The mind of primitive man

by Franz Boas

This is obviously not true, for the forms of culture of peoples living in the same kind of environment show often marked differences. I do not need to illustrate this by comparing the American settler with the North American Indian, or the successive races of people that have settled in England, and have developed from the Stone Age to the modern English. It may, however, be desirable to show that even among primitive tribes, geographical environment alone does not by any means determine the type of culture. Proof of this fact may be found in the mode of life of the hunting and fishing Eskimo and the reindeer-breeding Chukchee (Bogoras); the African pastoral Hottentot and the hunting Bushmen in their older, wider distribution (Schultze); the Negrito and the Malay of southeastern Asia (Martin).

A second and more important element to be considered is the social status of each people, and it would seem that environment is important only in so far as it limits or favors the activities that belong to any particular group. It may even be shown that old customs, that may have been in harmony with a certain type of environment, tend to survive under new conditions, where they are of disadvantage rather than of advantage to the people. An example of this kind, taken from our own civilization, is our failure to utilize unfamiliar kinds of food that may be found in newly settled countries. Another example is presented by the reindeer-breeding Chukchee, who carry about in their nomadic life a tent of most complicated structure, which corresponds in its type to the older permanent house of the coast dwellers, and which contrasts in the most marked way with the simplicity and light weight of the Eskimo tent (Bogoras). Even among the Eskimo, who have so marvellously well succeeded in adapting themselves to their geographical environment, we may recognize customs that prevent the fullest use of the opportunities offered by the country, an example of which is the law forbidding the promiscuous use of caribou-meat and of seal-meat (Boas).

Thus it would seem that environment has an important effect upon the customs and beliefs of man, but only in so far as it helps to determine the special forms of customs and beliefs. These are, however, based primarily on cultural conditions, which in themselves are due to historical causes.

At this point the students of anthropo-geography who attempt to explain the whole cultural development on the basis of geographical environmental conditions are wont to claim that these historical causes themselves are founded on older conditions, in which they have originated under the stress of environment. It seems to my mind that this claim is inadmissible as long as the investigation of every single cultural feature demonstrates that the influence of environment brings about a certain degree of adjustment between environment and social life, but that a complete explanation of the prevailing conditions, based on the action of environment alone, is never possible. We must remember, that, no matter how great an influence we may ascribe to environment, that influence can become active only by being exerted upon the mind; so that the characteristics of the mind must enter into the resultant forms of social activity. It is just as little conceivable that mental life can be explained satisfactorily by environment alone, as that environment can be explained by the influence of the people upon nature, which, as we all know, has brought about changes of water-courses, the destruction of forests, and changes of fauna. In other words, it seems entirely arbitrary to disregard the part that psychical elements play in determining the forms of activities and beliefs which occur with great frequency all over the world.

The second theory that has been advanced to explain the sameness of a number of fundamental ideas and inventions is based on the assumption that they represent old cultural achievements belonging to a period previous to the general dispersion of the human race.

This theory is based on the universal distribution of certain cultural elements. Obviously it can apply only to features that occur the world over; for, if we should admit the loss of some of them in the course of historical development, the door would be open to the most fanciful conclusions. A few ethnological data seem to favor this theory, and make us inclined to believe that some of the universal traits of culture may go back to a very early time before that dispersion of mankind which is demanded on biological grounds. Most important among these is perhaps the occurrence of the dog as a domesticated animal in practically all parts of the world. It is true that in all probability native wild dogs constitute the principal ancestry of the dogs of the various continents; but nevertheless, it seems plausible that the living-together of man and dog developed in the earliest period of human history, before the races of northern Asia and America separated from those of southeastern Asia. The introduction of the dingo (the native dog) into Australia seems to be most easily explained when we assume that it accompanied man to that remote continent.

Other very simple activities may perhaps be derived from achievements of the earliest ancestors of man. The art of fire-making, of drilling, cutting, sawing, work in stone, belonged probably to this early age, and may have been the heritage on which each people built up its own individual type of culture (Weule). If archæological investigations should show that implements and other evidences of human achievement are found in a geological period during which mankind had not attained its present world-wide distribution, we should have to infer that these represent the early cultural possessions of man, which he carried with him all over the world. In this lies the great and fundamental importance of the eolithic finds that have been discussed so extensively during the last few years. Language is also a trait common to all mankind, and one that therefore may have its roots in earliest times.

The activities of the higher apes seem to favor the assumption that certain arts may have belonged to man before his dispersion. Their habit of making nests, that is, habitations, the use of sticks and stones, point in this direction.

All this makes it plausible that certain cultural achievements date back to the origin of mankind. The defenders of this theory, like Weule and Graebner, also believe that a sporadic occurrence of certain inventions like the boomerang, among races that are held to be akin in descent, may have originated before the differentiation and dispersion of these races.

In the case of many of the phenomena which may be explained from these points of view, it is quite impossible to give incontrovertible arguments which would prove that these customs are not due to parallel and independent development rather than to community of origin: the decision of this problem will be found largely in the results of prehistoric archæology on the one hand, and in those of animal psychology on the other.