The mind of primitive man : $b A course of lectures delivered before the Lowell Institute, Boston, Mass., and the National University of Mexico, 1910-1911Boas, Franz
Science
The mind of primitive man : $b A course of lectures delivered before the Lowell Institute, Boston, Mass., and the National University of Mexico, 1910-1911
Boas, Franz
Ethnopsychology; Race
The same may be said in regard to the use of metals. The invention of
metallurgy, which marks so important an advance of European
civilization, does not appear associated with analogous levels of
development in other parts of the world. Similar remarks may be made in
regard to the development of agriculture and of the domestication of
animals. People whom in a general way we ought to class as on the same
level of culture may some possess the art of agriculture, others may
have domesticated animals, while still others may rely upon the bounty
of the sea or upon the natural vegetable products of their home.[7] As
soon as we begin to investigate the industrial achievements of different
types belonging to different races, parallelism of industrial
development does not seem to exist in any degree of detail. Only one
general trait of industrial development remains; namely, the constant
addition of new elements to the older stock of knowledge and an
increasing refinement of methods and of results, setting aside periods
of temporary regression.
Thus it does not seem to be certain that every people in an advanced
stage of civilization must have passed through all the stages of
development, which we may gather by an investigation of all the types of
culture which occur all over the world.
A still more serious objection is based on another observation. The
validity of the general sameness of the evolution of mankind is based on
the assumption that the same cultural features must always have
developed from the same causes, and that all variations are only minor
details of the grand uniform type of evolution. In other words, its
logical basis is the assumption that the same ethnical phenomena are
always due to the same causes. Thus the inference in regard to the
sequence of maternal and paternal institutions, to which I referred
before, is based on the generalization that because in a few cases
paternal families have developed from maternal ones, therefore all
paternal families have developed in the same way. If we do not make the
assumption that the same phenomena have everywhere developed in the same
way, then we may just as well conclude that paternal families have in
some cases arisen from maternal institutions, in other cases in other
ways.
In the same way it is inferred that because many conceptions of the
future life have evidently developed from dreams and hallucinations, all
notions of this character have had the same origin. This is true only if
it can be shown that no other causes could possibly lead to the same
ideas.
To give another example. It has been claimed that among the Indians of
Arizona, pottery developed from basketry, and it has been inferred that
all pottery must therefore be later in the cultural development of
mankind than basketry. Evidently this conclusion cannot be defended, for
pottery may develop in other ways.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account