Theory of CULTURE CHANGE the methodology of multilinear evolution JULIAN H. STEWARD University of Ilinois Press Urbana Chicago LondonMultilinear Evolution: Evolution and Process’ TE MEANING OF EVOLUTION quite thoroughly discredited on empirical grow Potential methodological amportance of cultural evolu temporary research, from the implications of its scientific obj its taxonomic procedures, and its conceptualization of hist and cultural cau pee Evento eh Ly Retr Un rem, 1955), pp. 310-26, by courtesy of The UniverMOLTILINEAR HYOEUTION: EVOLUTION AND PROCESS 13 ‘The assumption that cultural change complexity is found in viet data. But complexity in 297) states: * ral development 1s an additive and. therefore accumulative one, whereas the process of organic evolution log schemes and of 's a sul ity but of Biology and in cle. divergence differ. According to NEE sorta aie gencucall the former, cumulative change fol ‘tends, where: cording to the convergent and occasionally jough sometimes divergent. Parallels, such as the development of ving, 8 warm blood, are superficial and fairly uncommon. parallel ‘over, are generally considered to be snstances of convergent evoiution Although complexity as such 3 ot rather than true parallels, Tn cultural evoltion, on the othr hands concept, an allied coneepe aight be cor “A is assumed that cultural patterns in different parts vorld axe biological and cultural evolution from none genetically unrelated and vet passthrough parallel sequences. Diver- This is the concept of organ ffent trends whien do not follow the postulated tmivertal sequence, Whereas relativism seems to hold that a rather xed sid qualitat such at those caused by are attabuted | lunigue pattern persists an each cultural tradition, despite el fnly secondary importance. Sa peat evolutionists changes which create quantitative complesit as Leslie White and V. Gordon Childe evade the awkward facts of | evolutionary view that development levels are coleurat tocal variation by purporting t0 deal with ance of a ou de 195i: 160) quite explicitly disimguishes Biological from cultural vergent ature of the former and. frequency of convergence in the latter. Tem interesting that such history as is implied m cultural relatwasm is rather similar to that of biological evolution: the vanations and wmique patterns of the diferent areas and subareas are clearly conceived to represent divergent development and presumably an ultimate genet relationship, Tt i only the complementary concept of diffusion, a _{ pistomenon nko x bislogy, tat prevents cultura & from having an exclusively genet significance, like that of biological evolution, ‘Analogies between cultural and biological evolution are also to be represented by to increasing complenty of forins and, second, the developme superior forms, that is improvemnent or progres. It, of course, gi posible to define complexity and progres so as to make them char terktics of evolution, But they are not attributes exclusively fvolution; they may also be considered characteristics of ultu change or development as conceived from any nonevolutionary point any other of view. tution. Im fa pear ively ditincnve attr or types of enantio Jost a frm of life are succeeded by ma ‘organization, so social forms consisting of single families and lincages are succeeded by multifamil bbands, or tribes, an th an turn, by state patterns, each involving not heterogene: ‘Thus evolutions im by the fact that the former attributes qualitative distinctive- ness to successive stages, regardless of the particular tradition, whercas the latter attributes 1 to the particular tradition or culture area rather ‘than to the development stage. ‘This brings us to the question of progress, which is the second characteristic attributed to both biological and cultural evohution. Progress must be measured by definable values. Most of the social scien tions, that value ‘ment on Human 1947) offered to the United Nations by the American Anthropological Association cleariy reflects the American value placed upon individual rights and political democracy. ‘This or rion of valtie, however, certainly does not imply evo- the concept of progress is largely separable from14 tieory oP CULTURE CHANGE ced suggests three criteria for measuring fyi te de itogcl event ic based on psychopal the outstanding ind the persistent tendency of technology and science fatively (Kroeber, 1948: 304). These values are not hoolute in a philosophical sense; they are “the ways in which progress ately be considered a property oF an 5 choo ceca cena form of cultural change, whether it estates that genuine parallels of form and function ‘or cultural tr n_ historically dependent sequences or -< “Secsind, it_explnuns.these-parallels-by. the, ident scientific ral evolution, then, may be defined. brondly.as.a guest for. whet the classical minetcenth-century foram hice placing. then an stages of 9 pate trary label to dest MOLIILINEAR EVOLUTION: EVOLUTION AND PROCESS 15 dealing with developmental sequences, but itis distinctive in searching for parallels of limited occurrence instead of universals. ‘The critical differences between these three concepts of evolution hhave not been recognized, and there 1s still a general tendency to n and process in parallel Communist adoption of L. H. Morgan's scheme, 1952), has certainly not favored the ace the Western nations of anything labeled Unitinsor Evoltion ‘There 2s no need to discuss the validity of the the indiscriminate effort to force the data of all prec groups of mankind, whi the categories of “savagery” and ization,” however, involved a less sweeping gener simple reason that civilization was thought of largely in terms of the Near East, the northem Mediterranean, and northem Europe. Other (ion, particularly the New World, were far Jess known and have been accorded less attention. valuable insights because they are based more specific: ‘velopments which occurred first in Egypt and Mesopotamia and 4m Greece, Rome, and northern Europe. Although comparisons with other areas, part i the Americas but also with In1G rHttoRy oF CULTURE CHANGE uch to be desired so far as form functions, and develop” eres of cwilization in general are concemed, the con- Glusions may nonetheless be valid under I Henry Maine's insights concerning the processes arene feom a Kin-based society to a territorial, state soctety undoub) broad these categories are needed. “Those are probably many developmental form ane proceses dis: cussed by the evorutionsts Wh rovided that they are that V. Gordon cultural development in the probably would find certain rather prec preas if a truly comparative study were ra ‘Childe’s approach to evolution on a wider into broad generalizations. Univeral volt ‘Universal evolution, which is represented today principally by junlie White and V. Gordon Child, 18 the heritage of ninetsenthy eatery unilinear evolution, especially as formulated by LH. Morgn. in the scope of fe that empirical researd ‘ar historical reconstructions of f particnlar cultures stages alive by relating these stages to the sere [The distinctive cultural traditions and the Jocal varia te Guure areas and subareas —which have developed a8 1 cr spel historical trengs and of cultural ecological adapyavirs £9 ‘environments are excluded as irrelevant.J White 990) states: “We may say that culture as a whole serves man as a species. But this does not try to account for the vatiations of specific culture. tienung of any particular culture will of course be conditioned by oes! sere pental conditions. But in 2 consideration of culture as a hole aencaverage all environments together to form a constant factor W p du to ferences of habitat” ( on inst sso Be dicounted, because any ifwed technological and eel developments ihn cach go sag the concept of evolution ft iffston brings iechnelogial and socal convergently e-cteating the require This rather involved effort 0 nl areas are most iminating, but he mercy conf set 8 fe Pn enon thm pied develops! ge ee ae el ee of simienvcentny cation The pes lta pees api gener ht thy a nthe iy rg no vy one disputes that hunting and gathenog, which i Childe’ dage Childe yields substantive res ter war precom of large populations, cites, intemal social iffeenuaion ation, and the development of writing and mathemal yn and speciale ties, whieh are18 rweoRy oF cULTURE CHANGE ‘or processes of development rather than examining st merely in terms al rect lion of culture, it 18 also difficult to recog- nize anything strikingly new or controversial, The generalization that wre changes from the simple to the complex and White's (1943) ‘that technological development expressed in terms of man’s control over energy underlies certain cultural achievements and social ‘changes have long been accepted. Childe's tran: formula to cultural evolution also will not evoke challenge. Varia ‘as learning and dif 1 adaptation and. 175-79). thus far postulated are concerned with the fa —that any culture changes —-and features of particular cultures. 1 and biological evolution are similar. Variation, ertainly a worthy objective to seck cultural change. It must be stressed, however, th: isfer of the Darwinian if ind adapta choice (Childe, 1951: heredity, and natural Selection cannot explain a single life-form, for they do not deal with the characteristies of particular species and do of energy levels, for example, can ment of the characteristics of from the data of organizational forms ‘appear in success not take into account nd factors that tf these forms can be understood only by tracing the history of each 1m great detail, ‘Phe problem and method of universal evolution thus differ from Right oF wrong, Ye donists did attempt 10 explain concrete should precede other social form ed society ex Mune Eveton year evolution 3s essenth assumption that significant regularities im ‘concerned with the determination of ‘empirical rather than deductive. It is anevitably concerned al historical reconstruction, but it does not expe he maneteenth-century 1y why a matriarchy was the precursor of red into @ territorial ‘and why other specific features of that historical data MULMIINEAR EVOLUTION: EVOLUTION AND PROCESS 19 ity terest in parallelism and causality has always been present in cultural studi seems to have increased during the if anyone held & cai tat understandings dened from tne analy of one Gi aot provide some ings ato form, fancion, and roves i igns rom the level hms to that of explctfomnulatons. Pesta parallel and teeuent emus ance relations re regarded tmay be questioned on empuneal grounds and of deriving cultural laws may be stacked ‘on Philosophical rounds,20 THEORY OF CULTURE CHANGE of cultural studies thus remains predominantly that Jarizing rather than of scientific generalizing. in parallels, however, has been clearly expressed by many scholars who have made outstanding contributions within the framework of the so-called “Boas school,” ‘Thus Lowie, who was ‘unsparing of Le H. Morgan’s unilinear reconstruction (Lowie, 1925), izes independent invention and paralle! development 38 _ many features, ach as moieties, dua! oystems of rumbers, messianie cults, and others (Lowi va kind of necessity sn cultural development to the ex “cultural achievements presuppose others. “If a tribe prac metallurgy tt 1s clearly not on the plane of savagery breeders and farmers forge metals” (Lowie, 1940;45). But he denies that cultures can be graded on the basis of metallurgy because the ns, for example, were metalfurgists but lacked other features of nore developed civilizations, Although Lowie cannot aceept More is more of an evolutionist, Lowie oF ‘Amencan anthropologists have tt were Old World and New World ing, stockbreeding, ceramics, met zero and mathematics, writing, and other featur be going too far to say the When the question of parallel cultural larities are held to be only superficial or fo represent convergent ‘cvolution, oF else it is said that the historical and ships involved are as yet too smperfectly. und formu cultural regu! persons have Tecognized such a deep significance m these par that they Ihave occurred between the spheres, while others have attempted to formulate Old and New World sequences in terms of comparable developmental periods. Kroeber (1948:241) di the numer- cous parallels an different ps ty to White, stressed the fact that Morgan. T fa of particilar esitures nto ui MULTINEAR LYOLUHON! EVOLUTION AND PROCESS 21 from within taking-over. Al divided ones, priest ‘ones, expansive and mercantile 01 rauncr than Eigmonsicate esses through which a. histor far environment —are among the mnportan creative Bro rl ha) (Steward, 1988)- There are certain problems 9 Tabraal and emotional potentials ae not a aero factor Thus Kludkhohn (1949:267) suggests: “If a tnibe in wari Blocked, one may peed oF in pathological states of melancholy resultant upor poly resultant upon anger be turned inward against the sell"['This psychologiea_attribu among the Iroquois and their neighbors, war captives were ‘adopted 28 members of the captor’ family, then tortured and killed is pattern provides a to members of an Tupinamda of South Amenica and among tribes m other parts of the world. Although22 THEORY OF CULTURE CHANGE, the proto premises andthe cll maison may e arab querton, dhe data suggest «useful cros-eitua! formu OF certain modes of ben ' ies with which ‘Te Keds of parallel or sila tis von deat a dingied by thar Hed ecu a euttanding methodological ciheny, or this season, the outst ren ‘pet ror crokiton is an appropiate exooomy of cultural eee caro Texenoeny Hy once mst have pre meas of densving a astvng oS pment which deals ee smptanati of XE Sooner ter thn the sete oneaion of ela ti re ar few tems designating whole cl ‘African cattle culture,” late culture areas which are conceived as unt ‘A great many sociolo ied ers technoagal etre, sich Teng Suc fates, however, gener SST'RE one meron odin gran Sm th on has taken place. in Klimel’s statistical hat compiled in the University of C: as in the midwestern or McKern ‘complexes. The former yields MULTILINEAR FYOLUTION: OLUTION ANO PROCESS 23, three by Cooper (1942) and by Bennett ir by the Handbook of South American Indians ‘of South Amenca{None endeavors to recog- renty-four areas structural or devel are common to areas outside South Amenc res in terms of value system or ethos has Classifications of essentially the same bas all presuppose a common core of shared cultute traits which cause all members of tie society to have the same outlook and psychological charactenistics. Benedict's concept of Opler’s concept of derive from @ taxonorme approach that is basically like that of Wise ler, Kroeber, Murdock, Herskovits, and others. Ifa taxonomic system is to be devsed for the purpose of determining. ‘cross-cultural parallels and regulanities rather than of stressing cone fasts and differences, there is needed a concept which may be designated “culture type.”* The difficulty of empin of significant types has constituted interrelated f ‘hich ate found among two or more, but not necessarily among ll, cultures. Second,_the selection of diagnostic features. must foe termined_by-the-problent and_frame_of seferange, Conceivably aspect of culture may be attributed primary taxonomic impor of cultural types are Wittfogel Wittfogel, 1938, 1939), area concept rather than typee See Ralph Liston, The Stuy of 1986), p. 392 \y24 WHRoRY OF CULTURE CHANCE feconomy, descent, marriage, and land ten field's folk society (Redfield, 1941, 1947), which has cert features common to many, if not most, societies at 2 simple develop” tment or integrational level and which reacts to urban mfluences — at fo influences of the modern industrial type of ‘ording to postulated regularities; and a feudal society where st exhi economy. “These few, illustrative types make economic and s0¢ primary because scientific interest widely centered in such featanss rind because socioeconomic structure has therefore been more broadly examined and more readily formulate 2 of culture. Economic patterns are generally ascribed considerabl because they are inextricably related to social and polit Certain aspects of religion, of of these societies (Steward, 1949, and Chapt Jvvaxonomic scheme designed to facilitate the determination of pamlleis and regularities in terms of concrete characteristics and de- \elopmental. processes wil stinguish innumerable culture Types many of which have not as yet been recognized. A methodology Tue that of White and of Childe which agnores tocal particulars and fleas only with world stages will not serve the purpose we have 1 snd. A stage of hunting and gathenng, for example — oF of savagery, wage the evolutionists term —3 far too broad a category. The fune- Nonai relations and cultural-ecological adaptations which Jed to petrlineal band, consisting of a localized lineage, were very different from those which produced a nomadic, bilateral band composed of amy unselated families (Steward, 1996). But these are only two of ind gathering s0% fen developed as the yeault of particular cultural-bistorieal and cultural-ecological ci ‘ances, There are ako types characterized by disperse fa Shen as the Shoshons and Eskimo, and by cohesive tribelets, % they were compare with tfetece to era of developmen At present - and New World 0 par They mclude the independent dex according to most but not all anthropote of basic features: dome a towns and hoods, metallurgy, soc! rndars, and math26 eneoRy oF CULTURE CHANGE stress the distinguishing features of each ‘as to micw each as a culture ares rather than fn function and processes is gradually feading vmparable terminology. Instead of narrow techno | 1d Stone Age.” “New Stone Ags “Formati are being used for the New antrodueed partially considerable tendency © center oF tradition and th 1d World developmer ich 9s “Urban Revolutic crest centers more and more UPOn ‘amonship of cultural features and upon the proceses Oy vultures are adapted to a variety at ‘a taxonomy SUB gesting significant parallels will appear ress applicable to contemporary trends of Tanbian changes. Today, the many dist ‘4 Latin America — are being strongly purope and America and ‘continents Whether the particular features of industrial ‘developments — the imosranjation of farm and factory production, (Me ost accounting methods, corporate and eredit fonancing, and the nat national systems of distrit img, single world development or a number of iquasiindependent growths #anels General anaustial bass, there appear to 6S “Ne st falls the consequences of the difsed feat ‘These parallels pat classifiable in terms of trends toward the produce ‘of cash com fe, purchase of manufactured articles, ind ‘of a cash-based rationale 3” hip group to the nuclear f duction of the Kins nidale clases of business, service, and prof ing of interelass tensions, and sve of m3 fh ako characterize the peoples are features whic fof Euro-Amer fa), d Reapprasat “Archaeology, VOh IN ANOLUTION AND PROGESS 27 nos wo nati ive populations and Europeans which "es and a new ethic. There is good reason preliminary formutations, Not all parallels need be Is need be based esse sequence. Thus Redfiel nat ie crucial methodological mentioned above, cert mati er only ested to omer, lien features are considered cz “tw Bae coed ooh es veer aid which te conte ame ta ome ns aay be accompany oes features are no | less evolutionary from a sci sequences involving w af ar oncwusions Cultural evotatio _Gulturat evolution may be regarded either as a special type of a8 a parbicular methodology or approach. ms of the nineteenth-century sunilinear the assumption that al unrelated sequences. This28 titEony oF cuLTURE CHANGE gent, except as diffusion tends to level differences. This disagreement ‘concerning fundamental historical fact 1s reflected 1m cultural tax- ‘onomy. The major categonr ear evolutionists are primatily developmental stages appl cultures; those of the ts and particularists are culture areas or traditions, The rence in point of view also involves the very logic of science. The evolutionists were deductive, a priori, schematic, and largely “The relativists are phenomenological and esthetic. hh has accumulated a mass of evidenee une contentfon that particular cultures which overw nature of any culture. They concede that particular cultuzes have distinguishing features caused by ivengent development an different arcas as well as by the stage of development, but they now profess to be interested in the evotution of ‘culture genetically considered and not of cultures, Their reconstruction of world culture history 4s, as. matter of fact. made in such terms as to be quite acceptable to everyone. No one doubts mg and gathering precede 14 herding, and, two were preconditions of ” whieh is jned by dense and stable social heterogene! of evidence now seems to support divergent ihe proposition that there are significant son, Nonetheless, MULTTLINEAR EVOLUUON: EVOLUTION AND PROCESS 29 ter 5, may be based upon f mn fw oF many featores and upon a vari number of diferent cultures, The developmental fonauation mex ‘involve long or short historical sequences. eee or that who are, ineresed in evolution is discredited, except as it provid: sng the particular rly im tal von would seem to be the search for laws ationships of particular phenomena which may recur cross-culturally but are not necessarily universal.2 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology nscenvs w eotoceat stuns J rk of ang fate con tm wat totes the cone feng Aton i elnge aan heapste deve for understanding of envionment 8 Io onder fo ditinguih he present cere antag fram tose umpled ithe concept of bloga oe rhe term cultural ecology is used. Since Ter erally undestond, i necessary to BER ihe lber concep of eoogy and ‘ot mupplement the wal ioral aP- sree Je Snatopelagy in eder to determine the crenive PROCESS taper of care tow enionment aor of cclogy is “adaptation to environment son to an already obscure term, tures in a particular unit of te gical meaning of ecology 18 “the ‘and their environment.” The 30 THE CONCEET AND METHOD OF CULTURAL FcoLoGy 31 concept of adaptive explain the origin of new i variations; and to do- ily employed with reference to biotic assemblages, logy has naturally been extended to include human -y are part of the web of life in most parts of the world. © ecological scene, however, not merely as another 1s related to other organisms an terms of his phi '. He introduces the super-organic factor of cul unit of territory is usu social ecology 1s regarded as a cology 1s considered an operat two quite different objectives are suggested: first, an understanding of the organic functions and genetic vaniations of man m to environment Each requires concepts and methods. ‘The first, or biological objective, involves several somewhat differ- cent problems, all of which, however, must view man in the web of life. Since man 1s a domesticated animal, he is affected physically by all his cultural actiities. The evolution of the Homninidae 1s closely related to the emergence of culture, while the appearance of Homo sapiens is probably more the result of cultural causes than of physical causes, The use of tools, fie, shelter, clothing, new foods, and other ‘material adjuncts of existence were obviously important in evolution, but social customs should not be overlooked. Social groups as de- termined by marriage customs as well as by econome a Particular environments have undoubtedly been eruciat in the differ- entiattons of locat populations and may even have contributed to the ‘emergence of varieties and subraces of men,92. mitmoRy oF CULTURE CHANOE ‘The problem of explaming man's cultural behavior i of a diffe onder than that of explaining his biological evolution, Cultura terms are not genetically derived as, terlor, cannes Pe Mle sm the same way as organic featu hough al ekg are so far as I can see, become ‘emphasis Pefaaton of cle per seas 26% caer” Ghjestve. Clare as merely acquired ge ees of many features of te Toca web of esp ax sll predominantly borowed from X= "ncipal conepi of bilostcal ecology and the tools of the assemblage of plants and animals which mteract within GBcial or human ecology emphasizes the human abstraction. If ifferent characteristics depending upon the pw hich Gefined, The tendency, however, has been to conceive of hum: biological communities in terms of the biolog ization, migrat logical co-operation, solr ce strictly auxiliary to survival ch atin many forms of symbions of he see ge donot react to the wef Hl solely through thei ote eqmpment Culture, ra Sccommodatin, and 38 -s) Moreover, the web of i ‘ations, and empires, the vironment and biotic assemblage. In states, nature of the Jal group is determined by these larger institutions no ess than by its local adaptations. Competition of one sort or another ‘may be present, but stare ef human communis ae rough use of cultural historical sieugh yt, explanations will be found th Roneepts and methods rather than biological conespt Nie shall show, historical methods alone are insuiffic "Many writers on social or human ecology have the need to ‘THE CONCEET AND METHOD OF CULTURAL. ReaLocy 93 1940). ‘This attempt to wholly distinct from other aspects is, of course, artificial. Bates (195: the importance of culture an determ bbut he does not make clear whet! ‘explain the range of man’s biol so-called Chicago schoo! of Park, Burgess, and also primarily interested in communities of human urban communities. Their methodology as applied other cities treat the components of each as if they were gi determined species. In analyzing the zoning of a modern city, categontes as retail businesses, wholesale houses, manufacturing firm: and residences of various ki rate of delinquency, are considered as if each were a the urban area, Such studies are extremely enlightening as descriptive analysis of spacial distributions of kinds of activities Amer ‘They do not, however, necessarily throw any world-wide ecological urban adaptations, for in other cultures and periods city zoning followed very different cultural societies arising from these functions, was precluded by the culture A fundamental sox problem 1s involved in these different ‘meanings attached to ecology. Is the objective to find univers for processes, or as it to explain special phenomena? In biology, the Jaw of e af id the auxiliary princaptes of ecotogy are applicable fe regardless of the species and physical environments tudes, there 1s a similar effort to discover rocesses of cultural change, But such processes cannot be ie science problem of explaining the origin of unlike behavior patterns found among differ~Sete sce ec svnennnnnnnnnnnnnnrrnrrnennneineeereereererrereereereere rege 3k THeoRY OF CULTURE CHLAXGE ext sot of the numa ee ey ifr rom he poems ee Gvlawon, Analyemg envroetal adaptations fl eee a very differer watter than seck~ on Unt the process of portnlrs exemple tte weld a onlin o ing universal cultural ecology are understood in the by different culture universal processes Hawley, who has given the most recent and co ‘ment of social ecology (Hawley, 1950), takes into account far more than reacts to the web of life asa Jogical species. “Each acquisition of a new for an old technique, regardless of the source of its origin, al relations with the organisms about him and changes his p ith the totality ‘we had sufficient knov!- ‘compare the structure of ize from smallest to largest, we phenomena —each amcre~ ‘advance in the compleaty of the kind of self-evident ‘eultural progress 1 over-all edge of a preliterate peoples to enable residence groups arranged an order of Id undoubtedly observe the accompanied by nn” (Hawley, 1950: 197) und other general features. ‘uncertain 1m hit position regarding the effect of ‘mental adaptations on culture. He states: “The weight of forces the conclusion that the pl 1950: 190). ‘The first state- accepted anthropological teal factors are more important than envi 1 factors, which may be permissive or prohibitive of ut are never causative, ‘The second is nearer to the thesis faper that cultural ecological adaptations constitute creative {THE CONOEPT AND METHOD OF CULTURAL EcoLoOY 35 (CULTURE, HISTORY AND ENVIRONMENT While the human and social ecologists have seemingly sought uni- I principles and relegated culture im its local varie to a secondary place(gnthropologists have heen so preoceupied Wi ‘Owing in part to reaction against the “environmental such as Huntington and Semple, and in part to cur lative evidence that any culture increases m complexity to a large ‘extent because of diffused practices, the orthodox view now holds that, history, rather than adaptive processes, explams culture. Since his- xplanations” of culture employ the culture area conc} there 1s an apparent contradiction. The culture area is a const ‘of behavioral uniformities which occur within an area of environ- mental uniformities. It is assumed that cultural and maturai areas are generally coterminous because the culture represents an adjustment to the particular environment. It 1s assured further, however, that varl- ous different patterns may exist m any natural area and that unlike cultures may exist in similar environments ‘The cultural-histoncal approach is, however, also one of relativism. Since cultural differences are not directly attributable to enviton- mental differences and most certainiy not to organic or racial differences, they are merely said to represent divergences in cultural history, to reflect tendencies of societies to develop in unlike ways.) Such tendencies are not explained. A distinctive pattern developsrit™ is said, and henceforth is the primary determinant of whether snno- vations are accepted. Environment.1s relegated to a purely secondary and passive role._It 1s considered prohibitive or permissWG, But not Greative. Tallows man to carry on some kinds of activities and it prevents others. The origins of these activities ate pushed back to a remote point im time or space, but thev are not explained. This view has been best expressed by Forde, who writes:‘particular methods of hunting or 36° THEORY oF CULTURE CHANGE out. The peoples of fines th se are parts ‘cuLTURAL EcoLooy Cultural ecology differs from human and social ecology 1n_ seeking _ to explain the origin of particular cultural features and patterns charactenze different areas rather than to derive general prin to any cultural-environmental ‘2 social supers Goned not only by the totmaatons of habitat and inole continents nave failed to n obvious. Equally amportant religious concepts its own fabric and by external igh 1 situation. It di comes from.cultute. ‘cultural ecology presents both a problem and a method? The problem that it antroduces the local environment ‘m_the fruitless assumption that culture 1s to ascertain whether the adjustments cenviyonments require ps jcalar modes of of human sotigies to their permit latitude for a certain range of possible behavior patterns Phrased in this way, the problem also distinguishes cultural ecology from environmental determinism” and ff behavior or whether 2 related theory “economic ‘ever, through use of ang to the holistic view, ‘dependent upon one a however, are not the same the concept of eutural core — _most closely related to subsistence. Zmgnts, The core includes such social and religious patteriy ‘as are empincally determined to be closely connected with those arrangements. Innumerable other features may have great potential variability because they are les strongly tied to the cone. These later, or secondary features, are determined to a greater extent by purely culturat-historical factors —by random innovations or by diffusion — and they give the appearance of outward distinctiveness to cultures ‘with similar cores Ciltural ecology pars pmary attention to those ‘analysis shows to be most closoty involved in preseribed way: cd ways" must be taken with caution, for sts anthropological usage 1 frequently “loaded.” The normative concept, which views culture az a system of mutually remforcing practices backed by a set of atttudes and values, seems to regard all human behavior as so completely determined by culture that environmental adaptations have no effect. It considers that the entire pattern, land use, land tentire, and social features derive ef tations of the primacy of tudes over common sense are that the Chinese do not drink milk nor the Eskimo eat seais 1. summer. ‘Cultures do, of course, tend to perpetuate themselves, and change may be stow for such ressons as those cited. But over the millema cultures mn different environments have changed tremendously, and these changes are basically traccable to new adaptations required by ‘changing technology and productive arrangements. Despite occa- ‘sonal culturai barriers, the useful arts have spread extremely widely, land the instances in which they have not been accepted because of preexisting cultural patterns are insignificant. In_pre-agricultural which comprised perhaps 99 per cont of cultural history, tech= n of featurce which ate ic arrange nical devices for hunting, gathering, and fish largely to the limits of their usefuines Iubs, spears, traps, bows, ral features spread across38 iteonY OF CULTURE CHANGE the world, Later, domes- many areas, and some of them throughout the worl domes. fieated plants and animals also spread very rapidly within thet Cavironmental limits, being stopped only by formidable ocean barncrs ‘Whether or not new technologie ane vatuale i, owen & a tion of the society’ entturalfvel as well a8 of environmental pose tials. All pre-agnicultural societies found hunting and gathering chin the geographical limits of herding at advanced techmques, stain pre-conditions, such as stable population, leisure time, and int present. These conditions could develop only fro rural society: “The concept of gultural-ecalogy, however, 18 less concerned with hibitive with respect to these technologies, may require social adaptations which have far-reaching consequences. “Thus, societies equipped wath bows spears, surrounds, chutes, Bush burning, deadfalls, pit ner hunting demces may differ among themselves because of the of the terrain aed faunas the principal game exsts in large voch as ends of biton oF ‘caribou, there 1s advantage in co-op ‘hunting, an ‘numbers of peoples may remain together t escribed in Chapter 8. If, however. the game is nonmigratory, ceurring in small and scattered groups, its better hunted by small fgroups of men who know their territory well (Chapter 7). In each fase, the cultural repertory of hunting devices anay be about the same. 'm the first case the society will consst of Tineage groups, as among the Athabaskans and Algonk and probably the pre-horse Plains bison hunt cease it will probably consist of lo¢ ‘as among the Bushmen, Congo Negritocs, At hers. These latter groups matter of fact, not =the Bushmen, At rts, the Negntoc srea—but because the nature of the game mnce problem is the same in each case and therefore of 1 ‘Other societics having about the same technological equipment may exhibit other social patterns because the enwronments differ to THE CONCEPT AND stbTHoD OF CULTURAL EeoLODY 50 ‘the extent that the cultural adaptations must be different. For ex- ample, the Eskimo use bows, spears, traps, containers and other wide- spread technological devices, but, owing to the limited occurrence of fish and sea mammals, their population is so sparse and co-operative hhunting is s0 relatively unrewarding that they are usually dispersed 1m family groups. For a different but equally compelling reason the Nevada. Sh (Chapter 6) were also fragmented into fa ‘groups. In the fatter case, the scarcity of game and the predomi of seeds as the subsistence basis greatly restricted economic ¢o-opera- tnon and required dispersal of the society into fairly mdependent nil groups. a Tn the examples of the primitive hunting, gathering, and fishing’ 7 1s easy to show that if the local environment 1s to be explonted by means of the culturally-derived techniques, there ate | { Timuations upon the wae and social composition of the gioups in-_ | { volved. When agricultural techniques are mtroduced, man 1s partially eed from the exigencies of hunting and gathering, and st becomes daptauve processes we have described are properly designated ecological. But attention is directed not simply to the human com- munity as part of the total web of life but to such cultural features as are affected by the adaptations. This m turn requires that primary attention be paid only to relevant environmental features rather to the web of life for its own sake. Only those features to hi local culture ascribes amportance need be considered. {WE METHOD OF CULTURAL ECOLOGY Although the concept of environmental adaptation underlies all cultural ecology, the procedures must take into account the complex- ity and level of the it makes a great deal of difference history.40 vHEony oF CULTURE cHaxcE rocedures of cultural ecology are as follows: tive or productive technology struments for hunting and 1g food: transportational ing, and a great important tas cul j and yet these productive arrangement as cl originally were probably more often effects of baste adaptations tha ater, thereto, tend 0 ag : ‘Hunt ‘THE CONCEPT AND METHOD OF CULTURAL EoOLOGY 41 Similarly, if circumstances permit, fishing may be done by groups of men using dams, weirs, traps, and ne floraand fauna. Deer cannot be hunted whereas antclope and bison inay best is way. Slash-and-burn farming in tropical rain forests requires comparatwely little co-operation m that @ few men clear the land after which thew vaves plant and cultivate the crops. Dry farming may or may not be co-operative: and 1 farming may run the gamut of enterprises of ever-mereasing size based on collective construction of waterworks. ‘The exploitatwe patterns not only depend upon the habits con- cemed im the production of food and of goods but upon facilities for transporting the people to the source of supply or. the goods to the people. Watercraft have been a major factor in permait- lung the growth of settlements beyond what would have been por for a foot people. Among all nomads, the horse has had an a Fevolytionary effect in promoting the growth of large bands T procedure is to ascertain the extent to which the be- havior cntailed an exploiting the environment affect other aspects of cule] Although technology and environment prescribe at cern things ase one i carbon mays ter ne eee tionally tied to other aspects of culture is a purely empirical problem, I have shown elsewhere (Chapters 6, 7, 10) that the occurrence of pat osite hunting band to a society based upon moieties and inherited ithout any change in the nature of subsistence. In the sie wuons (Chapter 11) the sequence of soci0- Political forms or cultural cores seems to have been very similar espite variation m many outward details or sceondary features of these cultures. If it can be established that the productive arrange- acne peri Areal latitude in the sociocultural type, then histoncal_ inficices may. expla. the particular. tis Found, The problem i the “same nt izations. The question 3s Same ia Considering modem industrial i lows such latitude that political democracy, communism, state socialism, and perhaps other forms are equally pos,ee ES 42. TieonY oF CULTURE cHANOE so that strong historical snfluences, such s diffused ideology — eg. propaganda —may supplant one type with x oF whether each type represents an adaptation which is specific to the area, ‘The third procedure requires a genuinely be ne such factors as demography, settlement pat 3 separatel cannot be grasped. Land use by means of a given technology spulation density, The clustering of this population ‘upon where resources oceéur and upon transporta- ‘he composition of these clusters will be a function of Levels of Sociocultural Integration: peta of subaitence. An Operational Concept s. The ownership of land or 's on the one hand and the composition ‘out of competition for re Even when fought for shanges. In a larger sense, the probe adjustments occur in similar environment velopment, but abandon the unique methods of ‘other social sciences. While there wportance of ecological adaptations its role m explaining hhas been greatly overestimated. The extent to which the large categories of types parative be formulated in terms of similar levels and similar adaptations. 8