Diffusion Ism and Darwinism

8/4/2019 Diffusion Ism and Darwinism

1/4

Diffusionism and Darwinism

Author(s): Erik K. ReedSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr., 1961), pp. 375-377Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/667534

Accessed: 21/03/2010 07:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/667534?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/667534?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/4

BriefCommunicationsDIFFUSIONISM AND DARWINISM

Among the important points which seem to me to have been missed, over-looked, ordistorted in recent-and not so recent-discussions of evolutionismin archeology-anthropology (e.g., papers by various authors in the Anthropo-logical Society of Washington symposium volume, Evolutionand Anthropology:a Centennial Appraisal, Washington, D. C., 1959; publications by JulianSteward and by Leslie White) is this: The concept of unilinear and uniformprogress through certain stages, and consequent expectations and attemptsto find the same identical stages in different parts of the world, with the con-comitant notion of psychic unity of mankind applied to specific details andutilized to explain close correspondences in culture-all this may be calledevolutionism, as it has been, but it certainly is not, or was not, Darwinism.Neither the fact of biological evolution nor the theory which best explains it,that of variation and selection, requires or in any way suggests unilinearworld-wide progression through uniform stages.Actually, the extreme diffusionists probably are closer to correspondingwith biological evolution. The rise of a new species, and hence also the ap-pearance of a new genus or larger taxon, occurs initially within a subdivisionor population of a previously existing species, and takes place gradually byincrease and spread of variations, with or without disappearance of the pre-vious form as such. The essence of transformation by variation and selection,in fact, is precisely that no species, or other grouping of living individuals,plant or animal, is ever abruptly and completely changed to a different andnew form. Surely no biologist would ever have said that all cultural sequences--that is, all men--must pass or have passed through similar levels of develop-ment quite separately, independent but parallel. That would be like claimingthat all fishes are going to become amphibians eventually, or that all Eocenehorses changed simultaneously from having four toes on their front feet tothree toes when they learned of the imminent arrival of Oligocene times.The diffusionist view of cultural change is almost identical with normalbiological evolution: a variation arises within an existing form (and uniquely,appearing only once; at a definite, if generally unknown, time and place)and, if it is a favorable variation (acceptance by other people would hererepresent or constitute survival value), it spreads.

Attacks on "unilinear evolutionsim" have been largely unnecessary ormisdirected, consequently. And few of the founders of evolutionism in anthro-pology ever said, either, that all men have to pass through all stages in theproper order. Tylor, for example, simply pointed out that advanced civiliza-tions are "results of gradual development from an earlier, simpler, and ruderstate of life. No stage of civilization comes into existence spontaneously, but375


3/4

376 American Anthropologist [63, 1961]grows or is developed out of the stage before it"-which is manifestly self-evident to the point of truism. And similarly, Morgan asserted that "savagerypreceded barbarism ... as barbarism is known to have preceded civilization."In these and other statements by these men and others, at least those fewof Tylor's caliber, I see neither teleology and orthogenesis nor insistence onwidespread uniformity. Boas was, I judge, attacking only minor and incidentalmisconceptions of evolution in advising that "we renounce the vain endeavorto construct a uniform systematic history of the evolution of culture."In a paper entitled "Conflict and Congruence in Anthropological Theory"(1960:93-97), the situation is cogently summarized by Linton C. Freeman:In E. B. Tylor'sworkwe find evolution n its purestform;it includesnot only the searchfordiachronic elationships, ut the use of evaluativecriteriaas well. Tylor lived and wrote in aperiodand place where the dominant heme of the culture was progress.. if we reinterpretTylor'sstressuponevolutionary tages,we findthathehassuggested characteristicelationshipamonghis variables.He has proposed, or example, hat a change n settlementpatternwill beaccompanied y a change n occupational pecialization.... In short, Tylorhas proposed spe-cificinterrelationshipmonga set of societalvariables.Mr. Freeman then points out that the structural-functionalists are simplymaking the same statement but from a purely synchronic point of view.There have been, admittedly, such misuses and misconceptions as Boaswas rightly criticizing. The idea that a nomadic pastoral stage was requiredin the central basic or general and theoretical sequence and should be inter-polated between hunters-gatherers and sedentary agriculturalists was basedon logic, not evidence, and had to be discarded; but at least it was, after all,logical and simply happened to be wrong. The idea that all of the samecultural periods, all of the same stone-working stages and other successivetechnological developments, should be expected and found in the same order,in every area, likewise is not theoretically unreasonable, but obviously had tobe qualified considerably. And it can be a diffusionist concept rather thanautomatically and necessarily leading inevitably to the idea of psychic unityand parallel independent development; but using it with diffusion-variationand radiation-in mind, the absence of certain stages, and of many impor-tant specific traits, in various areas is much more readily acceptable.The concept or phrase "multilinear evolution" is a perfectly acceptableone for a sort of quick descriptive summary reference to what has gone on;but I am not sure that it adds very much-evolution is multilinear. Thehistories of, say, Galapagos finches on separate islands are different; thoseof, say, Old World primates and South American monkeys differ far morewidely. The histories of separate cultures in various parts of the world are,naturally, different. But the tremendous complexity of the history of humanculture and the enormous number of its variations do not obviate, thoughthey quite evidently obscure, the simple basic fact, recognized from Tylorand before to Leslie White, that the more complex forms follow and are basedon and essentially derived from simpler ones, in culture as among living things.The theory of succession in social organization from promiscuity throughmatrilineal organization followed by patriarchy and polygyny to bilateral


4/4

37777rief Communicationsrief Communicationsmonogamy is not acceptable; but the statement that social stratification andspecialization occur with advanced complex technology presumably would be.Urban civilizations not only came later in time than unspecialized villages,they develop out of them. Sedentary agricultural societies followed and grewout of less sedentary groups dependent entirely on wild foods. This does notmean that all food-collectors must in time become agriculturalists, or thatthey must necessarily have polished stone or pottery before they can becomesedentary and agricultural, or bronze before iron, or else that they mustinevitably acquire or develop bronze and pottery shortly after they havebecome farmers grouped in villages.But neither does this flexibility mean that there are no regularities, nocontinuous line or trends in human history, no cultural evolution, and nosense to it all. ERIKK. REED

National Park ServiceSanta Fe, New Mexico

REFERENCE CITEDFREEMAN,INTONC.1960 Conflictandcongruencen anthropologicalheory.In SelectedPapersof the FifthInternationalCongress f AnthropologicalndEthnological ciences,Philadelphia,Sept. 1-9, 1956.Philadelphia,Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.

THE "CEREBRALRUBICON":BRAIN SIZE ANDTHEACHIEVEMENTOFHOMINIDTATUS

For many years it has been believed that there was a critical brain sizewhich must be achieved before the brain could be considered as belongingto a member of the family of man. That brain size has generally been placedat a lower limit of 750 cm3. This, as Sir Arthur Keith put it, is the "CerebralRubicon" which must be crossed before hominid status is attained. Theaverage cranial capacity of the chimpanzee is about 400 cm3,and of the gorillaabout 540 cm3,although a cranial capacity of 685 cm3 has been recorded in anadult male gorilla. In contemporary man the average cranial capacity isabout 1400 cm3,with a lower limit of 830 cm3having been recorded in a per-fectly normal man. The mean cranial capacity of the australopithecines is576 cm3. The mean cranial capacity of the pithecanthropines is 880 cm3,withPithecanthropus II possessing a cranial capacity of 775 cm3. The pithecan-thropines are undoubtedly the earliest members of the genus Homo, Homoerectus erectus.

There seemed, then, to be some justification for setting the "CerebralRubicon" at 750 cm3. In fact, as a mean datum point this seemed rather low.But the sinuous convolutions of the primate brain will never run out of sur-prises.On 17 July 1959, Mrs. and Dr. L. S. B. Leakey were rewarded, after 30years of periodic work at the site, by the discovery in Olduvai Gorge, Tan-ganyika Territory, East Africa, of a toolmaking member of the australo-

monogamy is not acceptable; but the statement that social stratification andspecialization occur with advanced complex technology presumably would be.Urban civilizations not only came later in time than unspecialized villages,they develop out of them. Sedentary agricultural societies followed and grewout of less sedentary groups dependent entirely on wild foods. This does notmean that all food-collectors must in time become agriculturalists, or thatthey must necessarily have polished stone or pottery before they can becomesedentary and agricultural, or bronze before iron, or else that they mustinevitably acquire or develop bronze and pottery shortly after they havebecome farmers grouped in villages.But neither does this flexibility mean that there are no regularities, nocontinuous line or trends in human history, no cultural evolution, and nosense to it all. ERIKK. REED

National Park ServiceSanta Fe, New Mexico

REFERENCE CITEDFREEMAN,INTONC.1960 Conflictandcongruencen anthropologicalheory.In SelectedPapersof the FifthInternationalCongress f AnthropologicalndEthnological ciences,Philadelphia,Sept. 1-9, 1956.Philadelphia,Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.

THE "CEREBRALRUBICON":BRAIN SIZE ANDTHEACHIEVEMENTOFHOMINIDTATUS

For many years it has been believed that there was a critical brain sizewhich must be achieved before the brain could be considered as belongingto a member of the family of man. That brain size has generally been placedat a lower limit of 750 cm3. This, as Sir Arthur Keith put it, is the "CerebralRubicon" which must be crossed before hominid status is attained. Theaverage cranial capacity of the chimpanzee is about 400 cm3,and of the gorillaabout 540 cm3,although a cranial capacity of 685 cm3 has been recorded in anadult male gorilla. In contemporary man the average cranial capacity isabout 1400 cm3,with a lower limit of 830 cm3having been recorded in a per-fectly normal man. The mean cranial capacity of the australopithecines is576 cm3. The mean cranial capacity of the pithecanthropines is 880 cm3,withPithecanthropus II possessing a cranial capacity of 775 cm3. The pithecan-thropines are undoubtedly the earliest members of the genus Homo, Homoerectus erectus.

There seemed, then, to be some justification for setting the "CerebralRubicon" at 750 cm3. In fact, as a mean datum point this seemed rather low.But the sinuous convolutions of the primate brain will never run out of sur-prises.On 17 July 1959, Mrs. and Dr. L. S. B. Leakey were rewarded, after 30years of periodic work at the site, by the discovery in Olduvai Gorge, Tan-ganyika Territory, East Africa, of a toolmaking member of the australo-

Documents

Diffusion Ism and Darwinism