theory neo evolution

8/10/2019 theory neo evolution

1/15

On Julian Steward and the Nature of Culture

Author(s): Mary W. HelmsSource: American Ethnologist, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 170-183Published by: Wileyon behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643743.

Accessed: 15/05/2014 03:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

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

.

WileyandAmerican Anthropological Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toAmerican Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.26.196.190 on Thu, 15 May 2014 03:15:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643743?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643743?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/15

on Julian Steward and the nature of culture

MARYW. HELMS-NorthwesternUniversity

Evolution

and

Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H.

Steward.

JANE

C.

STEWARD and ROBERT F. MURPHY, Eds. Robert

F.

Murphy, introduction. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1977. ix

+

406

pp., illustrations. $12.95 (cloth).

In his last years Julian Steward planned to prepare a volume much like Theory

of

Culture

Change (Steward 1955),

based on

various

papers he had prepared and published

during the 1960s. He did not live to complete this task. Consequently, Jane Steward, with

the assistance of Robert Murphy, compiled Evolution and Ecology, a commemorative

collection

of

Steward's papers intended

as

a retrospective

of

his professional interests,

theories,

and

ideas. The

seventeen

papers that, together

with

an introduction by Murphy,

compose the volume achieve

this

goal

well

and invite reflection on the man, his contribu-

tion,

and

his

era.

The papers presented

in

Evolution

and

Ecology

show

no

overlap

with

the articles

that

compose Theory of Culture Change, although many of the same topics are considered

in

the

constituent essays.

Two

papers are published here

for

the first time: Wittfogel's

Irrigation Hypothesis, a reflection on the concept of the hydraulic society; and

Modernization in Traditional Societies, part of a chapter that Steward had originally

intended

as an introduction

to

Contemporary Change

in

Traditional Societies (Steward

1967),

but that was never

published.

Five

articles

predate Theory

of

Culture

Change:

Determinism

in

Primitive

Society? ; the well-known The Direct Historical Approach

to

Archaeology ; Function

and

Configuration

in

Archaeology ; Concepts and Methods of

Area Research

(from Steward 1950);

and a little-known

work

entitled

The

Ceremonial

Buffoon

of

the

American

Indian,

a shortened version

of

Steward's

doctoral

dissertation,

that

first

appeared

in

1931 in

volume

14 of

the

Papers

of the

Michigan

Academy

of

Science,

Arts,

and Letters.

Ten

of

the

papers reprinted

in Evolution and

Ecology postdate

Theory

of

Culture

Change.

Included

here

are, among others,

The

Concept

and

Method

of Cultural Ecology (reprinted from Sills 1968); Cultural Evolution in South America

(reprinted

from Goldschmidt

and

Hoijer 1970);

Carrier Acculturation: The Direct His-

torical

Approach (reprinted

from

Diamond

1961);

Limitations

of

Applied Anthropol-

ogy:

The Case

of

the

Indian

New Deal

(from

the

Journal

of the

Steward

Anthropologi-

cal Society,

volume

1, 1969);

and The

Foundations of

Basin-Plateau Shoshonean

Society (first published

in

Swanson

1970).

Some

of

these

essays, particularly

those written after the

publication

of

Theory

of

Culture

Change, present

refinements

and corrections in

previously published

data

and

interpretation.

In other

instances Steward

reaffirms the

validity

of

his earlier

approaches

in

reply

to

new directions

of

anthropological thought.

In

general,

the

essays

in Evolution

and

Ecology

reveal

a

scholar

who

remained

in

touch with the

flow of

his

discipline

to

an

exceptional degree

and whose later

writings

can be read with

profit

for

their

maturity

of

thought

and

for

the

cautionary perspectives

derived

from a

long

and fruitful

career.

By

the same

token some

themes

remain

unfortunately

consistent

over

the

years. Steward,

in

fact, appears very

much as

a man

of

his time.

Like other

theorists

of

cultural

change,

past

170 american ethnologist

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

and

present, his major

works

illuminate

a

particular

era in

American

anthropology as

much as

they

have

pioneered

new directions. This is to

say that,

whereas the

papers

composing Theory

of Culture

Change

stimulated

the

anthropological

community

of

the

1950s

with

their forceful

developmental

and

ecological perspective,

o a readerof the

late

1970s the papers presented

in Evolution and

Ecology

invite

consideration of

Steward's

contribution within a more restrainedand more historicalperspective.The methodologi-

cal

and theoretical

frontiers that were

stimulating

n the 1955

publication

have

provided

foundations in the

succeeding

decades

for

still newer directions in

anthropology that,

however,

now make

more apparent

not

only

the

insights

but

also some

of

the limitations

in Steward's

work.

culture

and

environment

The

variance

n perspectives

argely

reflects differences in

the

anthropological limate

of opinion between the Second WorldWarand immediate postwar era and the current

decade

of

the 1970s.

During

he immediate

postwar

decades some trends in North

Ameri-

can

anthropology

were

reaching

their

apogee

while

other,

heretofore

nascent,

directions

were in

the ascendancy, though

not

yet fully

realized. World

War 11and its

aftermath

bluntly

revealed the

impact

of

industrial

societies

on

technologically

less

sophisticated

peoples

and,

in

anthropologicalcircles,

forced

prewarconcepts

of

cultural

relativism

o

give way

to a

growing

recognition

of

culturaldominanceand a

renewedconcern

with the

development

of

complex

societies

(see

Wolf

1964).

After

the

fury

of world

war the

traditional, elf-contained,

all-encompassingoncept

of

culture, long

the

underlyingprem-

ise

of

Boasian

anthropology,

was at the

height

of

its

anthropological

mpact, combating

psychological

reductionism

as

its

majorprotagonist

or

the

explanation

of social

behavior

(see

Kaplan 1965).

At the same

time, however,

the

traditional

concept

of

culture

was

changing, loosening

a bit to

accommodate

a

growing

interest

in

the functional

interrela-

tionships

of

particular

ultural

phenomena

with

biological

and

environmental

actors. But

concepts involving

environment, although by

no means

absent in Boasian

anthropology

(see

Hatch

1973a),

were still

relatively

unfamiliar

to

many

anthropologists

and

held

explanatorypotential

still to be realized.

During

the current decade the

significance

accorded

environmental actors in anthro-

pological paradigms

has

grown

tremendously,

while

in

some

anthropologicalcircles the

traditionalconcept of culture showssignsof decliningas a heuristicdevice. Indeed,where

previously,

in

the

first half

of

the

twentieth

century, concepts

of

cultureprovided

both

a

theoretical

and an

ideological

base for the

discipline,today

a

similar

heoretical-ideologi-

cal focus on

(natural)

environmental

concepts,

reflected in the

general

use

of

the term

ecology,

characterizes a

significant

sector

of

the

anthropologicalcommunity.

This

change

in

focus

has come about

perhaps

to

strengthenanthropological cientific

creden-

tials,

as

Harris

uggests 1968:655),

or

perhaps

because

of

the

uncomfortable

mplications

of

inevitabledisaster if the

contemporary

world

of

nuclear

superpowers

and

of

growing

population

and

resource

imbalances s

interpreted

n

culturological

terms

(see

Anderson

1973:206,

21

2-215).

The bulk of Steward'swork falls in a middleground,a transitionperiod,a time of

significant

transformation

n

American

anthropology

when a

discipline

strongly

identified

by concepts

of

culture

was

moving

toward a new

rapprochement

with

the

concept

of

ecology.

Steward's

work and

thought played

a

major part

in

effecting

this shift.

His

insight

did much

to

provide

a

bridge

between traditional

acceptance

of

concepts

of

culture and

contemporary

attitudes focused

on

an

ecological perspective.

Not

surpris-

on

Julian Steward 171



4/15

ingly,

during the yearsof this

transitionera itself, the

years also

of Steward'sprofessional

career, the analytic

view that developed,

and that

he himself did much

to shape and

express,

was largely

dualistic in perspective

as relationships

were recognized between

select

cultural practices and particular

biological

andenvironmental

actors. In Steward's

work this dualism

was patternedin several

ways. Aspects of culture

could

be combined

with interpretationsof the naturalenvironment o createa singleparadigmwith whichto

analyze

a

given society, as

in the concept

of culturalecology.

As a corollary to

this

approach

we

find

a reworkingof the

holistic concept of culture

to provide a contrast

between

the environmentally

related cultural

core and additional

nonadaptive secon-

dary

cultural features.

Environmental

actors and cultural factors

also could be applied

in different degreesto differing

types of society, as

in Steward'sview of

native or tribal

peoples as primarily

ubject

to ecologicalrequirements

while complex societies

were

more

stronglyshaped by

purely

cultural

(nonbiological,

nonenvironmental)eatures.

In accordance

with the general

anthropological

climate of

opinion of the postwar

years, however,

Steward's

dualism

had

distinct

leanings towardthe cultural

side of the

equation;which is to say, the usefulnessof concepts of ecology and environment ay in

what they

could tell about the

nature

of culture. Although the

attractionof Steward's

concept

of

cultural

ecology when it was

first presented ay in its

emphasison opening

the

concept of the superorganic

o include noncultural,

cologicalperspectives,

his intellectu-

al roots

in more traditional

culturalpostures

of the disciplineremained

visible

throughout

his career(see Hatch

1973b: 118-123). His

acceptance

of the heuristicvalue

of a concept

of culture in general

was clearly a legacy

of his grounding

n Boasiananthropology

as

interpreted

by

A.

L.

Kroeber

and

Robert

Lowie,

under

whose

guidanceStewardpursued

graduatestudy

at Berkeley

in the late 1920s. Indeed, a really

adequate

analysis of

Steward's

various

contributions also

requires

assessment

of

the work of both

Lowie

and

Kroeber.1Manyof Steward'sbasicassumptionsregardingquestionsof typology and the

classification

of cultures, the

validity

of

cross-culturalomparisons,

he natureof causa-

tion, and

the

character

of

primitive

societies and complex civilizations

were firmly

rooted in Kroeber's

and

Lowie's anthropology.

Steward

refined and

redirected

he Kroe-

berian

and Lowien

positions

on

these

matters

and,

most

significantly,gave

them

(or

portions

of

them)

a

theoretical

unity

through

concepts

of

environment and

ecology

stimulated

in

part

by

his

college major

in

zoology

and

geology

and the influence

of the

cultural geographer

Carl Sauer

at

Berkeley.

In

so

doing,

Steward

successfully

transformed

a number

of

prewar

historical-particularistopics

into

major

concerns

of a more

func-

tionalist

postwar

anthropology.

At the presenttime, however,when ecologicalstudies of one type or anotherare the

focus

of

so much

anthropological

interest and

work,

Steward's

pioneering

efforts

to

introduce

environmental

actors

into the

study

of

society

are rather

nfrequently

cited

in

specific

ecological

case

studies, though prominently

referred o in theoretical

essays

and

general surveys

of the field.

This

situation,

which

was remarked

upon

by

Shimkin

a

decade

ago (1964:12-16),

may

reflect

Steward's

strong emphasis

on culture as the

more

important

element

of his

ecological equations.

In recent

years

there

has been a

discernible

trend

in

anthropological

circles

toward

narrowing

the

concept

of culture

so that

it

includes

less

and reveals

more

(Keesing

1974:73).

One finds

among anthropological

ecologists

in

particular

considerable

variation

in the

degree

to which the

concept

of

culture

is

used

in

contemporary

ecological

studies and uncertaintyas to its place, if any,

as a heuristic

device

in

ecological

analyses (see

Damas

1969:180-183;

Vayda

and

Rappa-

port 1968;

and

Anderson

1973).

The

tendency

among

the new

ecologists

is to delete

a

concept

of

culture

from

ecological analyses

as much

as

possible,

or, perhaps

better

said,

to

merge

culture

with environment

so that distinctions

between the two blur and

fade

172 american

thnologist



5/15

and

tend

to

disappear.

Those

aspects

of

human ife

styles

of

interest to

ecologicalanthro-

pologists are reduced instead

to

another form of

adaptive animal behavior

and man

becomes another organism

illing

a

niche within the

ecosystem.

Culture, n turn, becomes

the referent

primarily

for the

symbolic

side

of

human

behavior (see

Anderson 1973:

212-215; Vayda and Rappaport

1968:492-497; Keesing

1974:74-77; Moore

1974).

Steward himself voiced concern for the implications of this current trend toward

interpretingthe behavior

of

mankind

as

relatively

rather

than

absolutely (qualitatively)

different from other animals(see Manners

1973:895-896). He made it

quite clear

that, in

his

opinion, man was distinctive as

a culture-bearing nimal

and, more importantly, the

study of

his lifeways, including

his

material

needs,

was

basically

a

study

of

culture. Man

enters the

ecological

scene

. . . not

merely

as

another

organism

which is

related to other

organisms n terms

of

his

physical

characteristics.He

introduces the

superorganic

actor

of

culture which also affects and

is

affected

by

the

total web of

life (Steward

1955:31).

The

heuristic

value

of

the

ecological

viewpoint

is to

conceptualize

noncultural

phenom-

ena that are relevant to

processes

of

cultural evolution

(p. 44).

Furthermore,

while the

humancapacityfor cultureand the resultantculturalevolution reston biologicalprecon-

ditions, the

fact

that

cultural

evolution is

an

extension

of

biological

evolution does

not

imply

that cultural

evolution

follows

the

principles

of

biological

evolution

(p. 69).

order from

diversity

One

of

Steward'sdualistic

ecological

approaches,

hat in

which the

social

arrangements

of

a

given

society

are

shaped by

the

interactionof

technology

and

the behavioral

patterns

of work (the cultural

core)

with

select features

of

the

natural

environment,

particularly

subsistence resources,has also frequently been criticized by contemporaryecological

anthropologists.

It is faulted as

too

restrictive and thus unsuited

to

the much

broader

systemic approach

currently

in

vogue,

which

perceives

a

constantly fluctuating

inter-

dependency

of a multitude

of

behavioral,

environmental,

even

cognitive

elements,

all

of

which are to

some

degree

or at some times

causally significant

within the

ecosystem.

Although

in

his later

writings

Steward

recognized

the

validity

of

widening

the

range

of

effective environmental

forces

(p. 45),

he

always

remained selective in

his choice

of

socioeconomic

and

environmental

actors

and

regarded

he

simpler

societies affected

by

these

factors

to

be

integrated by

them

only up

to a

point,

for an

aggregate

f

secondary,

nonadaptive

raits were

recognized

as

part

of the

culture

pattern

of

a

society,

too. It

must be remembered,however,that when Stewardpostulatedthe primacyof a restricted

cultural core

he

was

not, strictlyspeaking,

concerned with

ecological problemsper

se and

he

was

responding

o an

anthropological

milieu

that

no

longer weighs

as

immediately

or

as

heavily

on us

today.

Prior to and

during

Steward's

years

of

graduatetraining

n the late

1920s

and in the

early years

of his

professional

career n the

1930s,

anthropologists

were

quite

uneasy

over

the theoretical

limitations of

the

purely

descriptive,highly particularistic

evel

of

Boasian

historicism,

which viewed

cultures as

congeries

of

diffused

or

locally

invented traits. A

search

for

conceptual

frameworks

that could

elucidate

more

general

theories was well

under

way. Steward put

forth

his

concept

of

culturalecology

as a contributiontoward

this goal, encouraged no doubt by Lowie's recognition with respect to kinship that

parallel

unctional

relationships

did

exist,

at

least

to

a limited

degree, andthat a measure

of

order could be

empiricallyrecognized

n the

cultural

domain

(see Murphy1972:65). In

other

words,

the

initial

step away

from Boasian

particularism

equired

a

searchfor cross-

cultural

similarities

to

reduce

the

perception

of total

variation n

cultural

traits to a

more

on JulianSteward

173



6/15

manageable

orm. Steward'spostulateof

an

adaptivecultural

core (as distinguished rom

diffused secondary eaturesor

outer embellishments )was intended to reveal

a degree

of

functional

interrelatednesswithin a sector of culture

that seemed to be leastaffected

by historical

vicissitudesand to facilitate

a discrete cross-culturalomparisonof

regular-

ities (Steward

1955:88).2 It was, therefore, a notable

contribution to the perceived

theoretical

shortcomingsof the traditionaldiscipline. It

is not surprising hat contempo-

rary ecological analysis, which is not faced with creating order out of a shredsand

patches view of culture and

which

is not greatly concerned

with problemsof cross-cul-

tural

comparisons, finds little

commonality with Steward's necessarily selective

and

restrictive

paradigm.

Steward's

own dualistic

ecological interpretations

were

sometimesweakened

or at least

limited

by his dismissal

of

so-calledsecondary eatures

as nonadaptive raits. Mostserious

here was

his treatment of social organization,

in which, in his general views,

he was

strongly

influenced

by

Lowie. Steward

rejected

as

secondary many

forms

of

supracom-

munity

and

suprafamilial

ocial

organization(including

clans, moities,

and

religious

and

secular associations)

which

seemed

to show

tremendous

diversity among societies

and

which, he

felt, could not be placed

into ordered patternsshowing adaptive significance.

He

focused

insteadon the fundamentalmportance of

the nuclear amily as anadaptive

element.

Lowie,

who

emphasized

the

nuclear

(bilateral) amily

as

the

absolutely

univer-

sal unit of human

society,

had

argued

that this unavoidableuniversalityrestedon the

biological

basis of

the

parent-child

unit, although

the

particularexpressions

of

parent-

hood and

childhood found in varioussocieties were

understandablen social, not biologi-

cal, terms (Lowie 1940:246, 251-252,

1947:63-67).

Steward

adopted

the

view

of the

essentially

noncultural basis

of

the nuclear

family

and,

if

anything, emphasized

its

biological

features more

strongly

than did his mentor.

For example, Steward stressed the groundingof the family in a biologicallyconceived

division

of labor and child rearing (p. 47), although Lowie, emphasizing

the

widely

varying sexual division of labor

so noticeable in family life, recognized that

strictly

cultural features were responsible (1947:74). Steward,

however, was seeking uniform

aspects

of human behavior

that

seemed

to

lie

outside the

vagaries

f

historical

particular-

ism,

and the

existence

of

such

biologically

determined factors

of

human

life as child

bearingaccordingly

attracted

his

attention,

as did

prolonged

human

growth

and

biologi-

cally (that

is, genealogically)

determined lines

of

relationship.

Factors such as these

made

it

apparent

to him

that

explanations

of human

behavior

should be

opened

to

include

fundamental

noncultural

actors.

The nuclear

family (though

admittedly

ethno-

graphically areasan independent ocial andresidentialunit, asStewardrecognized) n its

interrelationship

with

residence, kinship systems,

and

subsistence was thus considered

ecologically adaptive.

In

contrast, supracommunity

and

suprakinship

orms

of

social

organization,

which were

strictly

culture

traits

and thus

diffusable,

were

considered

non-

adaptive

and

secondary

in

the

ecological

context

(pp.

51, 146). Although

Steward

later

conceded

that the

nuclear

family

was also

determined at

least

in

part by

cultural actors

(pp. 119, 383),

he

maintained

his

emphasis

on

it

as the

focal

point

of his

kinship

and

ecological

analyses(pp. 382-383, 390).

Yet

here again

it

is

well to

remember

the task

that Steward faced

and also

the

conditions

of

fieldwork

in

which

he first

worked, for,

as

Murphy

has

phrased t,

theories

emergefrom data just as much as data feeds from theory (1970:154). Inretrospectan

empirically

sound

approach

to the

new method

of cultural

ecology-and

Steward

was

empirically

ocused

almost

to a

fault-would

require

that the

simplest

andmost

obvious

examples,

that

is,

those

with fewest

variables,

be

investigated

irst.

By

accident of

field-

work

this,

in

fact,

occurred. The

nuclear

family,

the fundamentalhumansocial

unit,

was

174 american thnologist



7/15

evidenced

ethnographicallyamong

the

poverty-stricken

populations

of

Shoshoni,

among

whom both Lowie

and Steward

conducted

their first

fieldwork

(see

Murphy

1972:52;

Manners

1973:888, 890).

Furthermore,

t

was,

apparently,

the search

for

sparce

and

scattered subsistence resources

with

elementary exploitative

devices

(Steward

1949:672)

that

forced

the

dispersal

of these food

collectors into small clustersof

nuclear

families.Thus, the Shoshoni becamethe clearestexample of the primacyof the nuclear

family for

Lowie and of the association

of

the

behavior

of these familial units

with

subsistenceand environmental

equirements

or

Steward.

In Steward's

interpretation,

as

conditions moved

away

from

this

simplest

condition

of

band

life,

as resources

became more

abundant

and

technology

better

developed(particu-

larly as

hunting and

fishing

increasedand as

farming

allowed

food

production),

popula-

tion

increased,communities

grew

in

size,

and

greater

variation

and

elaboration

in

social

and ritual

patterns

could be

supported

(pp. 48,

135).

The social

and

religious

elaborations

themselves,

such as

clans,

moities,

age-grades

nd

other

forms of

associations,

were com-

patible with the

biological

constraints of

age

and

sex

characteristic

of

primitive

society,

but were still in the main diffused secondaryembroiderieson the basic social fabric

(pp.

51, 78).

Although Steward

admitted that such

social

elaborations were

permitted

by

richer

economies

and

could

become

functionally

intertwinedwith

subsistence

activi-

ties (p.

116),

he

noted

the

great

diversity

with which

they appeared

among

the

simpler

hunting,

fishing,

and horticultural

societies

whose

ecological

adaptations,

in

contrast,

showed

such

striking parallels.

Such

diversity

could

only

be

explained

by

historicaltradi-

tions that

made these

customs

available

by

diffusion.

Although

their

acceptance

and

patterning

n

any given

society

was

limited

by

the

particular

cological

situation,

they

did

not

form a

system

with

the

ecologically

adaptive

elements

(Steward

1949:674,

678).

the

native

and

the civilized

Had Steward

graspedthe

adaptive facet

of

these

broader

elements of social

organiza-

tion more

clearly

his

ecological

analyses

of

individual

ocieties

would

have been

signifi-

cantly deepened.

The considerable

gap

in his

work

between the

simplest

hunting-gather-

ing

bands and

horticultural

communities on the

one hand

and

complex states

on the

other also

might

have

been

more

adequately

illed.

As

it

was,

Stewardtended

in

a

number

of

his more

general

writings

to

emphasize the

strong

discontinuities,indeed the

qualita-

tive

differences,

between

socially

unadorned,

egalitarian

primitive ) ocieties

and inter-

nally specialized,class-structuredtates, althoughhe sensed that suchstructural ontrasts

could

be linked

by cumulative

processes such

as

demographic

growth and

population

nucleation

(pp. 79,

135,

141, 247).

In

this

context

Steward

turned from

the

relativismof

his

Boasian

predecessors o

the

comparative

dichotomies

developed by nineteenth

century

evolutionists and

revitalized

by Redfield:

societas

and

civitas, Gemeinshaftand

Gesellschaft,folk and

urban(p. 79).

Steward's

mid-twentieth

century interpretation

of

these idealized

contrasts of

human

experience

so

attractive

to

Western

evolutionary thought

became

another

version

of

his

dualist

perspective

of

environment

and

culture

in

which

native

society

evidencedprimar-

ily

biological

and

environmental

ecological) integrative

eatures

while

complex societies

were organized on strictly cultural

principles.

More

specifically,

native society

was still

significantlyresponsive

to

and influenced

by,

indeed

directlyorganized

upon, the strictly

biological constants

(sexual

union,

child

rearing,

the

long

human

life span)

that were

understood

to

underlie

marriage

and

the

family, that

purportedly

formed the

basis for

sexual division

of

labor,

and

that

emphasized the

importance of

age in role

structure.

On Jul

an Steward

175



8/15

These biological principles

could be modified and elaborated, but they

could rarely be

superseded or eliminated in the tribal world where purely culturological

(sociopolitical)

principleshad not taken complete

command.

Furthermore, t was in this milieu, where humansocieties were still strongly

responsive

to natural principles, that culturalecology operatedmost effectively,

for the particular

variations of family or kinship organizationdepended on the relationshipbetween a

particular echnology and environmental actors (pp. 5, 7, 76, 78). One

also senses in this

perspective an implication

that to Steward the concept of cultural ecology

may have

carried, or was associated with,

a more personal philosophicalview of the essential sim-

plicity or naturalness f unhamperednative life.

In complex states, however, Steward felt that cultural ecology became

increasingly

subsidiary

o

other processes that underliestate formation (p.79), essentially,

t appears,

because

no

single

nation-wideculturalcore

of

ecological relationships or, for that matter,

of any genuinely shared nationalbehavioror NationalCharacter) ould

be identified (pp.

87-99,

247,

262-263). Societies

based on internal specialization and hereditary social

classes are coordinated by new principlesof integration that are explicitly political in

nature and thus are entirely

cultural. Significant featuresof peoples' livesare regimented

now

by

state

controls, as power

over people rather than over natural resources

becomes

the focus

of

social organization.Although

the

family and household may

continue to be

organizedat least in part by

biological principlesof age and sex, these

are suppressedor

overshadowedas

the

local

community becomes part of a larger society. Similarly, the

interaction

with the naturalenvironment s modified

by

the

larger ocial

context (pp. 53,

146,

147,

249).

The

organization

and

operation

of

complex

societies in effect

mirrors

he influence of

man's creative capacity.

This

distinctly

cultural

ability

is

expressed

n scientific know-

ledge, state administration,religiousand aestheticdevelopments,and the application of

reason

n

elaborating echnological developments.These,

in

turn, provide

greater

ree-

dom

from

environmental

pressures

and

permit

a wider

range

of latitude for

various

sociopolitical types (pp. 52,

80-81;

Steward

1955:40-42).

Ecological

and

political processes

are,

we realize

now, intimately interdependent.Elu-

cidation

of

this

point

has

come most

strongly

from

analysis

of

the critical field

of

centralized

nonstate societies

(rank societies,

or

chiefdoms)

that

bridgeegalitarian

and

state

organizations

n

important

respects

and that

were

becomingrecognized

as

a

distinct

cultural

type during

the

postwar years.

Steward

anticipated

a number

of

definitive

ecological

and

political

characteristics

of these

societies

but

failed

to

grasp

their

func-

tional relationship.He recognizedthat such societies were organized argelyon the basis

of

class and integratedby religious priest-templecomplexes.

He noted that

special

and

delimited powers

were accorded chiefs

and

other

influential

persons

in

particular

on-

texts. He

recognized

the correlation

of

chiefdoms

with areas

of

rich

and

diverse natural

resources

capable

of

producing surpluses

bove

the

needs

of the

immediate

amily.

But

he attributed

the existence

and

the

operation

of

centralized

authority

to

historical

influences

that introduced

class

structuring

o a

particular ociety

and to diffused

pat-

terns

of

warfare

and

religious

cults

that introduced the

priests

who came to assume

secular

controls

(pp.

49,

138, 142;

Steward

1949:673, 674).

Alternatively,

Stewardcon-

sidered

such societies

to fall within the

category

of

states, which,

in his

interpretation,

became

a

very

broad

classification

of

centralizedsocieties

including

chiefdoms and

statelets

as

well

as

sultanates, mpires

and other varieties

p. 140).

Steward

appreciated

that

functional

relationships

existed between the

sociopolitical

and the

economic-ecological,

most

notably

in

the

context

of the influence of

complex

states

on local

communities,

in

which national

interests

anddirectivesaffected the

adap-

176 americanethnologist



9/15

tations of the local group

and the

region.

This

theme

appears

n a

number

of

his

works,

including the

Puerto Rican

project

and

analyses

of contact

experiences

of

variousnative

American groups. He also expressed this

perspective

more

broadly

in the

rather select

context

of

Wittfogelian-inspired

orrelations

concerning population

and

community

growth, managerial

ontrol of

irrigationagriculture,

nd the

development

of

earlyciviliza-

tions in the Middle

East, Asia,

and native America

(1955:178-209). In light of the

findings of later researchSteward

eventually recognized

the

need

for

revision in the

specifics

of

Wittfogel'shyphothesis

and in

his

own

original trialformulation, although

he

cautioned subsequent researchersnot to err in the opposite direction by discounting

too

greatly

the

importance

of

water

control

in

their

investigations

of

the

complex pro-

cesses underlying he originsand operations

of

ancient

states (pp. 87-99, 106, 129).

diversity redux

In actuality, of course, the significance of Steward's nitial study of complex societies

(irrigationcivilizations) lay not so much in

the matter of economic-political onjunctions

but

in

its strong exemplification of his particular oncept of multilinear volution. ,3

The

utility of

the

method and

theory

of cultural

ecology lay

in the elucidation of

examples of multilinear evolution in terms of parallelecological adaptations.This is to

say (again) that

in

Steward's

view

the anthropological ignificanceof the naturalenviron-

ment and those elements of culture directly involvedwith its exploitation (culturalcore)

lay

in

the greater ease and clarity with which functional order could be analytically

perceived

there

(see Murphy1970),

in

contrast to the seemingly particularisticwelter of

most of the other social, political,

and religious traits composing a given society or

appearing ross-culturally.Indeed, the lesson to be learned rom the consistent and rele-

vant cross-culturalregularities

similarities) n ecological adaptation that were revealed

by cases of multilinearevolution was that

they seemingly stood significantlyoutside

the

vicissitudes of

a

random

and

fortuitous historical particularism hat formed the basis of

Boasian classifications based on

culturally unique differences. Through recognition of

similar

ecological adaptations

or

cultural cores

constituting cross-culturally ignificant

social

types,

which

revealed

a

limited number of forms of sociocultural ntegration,

the nature of culture

emerged instead

as

controlled

diversity (p. 152; Steward1955:5-6,

43-63, 87-92, 1940:669, 1973:46-52).

Yet recognition

of the

diversity

of cultural traits

and

expressions

has

tended to main-

tain the upper hand, both for Stewardand for us. As is well known,Steward'sown sense

of

the

specificity

of

history

and

the

general emphasis

on

cultural

diversification

and

uniquenessstill

characteristic

of

much

of the

anthropologicaldiscipline

in which he was

trained

(and expressed

in his

own

acceptance

of

secondaryfeatures )

made

his claims

for cross-cultural omparabilities

atherhesitant

(pp. 70-72). Although

he

recognized

hat

there

are

typological

similarities

between societies of the

differing

cultural traditions

represented

n

the

major

world

areas,

he felt that

considerable

omparative tudy

would

be

necessary

to isolate

the definitive

dynamics

of

developmentalprocess

and of

struc-

tural-functional

ypes

and that

the

varieties

of

cultures

past

and

present

differ so

greatly

that cross-cultural

egularities

would

be valid

only

in a limited

sense

(pp. 230, 236).4

This cautionarystance has been applauded by some and criticizedby others, for the

problems

of

typology

and

classification,

of

order

and

diversity,

are

still with

us, indeed,

will

always

be

with

us

(see

Lehman

1964). Admittedly,

the

underlying

climate

of

opinion

has

changed

somewhat.

The fundamental

perspective

of

an

empiricallyrecognizable

order

in cultural

materials

and

operations

that Steward

championed

and

that

lay

at the

heart

of

on JulianSteward

177



10/15

his research s now largely accepted as a general tenet of the discipline. In this respect it

may be said that one of the basic goals of Steward'sresearch nterestshas been achieved.

But in the furtherpursuitof the implicationof culturalorder, particularly hose involving

cross-cultural issues, problems have arisen that threaten the further development of

Steward's nsight.

In

recent years investigationsby students of Stewardand other scholarshave extended

the scope of culturalecology to include the sociopolitical and ideological factors that

Steward considered too diverse

to

be

adaptive.They have also grappledwith the critical

problemof accounting or the considerabledifferencescontained within categoriesof like

cultural types, a problem that Steward, in his necessarilypriorconcern with establishing

the validity

of

recognizingcultural types

or

categories in general,failed to consider (see

Sahlins

and

Service1960:41-42; Service

1971

b:46-98). However,as these researcheshave

revealedthe complexities underlyingboth culturalsimilarities nd differences,and as the

new ecology has gainedascendancy n anthropology, he reaction n many quartershas

been

to

turn

away

from

cross-cultural

uestions

of

typology and classification,of similari-

ties and differencesand the reasonsfor them; there has been movement toward a dis-

tinctly relativisticapproach

n which

ecological holism (systems analysis) focuses on the

details of the functional operation

of

particular

ocioenvironmental

nteractions

as exer-

cises in the logic

of

the

unique

event

(Heider1972:212-213;

but see

Kottak

1975).

To

be sure, renewed recognition

of the

complexity

of

adaptationalprocess

and de-

tailed concern

with

specific

cases

has

helped greatly

to

deepen

our

understanding

f

the

operation

of

individualsystems,

both cultural and

ecological. Unfortunately, this line of

investigation

has

also led

increasingly way

from the

admittedly

difficult issues

of

change

and

process

as revealed

in

cross-cultural

omparisons,

n a manner

reminiscent

n

many

ways

of the

Boasian reaction against

the

problems

of

nineteenth century evolutionism.

Once againwe not only havea focus on relativism,but we hearthe familiarstrains o the

effect that, while cross-cultural omparison

s

an appropriate oal,

the

complexity of the

problem necessitates,first,

a

greater sharpening

of the

expertise required

or

application

of the ecologicalmethod

and

the development

of a

more sufficient

data

base

(see Heider

1972:210-212).5

The

legitimacy

of these

requirements

s not

questioned.

That

they may

become

ends in themselves

s

feared.

history,

the

state,

and culture

change

Steward's

own

efforts

to deal

with causation

and

culture

change frequently

fell con-

siderably

short for

a numberof

reasons, including

his

dismissal

of

numerous

secondary

features from

adaptive consideration,

his

essential functionalism

(see Murphy 1971),

which revealed synchronic

correlations

rather than

underlying

conditions

stimulating

processual effects,

and

his

focus

on cultural

regularities

and their

persistance

rather

than

on

cultural

contrasts and

change. Nonetheless,

he

pointed

the

way

toward more

refined

methodologies

for

dealing

with

change

in several

of his most notable

studies,

those

analyzing

the

adaptations

of

tribal societies

to

the

economic frontiers

of

western

civilization.

Included

in this

volume are

Tappers

and

Trappers:

ParallelProcesses

in

Acculturation, Determinism n PrimitiveSociety? and CarrierAcculturation:The

Direct HistoricalApproach.

In these

essays,

a distinct diachronic

perspective

s

provided

by augmentation

of informant's

accounts

with ethnohistoric recordsand other histori-

cally

based studies.

This

method allows the documentation

over

significant

ime

spans

of

the

interplay

between

the wider

contact culture

and the

local

ecological setting

and

178 american ethnologist



11/15

revealsmore clearly the resultant

development

of

various

social

structuralaccomodations.

Moreover

he ecological frame

of

reference is

now

expanded to

include the wider socio-

cultural milieu, the social

environment,

as

well

as

the

local naturalenvironment.

These studies, in which

the

use

of

documentary

evidence

andrecognition

of

the social

environmentemerge, are part

of

the

corpus

of

Steward'swork in

which he

attempted

to

bridgethe perceivedgap between nativesociety and complex society. He attemptedthis

reconciliationby considering

he

effect

of the definitive

characteristics f the

latter

(the

importance

of

sociopolitical features)

on the definitive

characteristics f the former

(local

ecological relationships)

n

terms of more than the diffusion of

secondary

traits. A

comparable

conjunction also

is

attempted

in

the

highlyinfluential

study

of

Puerto Rican

communities

(pp. 240-296)

and

in the more recent

project focusing

on

cross-cultural

regularities

n the modernizationprocedures

of

certaintraditional

ocieties (pp. 297-330;

Steward

1967).

In all these

instances,

the

wider

society

or

the

social

environment s

considered

highly

determinative

of

local

community patterns

through processes

of

what

Steward came to call social

adaptation

in

contrast to

cultural-ecological daptation )

(p. 315).

The expansion

of the

concept

of

adaptation

o

include the

broadersocial

milieu is

one of Steward's

greatest

contributionsand one with tremendous

mplications

or

anthro-

pology, most

obviously

in the

study

of

contemporary

ruraland

urban

ife, ethnicity, and

other aspects

of

currentcomplex

society.

Less

obvious,

but

equallyimportant

o anthro-

pological

interpretation

are the

perspectives

hat

might appear

if the

traditionalanthro-

pological ideology

of the

pristine,

isolated, aboriginalcommunity

or

society

were seri-

ously

reexamined in

light

of

the fact that

much

of

the

world had been influenced

by

complex

societies

of one

form

or

another

for

hundreds,

n some

areas

thousands,

of

years

before

professional

anthropologistsappeared.

The basic data bank of the

discipline

con-

tains much informationacquiredover the last century on the assumption hat the native

communities

visited

by anthropologists

were

to be

considered as unaffected

by

state

contact unless there was

obvious evidence otherwise.6

When

proof otherwise appeared,as

in

the often

obvious disruptionof North Ameri-

can Indiancultures

by European nfluence,

the contact

situation

initially was regarded s

an

ethnographically

ontaminated

end

point

for

the

reconstructionof

aboriginal

ondi-

tions via

memory

culture. Later

it was examined

under

the

rubricof

acculturation,

n

which

adjustments

of

contemporary

societies to reservation ife were

compared

with a

previous

base line

culture,

derived

from

documents

and/or

the

remembrances

f

aged

informantsand assumed

to

represent

a

pristine,precontact

situation.

Consequently, in many cases we really do not specifically know how much of the

structure and

organization,

of

the

similarity

and

diversity,

of

traditional

ocieties re-

flect

actual

prestate

conditions and

how

much

reflect

adaptations,perhaps

of

long

stand-

ing,

to

the

outlying

frontiers

of

state influence

(see

Service

1971a:151-1

57;

Fried

1975).

We

do

not

yet sufficiently appreciate

that the more

accurate

historical-and scientific-

assumption

for

anthropology

would be to

recognize

that

pristine conditions

have only

rarely been available or

anthropological tudy;

that most

of the native

societies we have

visitedprobablyhavebeen significantlyaffected in

the past, at least indirectlyand discon-

tinuously

if not

directly

and

continuously, by prior

state

contact;that the

remembrances

of the most

aged

informantsand even the earliest

documentaryevidence

may be record-

ing already

changed

conditions.

To

be

sure,

both

perspectives

are stated

here in

the

extreme,

but

during

the

century

of

anthropology's

existence as

a

formal

discipline

the

resulting

errors

of

interpretation

have

fallen to the first

assumption(no state contact

unless

proved

otherwise)

much more than

to

the

second (state

contact unless proved

otherwise).

on Julian Steward

179



12/15

Steward's

work on

Carrier acculturation

and

his

analysis with Murphy

of the

con-

tact experiences of the

Mundurucu nd Montagnais

were

not written with this

problem

directly in

mind.7 But by emphasizing

he wider realm

of state influence as part

of the

environment

to which adaptations

are effected

and showinghow

even the earliest,most

marginal

contact may begin to influence

local social organizations,

hey point in the right

direction.8

Steward's

emphasison adaptations

over time also encourages

onsideration

of

how change

continuously affects

structureand organization.

As a corollary, the

develop-

ing social forms appear

not just as a

melange

of

old

and new traits but as

emergent

types

of

society evidencing

cross-cultural egularities

n the developmental

ines they

take (see

also Steward'spenetrating

discussion of these

issuesas they

affected the Indian

New

Deal,

pp. 333-346).

It is unfortunate

that Steward's recognition

of the importance

of social adaptation

has not been more

influential

among ecological

anthropologists. Although

the social

environmentmay

be

recognized

n

general

in

ecological

studies,

analysis tends to center

on the relationship

between a population

and its physical

and/or biotic context.

All too

often the conceptualframework s not extended to includeinteractionswith othersocio-

cultural units (see Sahlins

1977:217).

This omission may

be most serious since

the social

environmentmay

be

relatively

ess

stable

than the

biological

and

physicalworld

and has a

high probability

of initiating adjustments

in the ecological

system

and of determining

change (see

Segraves1975:115,

note

3).

The contributions

of the Carrier

studies

and

the

Tapper

and Trapperanalysis are

attributable

o Steward'srecognition

of the relevance

of

culture

history to anthropologi-

cal enquiries.

It was his general

opinion

that multilinearevolution is inevitablycon-

cerned also with historical

reconstruction

1955:18).

This perspective,though

essential

to concern

with process

and change,

is neglected by many

contemporary ethnologists

who persist in subscribingat least in practiceto the misguidedcontrast of scienceversus

history.

The issue

is

a continuation

of

the

problem

that

bedeviledBoasian

anthropology,

that is,

how to

order accurateethnographic

data into

ethnologically

useful

categories,

how

to

recognize

structural orms

and

processes,

not

only

in the traits characteristicof

existing

cultures

but also

in the

details

of

past

historical

particulars

evealed

by

written

records

and the memory

of

aged

informants.

The

Boasian

emphasis

on

data

control

by

direct observation

and

participation

hrough

ieldworkstill constitutesthe heart of

ethno-

logical

research,which,

as

a

result,

continues

to assume

a

strongly

synchronicperspective.

Insights

nto processesproducing

uccessions

of

forms,

which

require

a diachronic

dimen-

sion in

research methods,

have been

difficult

to achieve

largely

because

of

unsolved

problemsof data control. Consequently,historicalperspectivesare still all too frequently

summarized n

an

introductory

chapter

or

concluding

appendix

on

culture

contact and

then

largely

gnored

n the

study

itself.

Yet

the problem

reflects

a

more fundamental

dilemma.

Although

the difficulties

of

interpreting

live

human

behavior

in its

infinite

variety

are

easily

as

great

as those

of

historical research,

he

vagaries

of human

behaviorare considered

more

readily

overcome

by

anthropologists

um

fieldworkers

han

are the

problems

of

imperfect

historical

records

by

anthropologists

um

ethnohistorians.

Since

most

anthropologists

are

almost

as

poorly

trained

for

ethnographic

fieldwork

as

they

are for

historical

research,

this

position

in

favor

of

participant-observation

bviously represents

not

only

a

methodological

stance

but also an ideological support for anthropology as a discipline, comparablein this

respect

to

the

traditionalconcept

of culture.

Historical

nterests,

n

contrast,

still

bear

as

ideological

taint the

methodological

problems

associated

with

nineteenth

century

evolu-

tionism.

One

of

Steward's

strengths

as

an

anthropologist

lay

in his

ability

to

combine,

on

180 american

ethnologist



13/15

occasion,

ethnographic particulars

of

fieldwork with those derived

from

historical re-

search.

Although

as

a

professional

he was hesitant

to extend his cross-cultural

indings

too

broadly,

his personal vision,

like that of

his

mentors,

Lowie

and

Kroeber, ncompassed

a

certain

breadth of human

affairs,

a

strong

sense

of

time,

and an

appreciation of the

ongoing

stream

of

culturesthrough

time.

Steward also

sought

to

strengthen

he

method-

ological value of this perspective

or

anthropology by advocating

he

concept

of

cultural

ecology as a means to bringethnologically significantorder to the chaotic diversityof

documentarydata.

He

focused this research

strategem

on

early

historic

periods, viewing them as

vantage

points from which

to

move,

via

documentary

researchand historic

archaeology,

both

forward

through

the contact era

to

contemporaryethnography

and backward nto the

prehistoric

past. Steward'sespousal

of

the

so-called

direct

historical

approach

o arch-

aeology is recognized

as

a definitive statement on the value of

coordinating

archaeologi-

cal, ethnohistoric,

and

ethnographic

methods

so

as to

place

the

study

of

prehistoric

and

historic

peoples

into

a common

processual

ramework

pp.

201-214). Equally

mportant,

though

less

widely recognized,

is

his

cognizance

that

historical

acculturation

studies,

also

utilizing documentary

evidence and historic

archaeology,

can

place historically

docu-

mented

peoples

and

ethnographically

known

societies into a common

ethnological

frame-

work,

thereby elucidatingaspects

of

culture

change

and

adaptation

n

ethnology (p.

205).

Steward

committed himself

to the

major anthropological issues of his

day and

advancedthem significantly.

He did not

solve

them,

but

it is unreasonable o

expect that

he might

have. Most

of the

problems

Steward

grappled

with

are

issues that are never

settled.

They

are

instead

redefined,

to

be

approached

either

with

greaterrigor

or from

distinctly different

perspectives.

At

the

present

time

both

directions are

observableas

contemporaryanthropologists

either

continue

to

investigatethe

potential of the

concept

of cultural ecology, in the processemphasizingparticularlytscultural focus (see Murphy

1970) or

turn to

the

perspective

of

the

new

ecology

that

places

man

firmly

within the

naturalor

physical environment.

Both

lines of

investigation

have

furthered the

study of

particular issues

of

interest

to

Steward

and both

have

benefited

from his

thought.

Steward

himself

recognized that,

while

many

of

the

specific

directivesgenerated in the

course

of

a

scholarly ife will

be found

wantingunder

later

examination,such light

as may

be

cast on

problems will, nonetheless,

illuminate the

steps

of

successors.

He

wrote, a

scholar's

contributions

to

science

should

be

judged

more

by

the

stimulus

he

gives

to

research-by

the nature

of

the

problems

he raisesand the

interestshe

creates-than

by the

enduring qualities

of his

provisional

hypotheses. (p. 87).

These words

were penned

in

appreciationof his friendandcolleague,KarlWittfogel.They standequallywell as tribute

to julian

Stewardhimself.

notes

'Steward himself has

contributed

to this

goal

with his

interpretation

of

Kroeber's life

and

works.

See

Steward

1973; also Murphy

1972;

Harris

1968:337-341.

2The

contrast between

the cultural core and

secondary

features

is

closely

related, although

with

different

emphasis,

to Kroeber's contrast between

reality

culture and value

culture.

See

Hatch

1973b:

107, 109, 116-117.

3According to Murphy 1972:75, Steward adopted this term from Lowie, who originally coined it

in reference to his

argument

for

multiple

lines of

development

of

social

organization.

The context of

parallel processes intended

by

Steward in his use of this

phrase

was

initially impressed upon

him by

Wittfogel's work

on

hydraulic

societies.

'Steward viewed his

classificatory

devices

primarily

as

tools

for

area

research and as

correctives to

the

traditional

delineation of

culture

areas,

which

he

criticized as

merely

a

descriptive

catch-all

device

on Julian

Steward

181



14/15

for the collection of

data and a technique that

perpetuated the

emphasis on cultural differences

rather

than providing

an integrating concept

for anthropological

analysis of similarities (p.

220; Steward

1955:52, 78-97).

'Admittedly notable

efforts have

been

made

in cross-cultural studies

by some ecologically minded

anthropologists. See,

for example, the studies summarized

in

Heider 1972:213-21 7.

6This perspective probably increased

in American

anthropology during

the years following World

War II,

when American anthropologists

began to

do fieldwork abroad in countries

where disruption

of

native lifeways by European colonialism was not as obvious as it was in some portions of North

America.

7

Indeed, some

of

Steward's ecological

analyses have been

appropriately criticized for

his failure

to

consider

the possible

effects of earlier state contact

on social organization

(see Service 1971b:46-98).

8These

studies also emphasize

again Steward's

recognition of the unavoidable

cultural element

in

ecological anthropology,

for the environmental

resources such

as rubber trees and beaver

pelts utilized

in these cases became

appropriate

for

local

exploitation only

when identified as such by

contact agents

of

the

state.

references

cited

Anderson, James N.

1973

Ecological

Anthropology

and Anthropological Ecology.

In Handbook of Social

and Cultural

Anthropology. John J.

Honigmann, Ed. Chicago: Rand

McNally. pp.

179-239.

Damas,

David, Ed.

1969 Contributions

to

Anthropology:

Ecological Essays. National

Museums of Canada, Bulletin

230.

Anthropological Series,

no.

86. Ottawa: National

Museums of

Canada.

Diamond, Stanley

1961

Culture

in History: Essays

in Honor

of

Paul Radin. New York:

Columbia University

Press.

Fried,

Morton H.

1975

The Notion

of

Tribe.

Menlo

Park,

CA:

Cummings.

Goldschmidt, Walter,

and Harry Hoijer, Eds.

1970

The

Social

Anthropology

of

Latin America: Essays

in Honor of

Ralph L. Beals. Los Angeles:

Latin American Center, University

of

California

Press.

Harris,Marvin

1968

The Rise

of

Anthropological

Theory.

New

York:

Thomas Y. Crowell.

Hatch,

Elvin

1973a

The Growth of Economic, Subsistence, and

Ecological Studies in American

Anthropology.

Journal

of

Anthropological

Research 29:221-243.

1973b Theories

of

Man

and

Culture.

New York:

Columbia Press.

Heider,

Karl

G.

1972 Environment,

Subsistence,

and

Society.

In Annual Review

of

Anthropology 1. B. J.

Siegel,

Ed. Palo

Alto,

CA:

Annual Reviews.

pp.

207-226.

Kaplan,

David

1965 The

Superorganic:

Science

or

Metaphysics?

American

Anthropologist

67:958-976.

Keesing,

Roger

M.

1974

Theories

of

Culture.

In

Annual

Review

of

Anthropology

3. B.

J. Siegel,

Ed.

Palo

Alto,

CA:

Annual Reviews. pp. 73-98.

Kottak,

Conrad

1975

Some

Thoughts

about

Links between

Materialist, Marxist,

and Structural

Approaches

in

Anthropology. Michigan

Discussions in

Anthropology

1. Ann

Arbor:

Department

of

Anthropol-

ogy,

University

of

Michigan.

pp.

96-108.

Lehman,

Frederick

K.

1964

Typology

and the Classification

of Sociocultural

Systems.

In Process and Pattern

in

Culture:

Essays

in Honor

of

Julian

H. Steward.

Robert

A.

Manners,

Ed.

Chicago:

Aldine.

pp.

376-396.

Lowie,

Robert

H.

1947

Primitive

Society.

New York:

Liveright.

1940 Introduction

to Cultural

Anthropology.

Second Edition.

New York: Farrarand

Rinehart.

Manners,

Robert

1973

Obituary

of

Julian

Haynes

Steward.

American

Anthropologist

75:886-903.

Moore, John H.

1974

The

Culture

Concept

as

Ideology.

American

Ethnologist

1:537-549.

Murphy,

Robert

F.

1970 Basin

Ethnography

and

Ecological Theory.

In

Languages

and Cultures

of Western

North

America:

Essays

in

Honor

of

Sven

S.

Liljeblad.

Earl H.

Swanson, Jr.,

Ed. Pocatello: Idaho

State

University

Press.

pp.

152-171.

1971

The

Dialectics

of

Social

Life: Alarms

and Excursions in

Anthropological

Theory.

New

York:

Basic

Books.

182

american thnologist



15/15

1972 Robert H. Lowie. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Sahlins, Marshall D.

1977 Culture and Environment.

In

Horizons

of

Anthropology.

Second

Edition. Sol Tax and Leslie

Freeman, Eds. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 215-231.

Sahlins, Marshall D.,

and Elman R.

Service,

Eds.

1960 Evolution and Culture.

Ann

Arbor:

Department

of

Anthropology, University

of

Michigan.

Segraves,

B. Abbott

1975 Ecological Anthropology: A Critical Recapitulation. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology

1.

Ann Arbor: University

of

Michigan Press. pp. 109-127.

Service,

Elman

R.

1971a Cultural Evolutionism:

Theory

in

Practice.

New

York:

Holt,

Rinehart

and Winston.

1971b

Primitive Society:

An

Evolutionary Perspective. Second Edition.

New

York: Random

House.

Shimkin,

Demitri B.

1964 Julian

H. Steward:

A

Contributor

to Fact and

Theory

in Cultural

Anthropology. In

Process

and Pattern in Culture:

Essays

in

Honor of

Julian

H.

Steward.

Robert A.

Manners,

Ed.

Chicago:

Aldine. pp. 1-17.

Sills, David L.,

Ed.

1968 International Encyclopedia

of

the

Social

Sciences

4.

New York:

Macmillan.

Steward, Julian

H.

1949 South American Cultures: An Interpretative Summary. In Handbook of South American

Indians

5. Smithsonian

Institution,

Bureau

of

American

Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington:

United States Government

Printing

Office.

pp.

669-772.

1950 Area

Research: Theory

and

Practice.

New York:

Social

Science Research Council.

1955 Theory

of

Culture Change.

Urbana:

University

of

Illinois Press.

1973

Alfred Kroeber.

New York: Columbia

University

Press.

Steward,

Julian

H.,

Ed.

1967 Contemporary Change

in

Traditional

Societies. Urbana:

University

of

Illinois Press.

Swanson,

Earl

H., Jr.,

Ed.

1970 Languages and Cultures

of

Western

North

America:

Essays

in

Honor

of

Sven S. Liljeblad.

Pocatello: Idaho State University

Press.

Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport

1968 Ecology:

Cultural

and

Non-Cultural.

In

Introduction to

Cultural

Anthropology. James A.

Clifton, Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 477-497.

Wolf,

Eric R.

1964

Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Date

of

Submission: August 29, 1977

Date

of

Acceptance: September 16,

1977

on Julian

Steward 183

theory neo evolution

Documents