disturbing to formerly “primitive”
acculturated persons. Compton concluded that “precivilized” successfully
distinguishes the social context of this genre of art while not making
inapplicable judgments concerning geography, technical competence, religious
belief, tradition, purpose, or any other quality. Davis calls for a more
precise and detached system of classification recognizing distinctions
in art and communication as a whole.
Of
the remaining responses, several emphasized the importance of simply doing
the research rather than toiling over new terminology, given the scarcity
of time (Dark). Gerbrands argues that with further study the true distinction
(geographical) will surface, leading to an extinction of the term “primitive”.
The common link of “primitive” being foreign (as opposed to varied
technique, form, symbolic content, or social function) to old and modern
art of the West was reemphasized by Klausen, signaling the futility of
such a clear dual division in the art realm. Klausen and Willett agree
that it would behoove us to recognize the whole field of art as one entity,
and commence to distinguish art styles by local area, period, artist styles,
and other distinguishing adjectives. Proskouriakoff thought the “primitive”
debate to be petty in comparison to the much more serious misuse of the
word “art,” which when used correctly should base upon three distinctions
of communication modes: conceptual, ritual, and artistic. Stern acknowledged
the difficulty of reaching a solution, simultaneously expressing hope
that the perplexing situation did not inhibit the much-needed intensive
study of the living art. REPLY Claerhout
first notes the key significance of the quantitatively meager response
(eleven total), perhaps indicating that most of the art-interested
scholars
find no issue with the term “primitive art.”
He also notes the difficulty in using Gerbrands’ and Leuzinger’s
respective terms of “non-European” art and “traditional art” or “ethno-art.”
These terms do not indicate origin or type of art, rendering them functionally
useless. Replying to the comments, Claerhout applauds Willett’s position
to unify the field of art, but maintains that division into categories
may be necessary for the present. He also agrees with the call for an
intensification of the study of the genre of interest. He does, however,
feel this can be adequately accomplished alongside new terminology discussion,
though he concedes that another “label” may not be prudent given clarity
concerns within the larger community. He states that while we can simply
talk about art with any given descriptors, general terms are helpful for
everyday use. He disagrees with the parallel between “primitive” and terms
as “Gothic,” and he does not feel that “primitive” can have an altered
significance, much less a more positive one. Finally, he points out two
areas of consensus among all scholars: 1) art is art, 2) the one style
distinction is that these arts are produced by primitive peoples. Thus,
he suggests speaking of “art of primitive peoples,” avoiding judgment
of the art itself. CLARITY:
5 MARY SCHMITZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson).
Claerhout, Adriaan G.H. The Concept of Primitive Applied to Art. Current Anthropology October, 1965 Vol.6(4):432-438. The author introduces the fact that many scholars can and still do frequently use the term “primitive” art when referring to the artistic endeavors of non-European cultures around the globe. Interestingly this is not an article in itself, rather it is an appeal to generate a discussion with a wide array of scholars so as to create ideas and thoughts with regards to the stance of both Anthropology and Art History about the concept of “primitive” art. Moreover, the author makes a distinct point of asking potential respondents to suggest new, more satisfactory terms to replace the old pejorative definition. Furthermore, Claerhout also asks that those scholars who are still within cultures that are still thought to produce such art to respond and share their ideas and views about this construct. Comments Among the respondents, none share distinctly similar points of view, nor do any suggest similar means to rectify this problem of ethnocentrism and discrimination if indeed they wished to change the current situation at all. For instance, one author suggests the term “pre-urbanized” or “pre-civilized” art on the grounds that such people do not typically reside within urban areas. Conversely, another author suggests “tribal art” because of the close link between the art forms produced and the life ways of their creators. A significant portion of these respondents were not in favor of replacing the term “primitive” with respect to art, on the grounds that the meaning of the term itself has shifted significantly over time. Indeed, many authors cite the fact that while the term signified a value judgment in the past, indicating that such art was inferior to western examples, today such connotations are nonexistent. One author distinctly refutes this position by advocating for increased scrutiny and diversification within this field of cross-cultural art forms. By expanding the terminology to distinguish one form from the others instead of relying on outdated and flawed terminology, ethnocentricity can potentially be diminished within the art world. Indeed, still other authors site the fact that the concept of “primitive” art still remains a catch all category reflecting the western preoccupation with an “us and them” construct. Reply To begin with, the author comments that he never intended to spark a debate to theorize over key concepts, which underlie the foundation of the study of art itself. Furthermore, he expresses distinct resentment due to the lack of respondents to his query, having received only eleven replies from a much larger mailing list. Moreover, he takes their inactivity to indicate that they are both uninterested in the discussion and unconcerned with changing the current ethnocentric terminology. With regard to those authors who did respond to his prompting, however, Claerhout is troubled by the fact that only three out of the eleven scholars wanted to change the terminology in favor of a potentially refined and unbiased form. With regard to the definitions that were actually put forward, he illustrates “pre-urbanized” and “pre-civilized” continue to instill much of the same discomfort as the term “primitive.” Furthermore, the author points out a loophole within the idea that one scholar introduced of defining art forms by geographic location. For example, how would a West African working from a Euro-American concept of art fit into the geographic location of his or her relatives and neighbors? On the other hand, Claerhout agrees with the one author that an intensification and diversification of the field is required. However, he does concede that the term “primitive” can and will function if the term is construed to suggest that the artists merely have limited access to artistic resources and not indicate a negative value judgment. CLARITY: 5 RYAN McFARLANE Okanagan University College (Diana E French) .gif){kind=small} P.R.
Davis, M.H. Day, G.H.R. von Koenigswald, L.S.B. Leakey and M.D.
Leakey,
J. Napier, and P.V. Tobias. Reprints
from Nature. (Current Anthropology, October 1965.
Vol.6(4): 412-431. This
series of scientific articles addresses the important findings of
at
least two individuals in the uppermost limit of Bed I at Olduvai
Gorge in the
1960s. Morphological and
physical analyses were conducted on hand, cranial, leg and foot bones. The
examination and analysis of these fossils emphasized their placement
with respect to existing taxonomic categories.
Hand
bones found at Olduvai were the first bones examined by John Napier in
his essay entitled Fossil Hand Bones
from Olduvai Gorge. It
was found that these fossils closely resembled that of juvenile gorillas
and/or adult Homo sapiens. Morphologically, Napier could not match the hand bones closely
to any known hominoid species living today. However, functionally,
he determined that the bones were aligned more closely with Homo sapiens rather
than juvenile gorillas. As
gorillas developed unique secondary growth specializations to support
their great body-weight, these hand bones, Napier determined, were not
robust enough to carry out the activity needed to support an adult, fully-grown
gorilla. Napier also determined
that the hand bones reflected the capability of using both power grip
as well as precision grip. While
gorillas are less capable of precision grip, modern Homo
sapiens are able to fulfill the requirements of delicate touch
by use of small, thin, bone shafts.
The
next essay, written by Philip Tobias, focuses on the cranial capacity
of the skulls found at Olduvai.
While an exact “dividing-line” has long been debated to determine
Australopithicenes and early hominids, some analysis is still attainable.
Endocasts were constructed of the fossils, it was determined that
the average cranial capacity of the ten estimations was 530 c.c.
It is important to note that although one individual found at Olduvai
was a subadult, dental analysis determined that its brain case was, in
fact, at an age where it was fully developed. The cranial capacity,
Tobias asserts, is similar to the largest recorded Australopithecine,
yet falls short of the adult capacity of the
Taung ape-man at 600 c.c. P.R.
Davis and M.H. Day’s examination of the foot and leg bones at Olduvai
yielded irrelevant taxonomic results due to fragmentation. Therefore, Davis and Day focused on functional analysis. The
evidence suggests a closer relationship to Homo
sapiens than to gorillas. Anatomical
representations showing low robusticity and initial adaptations towards
bipedalism were apparent in the fossils.
Greater muscle markings around the ankle and lower tibia were suggestive
of modern man as was the knee muscle marking around the popliteus displaying
practically vertical muscle movement. These contributions helped
Davis and Day conclude that these Olduvai fossils were, in fact, of
hominid origin. Overall,
the authors determine that the fossils discovered at Olduvai are
of
hominid origin due to the low robusticity and adaptive characteristics
towards
bipedal motion. L. S. B Leakey,
M.D. Leakey and G.H.R. von Koenigswald followed these essays restating
the conclusions made by the previous authors that the fossil remains found
at Olduvai did not represent sub-family Australopithecine. Instead
they represented a single species of the genus Homo. After a revised
interpretation of what makes up the genus Homo,
Leakey, Leakey, and von Koenigswald determined the fossils from Bed
I at Olduvai Gorge were of the genus Homo
and the species habilis, after
the Latin meaning ‘able, handy, mentally skillful, and vigorous.’
CLARITY: 2 ADAM FIEBELKORN Marquette University (Jane Peterson)
Davis,
P. R., M.H. Day, G.H.R. von Koenigswald, L.S.B. Leakey and M.D.
Leakey,
J.Napier, and P.V. Tobias. Reprints from Nature.
Current Anthropology October, 1965 Vol.6(4):412-427. This
is a summary of a reprint of a collection of seven short articles that
were originally printed in Nature.
The first article, “ Fossil Hand Bones from Olduvai Gorge,” is
a recap of an article written by Dr. L. S. B. Leakey in which he discusses
whether or not a set of fifteen hand bones found at Olduvai Gorge were
from the same lineage as the modern man. After studying the structure
and the extrapolated function of the bones, Leakey felt that they were
of hominid origin. The
second article, “Cranial Capacity of Zinjanthropus and
Other Australopithecines,” set out to discuss these cranial capacities.
After comparing the skulls size of seven australopithecine, a mean
of 507.9 c.c. was determined. This figure was then compared to the cranial
capacity of several hominids in attempt to determine a range for cranial
capacity of the australopithecine. A range of 435 to 600 c.c.
was determined, plus it was concluded that the larger the cranial capacity,
the larger the degree of variation. The
following article was entitled “Hominid Fossils from Bed I, Olduvai Gorge,
Tanganyika,” and focused on a tibia and a fibula. The article compared features and measurements of each bone
to those of modern man as well as the great apes.
It concluded that the creature from which the bones came was functionally
most similar to modern man with respect to the ankle and knee joints. However,
this creature may have walked slightly different. The
title of the next article was “Fossil Foot Bones.” This article
focuses on a set of foot bones found at Olduvai Gorge and the similarities
and differences in comparison to the foot bones
of modern day Homo sapiens.
Despite some minor differences, it was concluded that the foot
found met the requirements that constitute a modern foot.
In addition, this foot was possibly the first evidence in Africa
of a hominid, dating back to more than one million years B.P.
The
article “Recent Discoveries of Fossil Hominids in Tanganyika at Olduvai
and Near Lake Natron” discussed several discoveries found in the area
that provided information for the genus Homo. Some
of these discoveries include skulls, teeth and a jaw. The
subsequent article was entitled, “A New Species of Genus Homo from Olduvai
Gorge.” It stated that new
discoveries at Olduvai Gorge validated the belief that the genus Homo had lived there. The
article also provided the new definition of the genus Homo, and explained that this could call for re-examination of earlier
found fossils. The
last article, “A Comparison Between the Olduvai Hominines and Those of
Java and Some Implications for Hominid Phylogeny,” discussed the comparison
of a collection of Javanese and Chinese fossils. It provided
information on the materials compared, mainly teeth and jawbones; observations
made, mainly measurements and cusp differences;
and conclusion of the taxonomic status of the fossils found. CLARITY:
3 AMANDA
SUCHARDA Marquette
University (Jane Peterson) Edmonson,
Munro S. A Measurement of
Relative Racial Difference.
Current Anthropology, April, 1965.
Vol.6(2): 167-198) Edmonson
argues that we have been long beguiled by the simplicity of the “tree
of life” analogy representing the diversification of speciation with distinct,
separate branches. Instead,
he argues that we should discard this model in favor of a model called
the “tree of culture” in whose branches may separate and grow back together. He, therefore, attempts to demonstrate through the use of genetics
and linguistics that the adoption of this model is a necessary step to
many modern biological problems. Overall, he aims to use this
model of measurement to correct the damage premature conclusion has
inflicted and promise findings of the
broadest importance for anthropology simultaneously. To
display this, Edmonson uses two important terms: homogamy and heterogamy. Homogamic mating reduces the difference between two populations
while heterogamic mating increases it.
For example, direct interbreeding of Chinese and English populations
would create a homogamic relationship while the introduction of Irish
genes into England or Micronesian genes into China would result in a heterogamic
relationship since the Irish are less like the Chinese than the English
and Micronesians are less like the English than the Chinese.
Edmonson first tests the frequency of selected genetic traits from
populations around the globe. He
then classifies each group, based on their mean frequency differences
between selected populations, into four widely separated “type-groups”
on which we have fairly full data and which are to be considered to be
recognized as the major racial divisions of mankind: the English,
the American Negro, the Chinese, and the Blood Indians. From
this plethora of data, he states several findings shedding light
on
his intended purpose. Genetic
relationships between populations, based on Edmonson’s analysis, can
suggest that the divergence of the various populations is roughly proportional
to geographic separation and that the general differentiation is divided
into three groups being Occidental
(Europe, Africa, and the Middle East), Oriental
(northeastern Europe, all of Asia, excluding its southwestern and northwestern
segments, and Oceania), and American
(North and South America). To
gather additional assessment on these findings, Edmonson turns toward
linguistic criteria. Using
the perception of the development of language as a quasi-genetic process,
he suspects one would find a parallel between racial and linguistic phenomena.
Edmonson, therefore, believes that it is altogether probable that
interbreeding among different populations is related to intertalking and
that a considerable amount of one is likely to involve the other. However,
we are warned that linguistic affiliations are not to be infallible
indicators of race. Upon
analysis, Edmonson finds that there is, to an extent, a correlation
between genetic divergence and language and therefore contests that
linguistics,
paired with that of genetics, can provide worthwhile evidence to support
his “tree of culture” model that depicts racial differentiation as
a continuously dynamic system of recombining branches with only partly
differentiated
stems. COMMENTS A
majority of the commentators credit Edmonson for his methodology
and
analysis techniques and agree with his approach to the problem by
using genetic
methods. However, he runs
into some criticism in three areas: (1) reluctance to employ
anthropometrics and morphology, (2) incomplete collection of data,
and (3) the basic assumptions upon which the analysis
rests. Highly
criticized on his overestimation of the impact of culture on evolution,
Edmonson assumes that human evolution is generally controlled by
culturally
conditioned patterns of mating.
This would ignore the real forces that produce evolution. Also, stating that his emphasis on endogamy and exogamy do
not translate well to evolutionary terms, he loses the concept of the
“overworked force of gene flow and the unpredictable process of genetic
drift.” REPLY Edmonson
shares in the misfortunes expressed by various commentators as to
the
represented amount of available data and also believes he was misinterpreted
as to his lack of anthropometric and morphological considerations.
He continues by stating that relevant other data must include anthropometric
and morphological techniques as well as selective pressures, patterns
of migration and interbreeding to fully examine his hypothesis.
He agrees that he has not done this and asserts that no one else
has either and reasserts the notion that he does believe, as one commentator
stated, that, “genotypes are more better than phenotypes.” As
for other criticisms, Edmonson admits that genetic as well as evolutionary
considerations are important in understanding racial diversity and asserts
that drift, mutations, and microevolution are of great relevance and to
be studied further. CLARITY: 3 ADAM
FIEBELKORN
Marquette University (Jane Peterson)
In this article, Edmonson proposes a method that relates data on genetic frequency to racial and linguistic data concerning human breeding history. He attempts to reconstruct a picture of human genetic history and to determine how racial characteristics are distributed. If certain groups of people have similar genetic frequencies, then it is plausible that they came from a related gene pool or environment. Edmonson realizes that the genetic frequency of a population can be influenced by environmental selection, so numerous genetic traits were examined to try and randomize this environmental influence. The data that Edmonson collected was analyzed mathematically, using 124 sample populations from around the world. Samples varied from hundreds to thousands, but the author does not feel that the size of the samples affect genetic difference. The genetic frequencies from the populations are presented in a detailed table that displays twenty four genetic traits. The table does not have all of the information present because not all of the traits have been made available to the author. Edmonson admits that there were improper sampling techniques and a limited number of genes available to study. The second table Edmonson presents gives the mean different genetic frequencies for the four racial divisions which had the most data available. In this table the author shows how each population is related. If the sample size and gene numbers were larger, a more accurate table could have been made. However, the data still do give a picture of genetic history. The results to this point show that endogamy and secondary interbreeding that correspond to geography explain the genetic relationships of populations. The data gives three main groups under which each population fits. These groups are Occidental, Oriental, and American. Edmonson points out that languages often behave like genes, so linguistics can be used to assess his findings. Edmonson goes on to discuss his findings in relation to linguistics and gives reasons for data that doesn’t seem to fit. The results show that races are never endogamous because there will always be secondary interbreeding. Edmonson also discusses a possible picture of human genetic history, and how each race is related. Comments The commentators of this research take a decidedly critical standpoint on the method and the results. Edmonson’s assumptions do not take an evolutionary point of view and he forgets about the process of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift. He should have exercised more caution when using linguistic data to determine genetic relationships, since even historical linguists are wary of making inferences in regards to other fields. His procedure on selecting populations is also brought into question, as is his mathematical approach. However, his method is a good preliminary step in this field. Reply Edmonson disagrees with the criticisms and feels that he could not confront biological mechanisms yet. Although he did consider mutation and genetic drift, he did not believe it would affect his results in any major way. Edmonson does admit that his techniques may have been crude, but they did bring out a pattern of genetic relationships. His research was also outside of the scope of most other studies, and so must be considered in this light. CLARITY: 3 SANDRA FOX Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)
Evernden,
J.F. and G.H. Curtis. The
Potassium-Argon Dating of Late Cenozoic Rocks in East Africa and Italy.
Current
Anthropology October, 1965
Vol. 6 (4): 342-385. Evernden
and Curtis describe a technique for potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating of high
potassium feldspars of less than 50,000 years age. An extensive description
of the argon extraction technique is included, as it directly correlates
to attainment of the high precision dating. Major changes made to the
procedure include 1) attaining fusion of the sample, 2) water and carbon
dioxide removal from the gas sample, and 3) gas purification. A second
technique is described for treating very young feldspars, addressing the
common problem of elimination of atmospheric argon from the crystal concentrate
used for the fusion run by treating the feldspar with hydroflouride (HF).
This new procedure allows for previously impossible high precision measurements
of radiogenic argon on small samples of young crystals in a time range
of 60,000 to 2,000,000 years. These two techniques extend the utility
of K-Ar dating into more recent parts of the Plio-Pleistocene. Evernden
and Curtis state the new K-Ar technique could also be used to improve
chronological data in a wide range of archaeological contexts. Bed
I and
Bed II at Olduvai include Olduwan and Chellean cultural remains and
represent a time range of at least 1,350,000 years, from approximately
1,850,000
years ago to something less than 500,000 years ago. The Kafuan (pre-Olduwan)
tool-making tradition was most likely more than 2,000,000 years ago
and
the suggested parallels between the African “Pluvials” and European
Glaciations appear at least partially invalid. The Kenyapithecus-bearing
beds of Fort
Ternan are approximately 14,000,000 years old and the Proconsul-bearing
beds of Rusinga Island are at most 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 years older.
Finally, Evernden and Curtis present the time-scale rift faulting in
Kenya
(between 2,000,000 and 5,000,000 years ago) and the age relationships
of the Italian Pliocene and Pleistocene volcanoes. COMMENTS While
many of the commentators complemented Evernden and Curtis on their refinement
of K-Ar techniques, several questioned the relevance of the age determinations
for certain aspects of paleoanthropological studies (Howell) and more
importantly, the accuracy of dating for less than 3 million year
old igneous rocks (Bishop). Bishop and Damon also question the exclusions
and inclusions of certain K-Ar data from Evernden and Curtis’ analysis.
Also critical, Damon asserts that Evernden and Curtis attempted to ‘gloss
over’ problems associated with dating such young volcanic rocks. Hopkins
questions the validity of the American or Alpine sequences as full records
of every significant Pleistocene glaciation or interglaciation; he asserts
that radiometric age determinations are necessary for using these two
sequences for standards of reference. Hopkins also expresses concern with
contaminating xenocyrsts in tuffs. Richards criticizes Evernden and Curtis’
nomenclature while Wright finds difficulty with their language overall,
claiming it is “jargon.” REPLY Evernden
and Curtis reassert their confidence in using K-Ar data, following
elimination of all probable sources of error. They explain their
criteria for eliminating
data via evaluating the basalts for extensive alteration and assessing
the high probability of contamination from basement rocks in samples
of
tuff. Moreover, Evernden and Curtis justify Damon’s critique of ‘glossing
over’ by citing their extensive background in evaluating the role of excess
argon in feldspars. Evernden and Curtis agree with Hopkins’ concerns,
but note that he cites two extreme examples to support the potential invalidity
and also admit that a new standard, when developed, would be ideal. Evernden
and Curtis accept Richards’ nomenclature critique. Contrary to Wright’s
opinion, they claim that the distinctiveness of their research area justifies
their so-called “jargon” language, however. Evernden and Curtis agree
with Leakey’s caution regarding paleontologic evidence for dating, but
they conclude with confidence that the K-Ar techniques can produce answers,
given appropriate samples. In addendum, Hay concludes that the Pleistocene
climate was much like the present, perhaps having 50% more rainfall today
than during the time of Bed II. Leakey’s claims of wider climatic fluctuations
are possible, but the claims do not necessarily follow from the geological
evidence, according to Hay. CLARITY:
4 MARY
SCHMITZ
Marquette University (Jane
Peterson)
Fleischer, R.L., R.L. Hay, L.S.B. Leakey, P.B. Price, and R.M. Walker. Reprints from Science: Stratigraphy of Beds I through IV, Olduvai Gorge, Tanganyika. Current Anthropology October, 1965 Vol.6(4):386-390. This article summarizes the finding from fieldwork conducted in Olduvai Gorge in 1962. The Gorge is divided into units called Beds, which are clarified throughout the article. Bed I has been redefined since Reck’s earlier division in 1951. This Bed is characterized by trachytic material, which probably came from Ngorongoro volcano. The volcanic ash and lacustrine clay preserved artifacts and hominid fossils. Bed II, which lies over Bed I, has fossils only in certain areas where saline and alkaline levels are lower. The climate of Bed II was probably similar to that of 1965. Bed III is separated from Bed II and IV by disconformities and also has volcanic contents to it. The climate at this point had more evaporation than precipitation. Some stone artifacts have been found in this Bed. Bed IV is quite large and has many layers. It most likely was a floodplain and stream channel that changed direction of flow at some point. Bed I has been dated at 1.75 million years; however, this is probably incorrect. Later fission track dating gives a more reliable date. After describing the procedures of fission track dating, a date of 2.03 +/- 0.28 million years is given. CLARITY: 4 SANDRA FOX Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)
R.
L. Fleischer, R. L. Hay, L.S. B. Leakey, P. B. Price, and R.
M. Walter. Reprints from Science. Current
Anthropology, October 1965 Vol. 6(4): 386-390. The
first report is entitled: “Stratigraphy of Beds I through IV, Olduvai
Gorge, Tanganyika and was written by
Hay. The
author presents geological data that has important implications for
the interpretation of the hominid fossil remains (Zinjanthropus,
Homo habilis) and stone tools (Oldowan) from the Pleistocene occupation
of Olduvai Gorge. The study
indicates that detailed geological work is relevant to chronology,
climatic reconstruction, landform reconstruction, and natural formation
processes. The incentive
for the study came, in part, from some contradictory dates that were
emerging from a series of chronometric dates from the site. Hay’s
findings are succinctly laid out at the end of the article.
Perhaps most importantly, he maintains that none of the artifacts
or homind remains are much older than 1.7 million years (a result which
has stood the test of time). During
the lengthy period of hominid occupation, the climate was relatively dry.
Hominid fossils were found along the margins of a Pleistocene lake
that, while probably alkaline and highly saline, was fed by freshwater
streams draining from the volcanic uplands. Chert, of the kind
used to fashion the tools found at a number of sites, was available
along the lake margins when lake levels were low.
These
results are based on eight weeks of geological fieldwork in which
the
author mapped fifty measured cross-sections in the gorge. This work was supplemented by x-ray and microscopic work in
the laboratory. The result
is a synthetic stratigraphic sequence of Olduvai Gorge which links together
many of the important sites in the area.
A synthetic stratigraphic diagram is presented in the article.
His work is laid out in a descriptive and stratigraphic manner
in which he describes the geological composition of each Bed.
Much of the terminology is quite technical. However, the final
interpretations are presented clearly at the end of the report. The
second reprint is “Fission Track Dating of Bed I, Olduvai Gorge” by Fleischer,
Leakey, Price and Walker. Again,
establishing the chronology of these strata is a primary interest as their
place in the human evolutionary scheme depends upon accurate dating of
the layers which contain hominid fossils. And again, dating
such ancient deposits is the source of some controversy. The
fission track dating was carried out in response to some controversy
over published chronometric dates of Bed I using potassium-argon
(K-Ar) techniques
that had produced a date of about 1.75 million years. Those questioning the antiquity of the results argued that
the sample may have been contaminated.
Leakey et al. seek to establish a more reliable date by adding
dates using a second technique which is not prone to contamination.
While the results from the two techniques do not entirely agree,
Leakey and his colleagues use the multiple lines of chronometric information
to substantiate a date range of 1.75 – 2.0 million years for Bed I
at Olduvai Gorge. Much
of the report is devoted to discussing the field and laboratory techniques
used to select and process the samples of volcanic glass and pumice.
They chose their samples from areas very close to the deposits
that were sampled for the K-Ar dating. The authors briefly explain
fission track dating as a technique that essentially counts up the
number of tracks created on a glassy surface
of volcanic rocks crated by the spontaneous, and temporally predictable,
fission of uranium atoms. Together
these two articles present the primary data associated with geologic
and chronological analysis of a site which contains to produce significant
Pleistocene remains. They
highlight the importance of chronological determinations in interpreting
the evolutionary placement and relationships between both robust
Australopithecines
and early members of the Homo
lineage. CLARITY: 4 JUANITA DARDEN Marquette University (Jane Peterson) Hand,
Wayland. Status of European
and American Legend Study.
Current Anthropology, Oct., 1965. Vol 6(4): 439-446. Wayland
Hand’s article on European and American legend shows not only the rising
interest in folk legend studies and the importance of saving them, but
also illustrates different ways in which to categorize and catalogue various
types of legend. Through
the article he displays the different problems with cataloguing and creating
indices for the legends of many different nations.
He also, through his observations of the types of legends told
formulates different criteria in categorizing them.
Through these classifications for legends, Hand hopes to facilitate
the process of creating these legend indices.
According to Hand, one of the greatest problems in this attempt
is the shortage of existing collections that are suitable for scientific
study. In order to amass
the collection of legends needed for these legend and folk tale indices,
anthropologists have not only turned to field resources, but also to already
published accounts as well as thousands of pages of manuscripts.
Hand writes that these indices would greatly contribute to the
understanding of persons due to the fact that tradition, belief and ritual
are contained in the words of these tales.
Another importance to the study of legend is the seriousness with
which these stories are told and the mixing of current religious beliefs
with superstition. There
has been some criticism to the systems of how to divide up legends and
categorize them. Many do not believe the system of supplying numbers and categorical
labels to legends as well as dividing them by geographic proximities does
justice to the tales. Special
indices are also being formulated for broad categories of legends such
as Higgen’s work with devil and giant legends as mentioned in Hand’s article.
Both re-occurring themes and images have been used in creating
these special indices. A
final problem, according to Hand,
with composing legend indices comes from deciding what constitutes
a legend and what makes it different from other stories.
Finally, through observing the various reoccurring themes and types
of legends he has seen, Hand lays out his tentative classifications for
his legend index. These classifications are: eschatological legend, those legends
dealing with creation and beginning times; historical legends describing
important figures from the past; legends dealing with the supernatural,
such as legends concerning ghosts; and religious and mythological legends,
which serve most often as an explanation for why things are how they are
or why people act in the way that they do.
CLARITY:
3 SUSAN
SCHEEF
Marquette University (Jane
Peterson)
Status of European and American Legend Study discusses the history and evolution of legend studies. The majority of the examples utilize information from European studies with occasional reference to American legends. Historically there was a fifty-year hiatus within this development of study. However, in 1959, a reawakening of academic interest in folk-legends began with the first meeting of the International Society for Folk-Narrative Research. One of the possible reasons for the pause in this area of research has been contributed to the lack of structure of the information. This limited level of organization created difficulties in classifying and indexing the data. However, by the 1960’s scholars were compiling large quantities of legends into collections and indices. These compilations have been continually evolving and expanding as researchers continue to collect and to qualify legends. In order to appropriately categorize folk legends, researchers must be able to understand the links between the legends and the cultural, religious, and social belief systems. The logic involved in legends and their use is directly related to the indigenous inherent beliefs. However, not only will the legends reflect folk customs and rituals, but the narrators will as well. Philippe Hand suggests it is not only the oral traditions that need to be studied, but also the people who bring forth and maintain this knowledge. Researchers indicate future plans to create national legend indices such as Indo-European, African, Australian, and South American to name a few. However, complications have limited the development of such guides. The largest hindrance involves classification systems. Previous attempts have been found too narrow, thus limiting the usage. The newest system proposed by the Folk Legend Committee suggests an International Folk Legend Classification that involves four main categories, two of which contain sub-categories. The main suggested classifications are I) Aetiological and Eschatological, II) Historical and History of Civilization, III) Supernatural Beings, Forces and Mythical, IV) Religious and Mythos of Gods and Heroes. This new system for cataloging legends will maintain continuity across nations and indices. CLARITY: 4 CHRISTINA BAZELL Okanagan University College (Diana E. French) Hughes,
Charles Campbell. Under Four
Flags: Recent Culture Change Among the Eskimos.
Current Anthropology, Feb., 1965. Vol.6(2):3-69. Hughes’
monograph on modern Eskimos illuminates sociocultural and situational
trends that have occurred post World War II.
Hughes uses a broad synthesis as a precaution against oversimplification
and hasty generalizations. Eskimos
have been essential figures in anthropology because of their fairly simple
social and political societies and their ability to create, and sustain
life amidst the harsh environmental conditions of the northern Artic region. Through
a survey of literature, ranging from technical studies done by anthropologists
to government reports, Hughes makes cross-cultural
generalizations of Eskimo groups living in Greenland, Canada, Alaska,
and Siberia emphasizing shifts in education, health, economics and
family
structures, as a result of contact with technology and Western peoples
and governments. Socio-politically
all four governments approach Eskimos differently. Canada and the United States have similar approaches, attempting
to preserve native populations and creating a type of “welfare state”
that emphasizes individual freedom.
Meanwhile the Soviet government uses collectivization schemes,
and Danish authorities aim to develop communication, education, health,
and economic facilities that emphasize ethnic pride. The introduction of technology and money have brought massive
disruptions to traditional ways of life, and in many of these places has
led to permanent settlements. With
the introduction of wage labor and outside employment, Eskimos have been
confronted with stereotypes, repetitive routines, and the confusion that
accompanies having many bosses.
Patterns of social integration also evolved as a result of mixed
and wage populations such as begging, prostitution, and the belief that
money equals power. The introduction
of technology, particularly the rifle, has affected many aspects of Eskimo
existence. The rifle has
promoted individualization by making co-operative hunting between fathers
and brothers no longer economically necessary.
The rifle has also had a tremendous effect on faunal populations
because of the relative ease of killing prey.
He notes that the most important aspects that have changed in the
past two decades have been social, psychological, and cultural.
Social change is evidenced by the degree of integration that has
occurred and the psychological change by the newly constructed images
of life. Social change is
also apparent through the large amount of effort the Eskimos expel to
adapt to temperate zone standards, which is approximate to the amount
of effort they expelled centuries ago to adapt to artic temperatures.
Hughes structures the paper by country and then further breaks
the paper up into subtopics for historical and ecological settings, economics,
demographic features, sociopolitical aspects and activities, family, and
wage work and money income. Within
these sections, Hughes draws contrasts between traditional and modern
ways of doing things, highlights government interventions and programs
for maintaining the traditional culture, mores, and installing health
and food support. COMMENTS: For
the most part, commentators commended Hughes for his monumental undertaking
surveying Eskimos from four different regions.
Some thought that not enough attention was given to groups in certain
areas (such as Siberia), and others filled in information Hughes left
out because of his with his inability to read a specific language or just
incorrect information. Others
question how Hughes interpreted his data; for instance, in regard to demographics
and what Hughes calls “demographic balance.”
The commentator said that controlled cross-cultural comparisons
should have been made to determine cause and effect relationships that
result from changing demographic conditions.
Hughes is also criticized for his choice of literature, which led
him to see confusion with changes in social control in Eskimo groups whereas
other researchers have found Eskimo groups generally happy with changing
social control. He is also
accused of raising implications but failing to follow through with
the differences in interpretation and theory applied between western
anthropologist
and their Russian counterparts. REPLY: Hughes
begins by announcing corrections made to the final bibliography,
and
from there moves to comments about inadequate data for Siberia and
Greenland.
He thanks the commentators who have given him additional or more
recent data pertaining to those countries.
At which point, he defends how he interpreted data and the different
semantic understandings of his writing.
One example of a misunderstanding is with the different definitions
of clans, such as whether he was speaking of an entire cultural group,
a lineage, and then whether a patrilineal or matrilineal lineage.
CLARITY:
4 ELIZABETH
LANGENFELD
Marquette University (Dr.
Jane Peterson)
In Under Four Flags, Hughes highlights the social and cultural changes that the “Eskimo” people have undergone over the last two decades (1940’s to 1960’s). In his analysis, he includes people from Greenland, Canada, Alaska (USA) and Siberia. He discusses each of these geographical locations in turn in order to recognize variations within the larger “Eskimo” group. Hughes performs separate analyses because he feels that such information is lacking in the body of knowledge pertaining to “Eskimo” peoples. Regarding Greenland, Hughes elaborates that little information is known about kinship and social organization. He also discusses the “education” of the Eskimos by missionaries, and therefore does not give merit to traditional knowledge. This reflects the decade in which he writes. When discussing other recent developments, Hughes does not include information from “Eskimos” themselves. Instead he uses government plans and programs as evidence. For example, a fisheries program is set into place to replace sealing, livestock are introduced to replace hunting, and government loans for the purchase of mechanized equipment are mentioned. Hughes sees government “developments” such as placing cows and sheep in the tundra in a beneficial light. When discussing “Eskimo” people of Canada, Hughes mentions the DEW (Distant Early Warning) Line as the main factor of contact between indigenous and non-indigenous people. He also mentions oil exploration and mining, arguing that such industries bring with them cash economy, increased welfare, education, relocation, and health. Despite having a positive outlook on these “improvements”, he does admit that the full extent of these projects cannot be seen. The government developments of Alaska and Siberia are also outlined in this article, but significantly less detail is used when referring to Siberia. In his conclusions, Hughes argues that the introduction into the cash economy has led to increased autonomy among “Eskimo” peoples, leading “him” to have a sense of “mastery” and “independence”. Comments The majority of responses regarding Hughes’ article are supportive, and a few peers (for example Edmund Carpenter), contribute their own personal reports of life in northern communities. Others add information that he has not included in the original article (e.g. Dunn and Dunn, Gurvich and Fineberg), mostly pertaining to the section on Siberia. Chance praises Hughes by recognizing his ability to take in to account differences in ecology and technology between the four groups. Cohen states that Hughes has “brought off” the paper both elegantly and successfully, and Nellemann boasts of the courage Hughes proposes to analyze the different groups comparatively within the same paper. However, Dunning warns that this broad discussion runs the risk of establishing cultural or structural components without adequate evaluation. He also points out some inaccuracies within the article. Dunn and Dunn also criticize Hughes’ portrayal of Siberian “Eskimo” women, stating that he largely leaves them out of his analysis. Reply In response, Hughes argues that since his peers are familiar with the tasks of women, he need not include them in his article. This argument is interesting to note because, although it is also common knowledge that Inuit men seal-hunt, Hughes writes extensively on the topic. The overall reply that Hughes gives is quite short, especially considering that a great number of people wrote comments for him. However, he does thank those who have offered him more information, and also voices his agreement with others who have praised him. CLARITY: 4 PATRICIA GOOCH Okanagan University College (Diana E. French)
Ishida,
Eiichiro. European vs. American
Anthropology. Current Anthropology, Jun. 1965. Vol. 6, Issue
3 In
a letter to Current Anthropology, Eiichiro Ishida who is a professor
of anthropology in Japan, prompted a discussion on “The European Reaction
to Contemporary American Anthropology.”
His goal was to understand whether or not any mutual approach has
been found between American and European anthropologists methodologically. Ishida
felt that this discussion would be useful in helping countries where
anthropological science has yet to be introduced into high education
as an independent discipline, to understand what anthropology ought
to
be. COMMENTS
BY EUROPEANS European
Anthropologists from nine different countries replied.
The consensus among the majority of Europeans was that American
anthropologists tend to be less specialized. They
focus more on finding connections between the various subdisciplines
of anthropology, and usually study biological and cultural anthropology
simultaneously. American anthropologists tend to have broad scopes of
interest. Some Europeans also mentioned that they feel American anthropologists
sometimes do not give Europeans anthropologists sufficient credit for
their findings, and often ignore scientific results published in Europe,
even when they are published in English.
The
difference between American and European university education is
also
mentioned. It is mentioned
that American universities take the approach of synthesizing education
and European universities focus on specialization.
This is due to different educational philosophies, the American
“push-to-get-everyone-educated” versus the European philosophy that views
each student as an “independent searcher for knowledge.” It was
also mentioned that Americans tend to be far less tradition-bound and
more in pursuit of finding new solutions to problems. COMMENTS
BY AMERICANS Four
American, three Canadian, and a Mexican anthropologist replied on
behalf
of the American view. The American reply focused mainly on the concept
of differing ideas coming from different traditions and teachings. American
methods tend to look at comparisons, particularly in regards to sociological
aspects of anthropology. The
American anthropologists feel that the tendency for their studies
to
be more generalized and comparative can be attributed in part to
history.
America’s tradition and nationality is the composite of various
different backgrounds. It is not a homogenous country with one common,
deeply rooted tradition, but rather a relatively young country that
must
view its diverse citizens in a comparative sense in order to find some
common ground that can allow for unity. It
is also mentioned by the Americans that differences between American
and European views may stem from the period of rapid change American
education
is undergoing, this paves the way for experimentation and varied answers.
American society is relatively young and developing compared to
European societies, it is therefore subject to change and turbulence. This
may explain why American anthropology is more focused on investigating
sociological factors of human behavior. REPLY
Ishida
summarizes the views given by the European and American anthropologists
and supports their views with his own experiences as a professor
in a
country that is caught between the two traditions.
He concludes that the differences in approaches to European and
American anthropology are likely due to the different influences and histories
that have shaped the two regions. He feels that the replies he
received seemed to attribute the differences between American and European
organization as merely a matter of departmental
organization and not of great importance to the validity of their work.
CLARITY:
4 JESSICA
BELL
Marquette University (Jane
Peterson)
Ishida wrote a letter asking if there has been any effort to form a collection of ideas that satisfy both European and American ideologies as to what anthropology is and how it should be researched. A means of clarification of what it means to be an anthropologist would be helpful for countries that have initiated an anthropology program in universities. Both European and American anthropologist wrote in with their interpretation of the situation. Comments (European) European anthropologists generally believe that when it comes to their relationship concerning anthropology there are no negative feelings, but yet neither one is willing to give up their ideologies to satisfy the others demands. European anthropologists believe that the terminology adapted by American anthropologists is a bit confusing. They believe that American anthropologist and European anthropologist should work together in a project in order to come up with standard terminology for future students of anthropology. American anthropologists have developed multiple sub-fields and classified them under one heading instead of individual categories of anthropology, which they believe weakens the integrity of anthropology by making it less scientific. American anthropologists have incorporated other disciplines into the study of anthropology, which in the eyes of the Europeans affects the integrity of anthropology. European anthropologists believe that anthropology should be studied through empiricism, and with the empirical knowledge, should form laws that govern the discipline. Lastly, due to American anthropologists inability to read other languages it limits them in their understanding of the European form of anthropology. Comments (American) American anthropologists believe that information coming from two different traditions is beneficial. It allows for further speculation on topics of discussion. They also believe that there should be sub-disciplines in the area of anthropology. This allows for the person to be more diverse in their research. They mention the curriculum for studying anthropology in Mexico. In studying anthropology, the first two years are spent immersed in all the sub-fields of anthropology, while the last two years the student become more specialized. This applies to many other schools where the graduate is trained in all but specialized in one. The reason there is difference between the two standards of anthropology is because both have different histories as to how anthropology was formed. Countries that are working to making anthropology a discipline in their universities should also follow suit. Anthropology should be modeled in accordance to the framework that other disciplines have been developed with in their university. Lastly, it was noted that although there are differences in the methods and schools of anthropology, these differences are only slight in their variations. While European anthropologists and American anthropologists focus on both the biological man and cultural man, European anthropologists lean more towards biological traits, while American anthropologists lean more towards cultural traits. Reply Ishida was skeptical that in American anthropology, one professor was able to teach all sub-fields of anthropology. He believes that American anthropology is losing its integrity, and that too much emphasis is being put on the practical use of anthropology in America. He comments on how the University of Tokyo was once very Europeanized, but has started to take on a more Americanized form of teaching anthropology. However, some universities in Japan have become Europeanized. Ishida believes that the main difference between American and European ideologies of anthropology is their emphasis on either biological man, or cultural man. Anthropology should strive to be an independent, cross-disciplinary approach, specializing in the study of man. CLARITY: 5 KEVIN LOOK Okanagan University College (Diana E. French) Jensen,
Adolf E. Myth and Cult Among
Primitive Peoples.
Current Anthropology April, 1965 Vol.6(2):199-215. AUTHOR’S
PRÉCIS This
article is a book review of Jensen’s study of the religions of root-crop
cultivators of the tropics. Jensen
begins by refuting several interpretations on religion and its progression,
like the “Theory of Animism,” and the “Theory of Pre-animistic Magic.”
Jensen believes primitive (i.e. ancient) religions should not be
interpreted by their function, but solely as the result of creative acts.
He states religious ritual does not result from purpose, but rather
is formed from handed down cultic practices whose original meaning is
no longer remembered. Jensen
writes that as religion progresses through time, it begins to establish
purpose through a cultural framework—function that was not there at
its inception. REVIEW A
total of eighteen individuals completed the review of Jensen’s book and
found it to be interesting and thought-provoking. However, there
were substantial criticisms on some of his basic assumptions and methods. First,
some of the reviewers questioned his assumption that the religions
of primitive peoples stemmed from pure expression and moved toward
functional
application. They believe
that Jensen has no sound proof that religion was ever meant to be just
expression. One of the reviewers,
Angelo Brelich, argues by stating this is so Jensen creates a fictional
human past where the genesis of religion occurred and contained no
purpose. Second,
over five of the reviewers claimed Jensen’s data were incomplete. Jensen
studied the phenomenon of the dema-deity amongst
root-crop cultivators in the tropics. The dema-deity is
a mythical hero who was sacrificed for the community.
He was killed and then mutilated, and from his parts grew crops
to sustain everyone. The dema-deity is central to the root-crop cultivators Jensen studied,
so he emphasized their role. However,
some reviewers state that not all root-crop cultivators believe in
a dema-deity. Also,
others claim that it is impossible for this hero to be termed a deity
because he was not immortal. Thirdly,
Jensen claims that in order to understand religious custom, one needs
to understand its original meaning, before it gets lost in function.
Some of the reviewers state that this is not true.
There are many myths that deal with cultural institutions and cultural
contexts play an important role in religion.
Jensen does not consider these in his book. It is also impossible
to infer that religion meant something completely different in the
past than it does now. Lastly,
the majority of reviewers had a difficult time understanding Jensen’s
inferences due to differences in scientific background.
Many claimed most of his theoretical proof lies in speculation
and not cold, hard facts. No
one can ever really prove when and why the conception of religion occurred,
though Jensen attempted to. Also,
one of the reviewers, Carl A. Schmitz, argued that his leap from the dema-deities of
root-crop cultivators to the polytheism of cereal-crop cultivators
was a stretch. Jensen claimed
that as a culture grows in complexity from root-crop cultivation to cereal-crop
cultivation, their ideas of gods change. Some reviewers believe
this assumption is not made on solid proof because there are civilizations
of root-crop cultivators who believe in
polytheism, not dema-deities. Overall,
the reviewers did like Jensen’s book and found it to be a fascinating
interpretation of religion and its history. REPLY Jensen
begins on the topic of the dema-deity in
root-crop cultivator peoples. Although some reviewers objected,
he does believe that the dema-deities have
common origins to polytheistic gods. He does not believe that
the dema-deity needs to be
immortal, and the idea of immortality of a deity is culturally bound. Dema-deities are
so common in root-crop cultivators that it cannot go unlooked or unstudied. Also,
Jensen believes in the value of speculation about origin of religions
due to what it can reveal about mankind.
Jensen
believes that in order to discover the history of mankind, one is
required
to know what concepts are connected to that history (i.e. myth) and
learn
to understand them better. This
was what he was trying to accomplish. CLARITY
RANKING: 4 DEBRA MORAVETZ Marquette University (Jane Peterson) Kretzoi,
M. and L. Vertes. Upper
Biharian (Intermindel) Pebble-industry Occupation Site in Western Hungary.
Current Anthropology, Feb., 1965. Vol 6 (1): 74-87. Kretzoi
and Vertes’ overlying concern is the classification of and correlation
between the different pebble and chopper industries of the Paleolithic
as found in sites across Europe, Asia, and Africa.
They seek to discover the nature of any interaction, mingling,
or coexistence of the two industries, especially in light of the different
species of hominids generally associated with each industry. To this end the authors present the data of one site, the Vertesszollos
travertine quarry in Western Hungary. The site is a group of former travertine
quarries set on the fluvial terraces 15 kilometers south of the Danube
River and 50 kilometers west of Budapest. It is noteworthy in that it was undisturbed and is one of the
oldest sites showing evidence of controlled fire use. The context of the
find was a 50-70 centimeter-thick horizon of travertine present under
a bed of loess and the present soil layer.
The quarry contained a range of tools usually classified into distinct
cultures. With this evidence
they hypothesize that the artifacts belong to one culture extending throughout
Europe, Asia, and Africa. This
implies that instead of there having been several distinct cultures such
as the Acheulian, Mousterian, Clacktonian and Choukoutien cultures previously
ascribed to distinct finds across these three continents, the people who
made the tools belonged to one common, very extensive (both geographically
and temporally) culture. The
artifacts consist of 700 implements made of quartzite, chert, and flint;
2,000 pieces of stone waste; some unrecognizable mammalian bones and teeth
along with 2,000 small fragments of burned animal bone; as well as flora
and pollen samples. The flora
and pollen samples were utilized to date the site to the Early Paleolithic
based on biostratigraphy. The
implements, being the artifacts most utilized to classify Paleolithic
cultures, are of the greatest significance.
The tools consist of various types of choppers and chopping tools,
hand adzes, early pebble tools, and flake tools. Kretzoi and Vertes present
their report in a data-heavy manner, in fact leaving the hypothesis to
the end of the article. The
article seems to raise more questions than it attempts to answer, indicating
that is a first attempt at putting a newly found site into context. CLARITY:
4 ADRIANNE
DAGGETT
Marquette University (Jane
Peterson)
Kretzoi and Vértes’ article is a thin and yet thick description of the fieldwork they completed on the Upper Biharian Pebble-Industry occupation site in Western Hungary. They first present information relating to the excavation and stratigraphy of the site. Next, the focus is placed on the fauna and site chronology. A third section concerns the subject of industry and tools, which is followed by a section on possible correlations with other cultures. In discussing the excavation and stratigraphy of the site, Kretzoi and Vértes focus on supplying the intended audience with technical information. They give information on site location, what methods they employed, as well as information on soil taxonomy and what implements they collected. Interpretation of the information in this section is minimal. The next section on fauna and site chronology begins with a discussion of the megafaunal and microfaunal remains that were found. Kretzoi and Vértes outline what they found in each layer excavated, and are able to give an idea as to the climate at the time of deposition. In addition to this section, they examine stratigraphy, geomorphology and paleontology, in doing so they are able to illustrate a somewhat accurate chronological timeline of deposition. Another portion of this section includes a map, an illustration and a correlation table; both the map and illustration are easily interpreted but the table is highly confusing. In the third part of Kretzoi and Vértes’ article, they examine the actual industry of the Upper Biharian. Explained, in this section, are the types of raw materials that were used in the manufacturing of tools by the Upper Biharian culture. They describe implement dimension, possible flaking techniques, implement types and provide a illustration of implements found during excavation. The fourth section explains how Kretzoi and Vértes believe their findings to belong to the widespread “pebble-tool/chopper/chopping tool group” that can be found in parts of Africa, Asia and Europe. They state that even thought there is a difference in the description and terminology of the various groups; similarities do exist between the methods and implements of each group. Kretzoi and Vértes’ article is concluded with a numbered section of the general conclusions that they were able to derive from their field study. All of Kretzoi and Vértes’ statistical data, illustrations, and general information used in this article provide a very stable backbone to their summary of information and conclusions. CLARITY: 3 SHANNON SVISDAHL Okanagan University College (Diana E. French) Lanternari,
Vittorio. The Religions of
the Oppressed: A Study of Modern Messianic Cults.
Current Anthropology, Oct., 1965. Vol. 6 (4): 447-465. AUTHOR’S
PRÉCIS In
his book, Vittorio illustrates the worldwide range and importance
of
modern prophetic, messianic cults, through an examination of a limited
number
of movements and groups of movements.
Ethnographic studies from Australia, for example, are used to illustrate
that Australian aborigines did not have a prophetic tradition in their
indigenous rituals until Europeans oppressed them. He used this method to gain a very through understanding of
modern movements, in order to extend this knowledge to the prophetic and
messianic movements in general.
The historical importance of these movements ought to be used in
a comparative study, a comparison that is not often used due to its difficulties,
according to Lanternari. The
book assumes that a religious movement, like any cultural event, cannot
be understood as a self-sufficient phenomenon.
According to Vittorio, religious movements were results of certain
social needs that resulted from a specific social and historical situation.
The book also examines the development of the movements in relation
to social and political life and the process of culture change.
The book does not claim to have done that research, only to outline
such a study. Lastly, Vittorio
states that modern day clashes between western and native religion could
be used in order to shed light on the origin, development, and movements
of Judeo-Christian histories. Finally, Vittorio ends his
book by acknowledging that in his book he merely purposes problems
rather than solutions. REVIEWS
Thirteen commentators reviewed The Religions of the Oppressed. The book received praise from his peers because it used both a historic and synthetic approach to the movements of local religious practices. Many of Vittorio’s commentators agree with W. E. Muhlmann, who also contributed to this kind of study, that his work is an important contribution to the study of nativistic movements. However, many of his peers, like Cyril Belshaw, felt that Lanternari over generalized and misinterpreted many ethnographic studies. Three commentators, Firth, Muhlmann, Belshaw, also vocalized the need from a better definition of the word “oppression.” Three others, Grootaers, Ribeiro, and Stanner, believed that the author was trying to defend his thesis, by using oversimplified connections between events, rather than give a critical and comprehensive report on messianic movements. H. Siverts, along with a few other commentors, criticized Lanternari for suggesting that peoples who are at an “ethnographical level” are in an earlier phase of civilization. He criticizes the author for his lineal conception of histo |
.jpg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}