Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/294

 282 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [N. s., 22, 1920

lined is one of independent evolution in different directions, but starting from one or more introduced influences. The question at issue is whether the independence has been complete or whether the basic similarity which underlies the points of difference does not depend on the presence of some common influence. The author's failure to appreciate the dynamic character of diffusion reveals itself also when he is dealing with similarities in place of differences. When features of American culture present points of close similarity with those of other parts of the world, these similarities are discounted because the view which seems to underlie the customs elsewhere is un-Indian. This is, however, a two-edged argument. The hypothesis of independent evolution rests upon the determination of customs or institutions either by the social or the geogra- phical conditions of the locality in which the independent evolution takes place. Since Dr. Lowie discounts the importance of the geographical factor (see p. 129) it ought to be possible to show that the independent evolution has in each case been determined by social conditions. The similar custom elsewhere must also have been determined, however, by its social environment. If, therefore, there is the difference in social atmosphere which Dr. Lowie indicates by the attribute "un-Indian," he will have to explain why two different social atmospheres should have produced the similarities with which he is dealing. He has to explain, for instance, why the highly specialized connection of animal names with sibs should have arisen in the very different social atmospheres of America, Oceania, India, and Africa. One who takes the more dynamic view of the process of diffusion regards the presence of these different atmospheres, not as arguments against diffusion, but as a means of explaining why a certain set of beliefs and sentiments spreading over the earth produces customs and institutions which, while preserving a basic similarity, yet differ greatly in the nature of their details and in the other features of culture with which they are associated.

The fault which underlies the whole of Dr. Lowie's treatment of the spread of culture depends on his adoption of a far too mechanical and "simpliste" view of the process of diffusion, a view crystallized in the term "borrowing." This is responsible for his adherence to the dogma of the independence of American culture to which he clings bravely in spite of many admissions which would surely have opened his eyes if his outlook had not been obscured by his unduly simple view of the mechanism of diffusion.

In considering this subject it will be useful to begin with some of these admissions. Dr. Lowie tells us that he was not impressed by the

�� �