American ethnology of the latter part of the nineteenth century, like that of England, was permeated, if not dominated, by the theory of evolution. In the 1890s a reaction against evolutionism was initiated by Franz Boas. This movement grew rapidly in the first decades of the twentieth century, and by the 1920s had succeeded in bringing cultural evolutionism to the status of utter disrepute. R. H. Lowie, A. Goldenweiser, E. Sapir, R. Benedict, M. J. Herskovits, and other students of Boas contributed to the anti-evolutionist movement. American disciples of Father Wilhelm Schmidt-S. A. Sieber, S.V.D., F. H. Mueller, A. Muntsch, S. J., et al-also have opposed evolutionism. The Boas group has argued that the occurrence of diffusion negates theories of cultural evolution. They assert that evolutionists claimed that "every people" must pass through a fixed series of stages of development. They then show that, thanks to diffusion, a people may skip a stage. But the evolutionists did not say that every people had to pass through a series of stages of cultural development, but that culture develops through a deterministic series of stages. The anti-evolutionists have confused the cultural history of peoples with the development of culture as a process sui generis. The anti-evolutionists have argued that the concept of stages itself is unsound, that progress is merely a subjective feeling of the observer, not an objective characteristic of the culture process, and that, therefore, cultures cannot be evaluated or arranged in a qualitative series. Objective criteria of progress can, however, be established. It is significant to note, too, that virtually all members of the Boas group do evaluate cultures although they insist that it cannot be done. To the Boasians all evolutionism is "unilinear, " and "unilinear" evolution is unsound. But Tylor and Spencer were not "unilinear" evolutionists. Both unilinear and multilinear interpretations are valid : the former when the culture of mankind is taken as a one ; the latter when the focus is upon cultures in the plural. Goldenweiser took the evolutionists to task for considering gradual evolutionary change only, ignoring sudden, revolutionary change. This, however, is but one of many instances or misrepresentation of evolutionist theory : Morgan not only recognized but even emphasized revolutionary change. The concept of evolution is unquestionably one of the most basic and fruitful concepts in science, in astronomy and physics as well as in biology. It is equally fundamental and important in the science of culture. The reactionary anti-evolutionist movement in ethnology has been part of a general opposition to science that has persisted since Darwin's day. It is significant to note that the only refuge of anti-evolutionism today is ethnology and orthodox theology. Significant, too, is the fact that the clerical anthropologists of the school of Fathers Schmidt and Koppers, side by side with the disciples of Franz Boas, have been and still remain the chief opponents of cultural evolutionism. Sooner or later, however, the theory of evolution will be rehabilitated and restored to ethnology-if progress is to characterize the future as it has the past. There are indications that this restoration may already be under way.

抄録全体を表示

Inasmuch as anthropology is a science, anthropologists are in need of distinguishing epistemology from ontology. The object of cognition of anthropologists is the dynamic process of regulation of the phenomena of life themselves, between man (organic and historic) and his environment (natural and cultural). Accordingly anthropologists must take precautions against historical realism which tends to treat an object as an absolute static reality. On the other hand, anthropologists can see that man is function of two variables, namely, human organism and culture, in contrast to "culturologists" who are apt to treat culture in its own terms. From this view-point, the author criticizes the scheme of cultural development offered by Steward. Steward's tendency to regard pattern or trait (on which Steward's scheme of cultural development is founded) as fixed realites, is criticized. In the author's opinion, culture in a broad sense must be divided into culture in a narrow sense, that is, irrational, emotional, and super-rational cultural goods (especially art, mythology etc.) on the one hand, and cosmopolitan, rational, logical and technological civilization goods on the other. Anatomically, "cortex" plays an essential role in producing civilization goods, while "thalamus" does as much for the production of cultural goods. The enormous expansion of surface of "cortex" in contrast to the reduction of "thalamus" is found in the process of development of the cerebrum. This shows anatomically the process in which civilization predominates over culture. Although Steward leaves out these elements which give uniqueness to the trait as being variable and secondary, those elements have to be regarded as the truly cultural ones. Thereupon, Steward's scheme is merely that of the development of civilization. Emotion is formed by primitive sensation which is produced while blood including hormones and other substances is flowing through the nuclear groups of the thalamus. Every race has different quantities of hormones. Therefore it is impossible to deny differences in the quality of emotions. Thus cultures in the narrow sense must be differed from each other according to racial differences, although such differences may be minimized with the development of the human cerebrum and human civilisation.

抄録全体を表示

(1) The Malayan system in Morgan's Ancient Society. (2) Criticism of the Malayan system by Rivers. (3) Criticism of the Malayan system by Sternberg. (4) "Non-Malayan" kinship terms in system of consanguinity and affinity of the Hawaiians. (5) "Punalua" and "Punaluan family." (6) The Malayan system as a terminology. Taking as his point of departure the criticisms of Morgan's Malayan system made by Rivers and Sternberg, the author points out the following inconsistencies in Morgan's theory concerning the Malayan System : (1) There are some "non-Malayan" kinship terms in the system of consanguinity and affinity of the Hawaiians. It is inadequate to call the system "Malayan." (2) Morgan contradicts his own theory in recognizing simultaneously the existence of the "Punaluan family" and the kinship term "punalua" among the Hawaiians. The existence of the "Punaluan family" itself has not been confirmed for the Hawaiians.

抄録全体を表示

The author has treated elsewhere the Wu Man and Pai Man, two tribes of considerable age in Yunnan province, China. According to him, the Wu Man spoke a Tibeto-Burman language such as Lolo or Moso, and remain in present-day Yunnan, while the Pai Man spoke a Tai language and remain along the southern border of Yunnan. In the present paper the author asserts that the people who established the kingdom Nan-chao in Yunnan in the T'ang period belonged to the Wu Man, while the kingdom Ta-li was established by the Pai Man who had taken power out of the hands of the Wu Man. Concerning the Minkia or La-ma, the author agrees with Lietard's and Makino's recent opinions that they are the surviving descendants of the Nan-chao and Ta-li, but does not agree with the views of Mankino, Wen Yu and Credner that they speak a Tibeto-Burman language, nor with that of Davies that their language belongs to the Mon-Khmer family. He assumes that the ancestors of the Minkia were the Pai Man who formed the kingdom of Pai or Pai-tzu in Yunnan prior to the T'ang dynasty. They were called Pai-min or Pai-erh-tzu and spoke a Tai language. Although Tibeto-Burman language and culture might have diffused to them under the rule of the Nan-chao (which was the kingdom of Wu Man), the Minkia have preserved their own language and old customs without being assimilated to the latter. The Minkia and the La-ma have been regarded as one and the same tribe. Whence the two different names? La-ma must be identical with la-mu in Lolo, la-ma in Lisu and lo in Moso, and like the name Lolo itself, probably derives from the name of some Wu Man tribal chief. The root lo or la means "tiger" in the Indo-Chinese language family. There are the Black Lolo and White Lolo, and the Pai Man under the rule of the Lolo was in some cases called the White Lolo. Most of the Pai Man tribes adopted the Wu Man's names under the latter's rule. As the La-ma, divided into the White and Black La-ma, have been governed by the Moso, the name La-ma was most probably given by the Moso. On the other hand, the name Minkia seems to have been given by the Chinese who had migrated to the area of distribution of the Wu-Manized Pai Man after the Ming dynasty.

抄録全体を表示

Over 2, 000 years ago the Fu-sang legend appeared in Chinese literature in the form of a treelegend, also having some connection with the sun. The authors, tracing the legend back to its original form, make it clear that its original form must have been a pure sun-legend. The Jo-mu (若木) which was identified with the Fu-sang means a sun-tree, the sound of 若 (^*njiak) being that of 日 (^*njiet), "sun", and both Jo-mu and Fu-sang are associated with the legend of "Ten Suns." As the character of "sang" (桑)="mulberry" in Fu-sang resembles that of "jo" (若=〓) in Jo-mu, there has been a misreading since the Chou period. But 扶桑=扶〓=扶若=扶日 seems to have been the proper series, and the last of the series 扶日 (Fu-jih) is identical with the Fu-jih (拂日 "striking the sun") which is seen in old Chinese documents combined with the Jo-mu (若木). Furthermore, as we have the legend of the Pi-jih (〓日 "shooting the sun") in which the archer I (〓) shot nine suns down out of the ten, the Pih-jih ("shooting the sun") must have been the original meaning of the word Fu-sang (扶桑) which can be identified with the Fu-jih (拂日 "striking the sun"). We find examples of such a rite of invigoration as "helping the sun" in the eclipse or shooting for the same purpose wang shih (枉矢)=huang shih (黄矢), fire-arrow, at the sun not only in the old Chinese documents, but also in modern ethnological literature. The Shantung peninsula was the principal field of activities of I, the hero of the legend of "Ten Suns." The legend itself seems to have derived from the institution of "Ten Days" which was prevalent among the Tung-i (東夷) in Shantung. The authors assume that the Fu-sang legend was first formed among this people and then transmitted southward by the migration of the Ch'u (楚) tribe belonging to the Tung-i. According to Chinese legends, there is the Hsiliu (細柳 "slender willow") in the west where the sun sets, in contrast to the Fu-sang in the east where the sun rises. The epithet hsi ("slender") being added only from the association with the meaning "willow" which the character liu has, the real meaning of the Hsi-liu must lie in the sound liu. While the place where the sun rises in the east is called T'ang-ku (湯谷), the place where the sun sets in the west is called Liu-ku (柳谷). Liu-ku is called also Mei-ku (昧谷), Meng-ku (蒙谷), Meng-ssu (蒙〓), etc. As the liu here is demonstrated to be mei (昧)=meng (蒙)=an (暗)=yin (陰), meaning "dark, " the Liu-ku must be Mei-ku=Meng-ku=Meng-ssu=An-ssu (暗〓)=Yin-ssu (陰〓), "the valley wherein the sun sets, " opposite to the T'ang-ku (湯谷)=Yang-ku (陽谷), "the valley from where the sun rises." Therefore, the proper meaning of such a name as Yen-tsu (〓〓) where the sun sets, which has been a riddle to sinologists, is Yin-ssu (陰〓), the valley wherein the sun sets. The Hsien-ch'ih (咸池) and Kan-yuan (甘淵), in which the sun is said to bathe, are also respectively nothing else than the An-ch'ih (暗池)=Yin-ch'ih (陰池), "the pond in which the sun sets, " and An-yuan (暗淵), "the deep in which the sun sets."

抄録全体を表示

There is a type of burial offering pottery in the Han period (s. the figure on p. 109), mistaken by Laufer for a granary, expressed by such characters as 〓, 倉, or 京. However it actually corresponds to the ideograph 〓 (hun), which appears in the Yin site, and means a privy. 〓 consists of 豕 (pig) and 〓 (a pen which encloses it). The method of using human excrement to feed pigs seems to have been practised in China from remote antiquity, but it was in the Han period that the method became common, even spreading among neighboring primitive peoples. The agricultural Yayoi pottery culture in Japan must have been influenced by the agricultural tradition of the Asiatic continent under the Han dynasty. It was because Japan was relatively favored with opportunities for hunting and fishing that pig rearing was almost unknown, and consequently the above-mentioned way of disposing of human excrement was not practised. However, the popular views that the ancient Japanese did not use human excrement as manure (though they knew to fertilize fields), and that the word kawaya (privy) meant a hut (ya) over a river (kawa), so that excrement might be washed away by the water, is highly doubtful. The Chinese character 厠 (ts'〓) which means a privy is an ideograph of a hut beside the main house. The Japanese kawa means also "side, " and kawaya most probably meant "a side-house, " as is evidenced also by the structure of old traditional farmhouses. In ancient Japan there were upland ricefields side by side with paddy fields and the problem of fertilizer was not so simple. The question of the privy should be dealt with from a broader view, taking connections with the continent into consideration.

抄録全体を表示