• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Cultural Evolution

Page history last edited by Holly Zink 13 years, 9 months ago

Table of Contents




Main Points

     Cultural evolution is seen as the universal evolutionary stages of development of mankind that has pushed us forward from primitive to more civilized societies. One major premise of cultural evolution is the belief of “psychic unity of mankind.” This belief states that all humans share a similarity through of thought regardless of culture.1 Many theories of cultural evolution were developed by Lewis Henry Morgan, who based them on assumptions that contemporary primitive cultures were like “living fossils,” giving witness to similar contemporary cultures in more advanced developmental stages. He also believed that all societies progress through the same evolutionary stages.1

            These stages include three statuses of savagery, three statuses of barbarianism, and finally, the status of civilization.

            Let’s begin by looking at the Lower Status of Savagery:



This period commenced with the infancy of the human race, and may be said to have ended with the acquisition of a fish subsistence and of a knowledge of the use of fire. Mankind were then living in their original restricted habitat, and subsisting upon fruits and nuts. The commencement of articulate speech belongs to this period. No exemplification of tribes of mankind in this condition remained to the historical period.”1

            During this time period, the human race began, humans discovered fire, and humans began to speak in a common language.

     Then came the Middle Status of Savagery: “began with the acquisition of a fish subsistence and a knowledge of the use of fire, and ended with the invention of the bow and arrow. 1-Iankind, while in this condition, spread from their original habitat over the greater portion of the earth's surface. Among tribes still existing it will leave in the Middle Status of savagery, for example, the Australians and the greater hart of the Polynesians when discovered. It will be sufficient to give one or more exemplifications of each status.”1

      So, during this time period, humans invented the bow and arrow and humans expanded their civilizations to further ends of the earth.

    After this, came the Upper Status of Savagery: “It commenced with the invention of the bow and arrow, and ended with the invention of the art of pottery. It leaves in the Upper Status of Savagery the Athapascan tribes of the Hudson's Bay Territory, the tribes of the valley of the Columbia, and certain coast tribes of North and South America; but with relation to the time of their discovery. This closes the period of Savagery.”1

     During this stage in the development of societies, humans began to create pottery, and it ends the period of Savagery.

            Then came the three statuses of Barbarianism.                        



First came the Lower Status of Barbarianism. “The invention or practice of the art of pottery, all things considered, is probably the most effective and conclusive test that can be selected to fix a boundary line, necessarily arbitrary, between savagery and barbarism. The distinctness of the two conditions has long been recognized, but no criterion of progress out of the former into the latter has hitherto been brought forward. All such tribes, then, as never attained to the art of pottery will be classed as savages, and those possessing this art but who never attained a phonetic alphabet and the use of writing will be classed as barbarians.

     The first sub-period of barbarism commenced with the manufacture of pottery, whether by original invention or adoption. In finding its termination, and the commencement of the Middle Status, a difficulty is encountered in the unequal endowments of the two hemispheres, which began to be influential upon human affairs after the period of savagery had passed. It may be met, however, by the adoption of equivalents. In the Eastern hemisphere, the domestication of animals, and the Western, the cultivation of maize and plants by irrigation, together with the use of adobe-brick and stone in house building have been selected as sufficient evidence of progress to work a transition out of the Lower and into the Middle Status of barbarism. It leaves, for example, in the Lower States, the Indian tribes of the United States east of the Missouri River, and such tribes of Europe and Asia as practiced the art of pottery, but were without domestic animals.”1

     The invention of pottery distinguishes the period of Savagery from that of Barbarianism, and the creation of an alphabet distinguishes the period of Barbarianism and that of Civilization.  During the first period of Barbarianism, humans in the Eastern hemisphere began to domesticate animals and humans in the Western hemisphere learned how to use irrigation to cultivate plants and to create house buildings with brick and stone.            

     Then came the Middle Status of Barbarianism: “It commenced with the domestication of animals in the Eastern hemisphere, and in the Western with cultivation by irrigation and with the use of adobe-brick and stone in architecture, as shown. Its termination may be fixed with the invention of the process of smelting iron ore. This places in the Middle Status, for example, the Village Indians of New Mexico, Mexico, Central America and Peru, and such tribes in the Eastern hemisphere as possessed domestic animals, but were without a knowledge of iron. The ancient Britons, although familiar with the use of iron, fairly belong in this connection. The vicinity of more advanced continental tribes had advanced the arts of life among them far beyond the state of development of their domestic institutions.”1

     During this period, some humans learned how to smelt iron ore while others who were able to domesticate animals had no knowledge of iron.            

     Next came the Upper Status of Barbarianism: “It commenced with the manufacture of iron, and ended with the invention of a phonetic alphabet, and the use of writing in literary composition. Here civilization begins. This leaves in the Upper Status, for example, the Grecian tribes of the Homeric age, the Italian tribes shortly before the founding of Rome, and the Germanic tribes of the time of Caesar.”1

     During this period, more humans were learning about the smelting of iron and humans were creating a phonetic alphabet that was used in writing literary composition. CIVILIZATION BEGINS.



Lastly, comes the Status of Civilization: “It commenced, as stated, with the use of a phonetic alphabet and the production of literary records, and divides into Ancient and Modern. As an equivalent, hieroglyphic writing upon stone may be admitted.”1

        All of these periods of Savagery, Barbarianism, and Civilization explain how society began and the stages it has taken to get to where it is today.



Another early anthropologist was Sir Edward Tylor. He believed “cultures obey natural laws and therefore can be studied scientifically.”2 He focused on the “attributes that people acquire not through biological inheritance, but by growing up in a particular society where they are exposed to a specific cultural tradition.”2

     These attributes would be attained through the process of enculturation. Enculturation is described as the process by which a child learns from his or her culture – learns the symbols of the culture and the internalized systems used to define their world; express their feelings; and make their judgments – by observing the actions of those around them.2  This cultural learning is both conscious and unconscious, it can be taught directly by authority figures, such as parents, or it can be taught through observation – modifying behaviors to fit the society that they live in.2

     This idea of enculturation brings us back to the theory of ‘psychic unity of mankind’ – the theory states, “although individuals differ in their emotional and intellectual tendencies and capacities, all human populations have equivalent capacities for culture. Regardless of their genes or their physical appearance, people can learn cultural tradition.”2


More Findings

A third anthropologist whose theories have helped shape the study of cultural evolution was Leslie White. He believed that “culture consists of tools, implements, utensils, clothing, ornaments, customs, institutions, beliefs, games, works of art, language, etc.”2 He believes that culture originated when our ancestors started to use symbols – there were no obvious connection between a symbol and what it symbolized, we give the symbol meaning and we learn that meaning from people around us.2

     All of the theories that Morgan, Tylor, and White have come up with have helped shaped our view of cultural evolution. We now have defined lines between the statuses of Savagery and Barbarianism and between Barbarianism and Civilization. And we have discovered that children learn cultural attributes at a very young age through the teaching of parents and elders and through the observation of others in their society. Cultural evolution is the way that we are the way we are and the process by which our societies have progressed from Savagery to Civilization. 



Key Figures


Anthropology, like any other discipline, is influenced through time and by other disciplines. In its beginnings as what we now know as “Cultural Evolution” Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species influenced it. After Darwin came Thomas Henry Huxley, who was greatly influenced by Darwin’s ideas. Huxley developed the idea of “social Darwinism,” which “rationalized social preconceptions”[1]that those such as landed gentry were higher on the evolutionary scale than others. From this came the idea of cultural evolution, developed by educated men such as Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Burnett Tylor. 



Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881)

Often considered one of the founders of the ethnographical approach to anthropology, Lewis Henry Morgan contributed greatly to theLewis Henry Morgan methodology of Evolutionism in the 19thcentury, providing Edward Burnett Tylor with the foundation for the unilinear path towards full or legitimate cultural significance. After graduating from Union College (1840) Morgans work with Native Americans earned him the title of warrior within the Grand Order of the Iroquois. Considered the first real ethnographical text, Morgan’s 1851 text The League of the Iroquois laid the foundation for anthropological documentation to the current day[2]. His text documents the customs, rituals, and interactions of the Iroquois, and he marks each significant tradition along the line conceived in order to track the tribes progress along a “socio-evolutionary scale”. His text Ancient Society (1877) depicts his conceptualization of a universal scale, describing the ascent from savagery to civilization, and citing instances and examples in which his theories are demonstrated[3]. Morgan Died in 1881, just two years after being elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879. His money was left to form a Womens College at Rochester, a University he had been involved with academically through his career in research.[4]

Other significant texts include his 1870 analysis of familial and societal interactions entitled Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.

Lewis Henry Morgan 




Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917)


Tylor was born on October 2, 1832 in Camberwell, England. Not much is known about his early life other than his education at Grove House School, Tottenham. He had a brief stint in business then began working with an anthropologist in Mexico, Henry Christy. Tylor never got a university degree but was still able to become a professor and highly regarded in his field.[5]

Often called the father of British anthropology, Tylor founded the department of anthropology at Oxford in England. In 1907 the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insitute of Great Britain and Ireland dedicated the current volume to him to commemorate and acknowledge his work in the field, saying even,


     "By universal consent, your Researches into the Early History of Mankind, and your study of Primitive Culture, have placed you in the foremost rank of the founders of Anthropology. No living student of this Science fails to acknowledge his debt to your clear analysis and eloquent presentation of the great principles of human progress."[6]


His ideas stem from the same concept as Morgan's, but rather than including all of society and culture, he focuses on the evolution of religion. Each society has a religion, however it begins with animalism, then polytheism, monotheism, and culminating in science. The more primitive the culture, the more primitive their religion. Tylor's ideas were also heavily influence (and influential) in debates concerning Charles Darwin's Origin of Species.[7]His most important work was Primitve Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom (1871). 


More of Tylor's works include: Anahuac; or Mexico and the Mexicans (1861). Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization (1865), Anthropology: An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization (1881).[8]  





 Christian Jurgensen Thomsen (1788-1865)

Danish archeologist Christian Jurgensen Thomsen, known primarily for his development of the “Three Age System” (consisting of a Stone Age, a Bronze Age, and an Iron Age) is also said to have endorsed the systematic association of cultures along a designated scale. As head of Antiquarian Collections at the Copenhagen museum, his work required a classifications system, and the movement toward cultural evolutionism seemed natural to a man used to categorizing, labeling, and scaling the artifacts of ancient societies.

Thomsen worked for the Danish Royal Commission for the Preservation and Collection of Antiquities in 1816. His works includeA Guide to Northern Antiquities published in 1847.[9]


Other Notable Figures

Morgan and Tylor are often considered the most important figures of Cultural Evolution, however they are not the only ones. Additional figures who played key roles in the development include: Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), John Lubbock (1834-1913), and James Frazer (1854-1941).[10] Spencer had many of the same ideas as Tylor about the progress of religion. As more of a philosopher he touches on parts that Tylor did not. Together, their ideas form the Tylor-Spencer synthesis, a more cohesive account of animism towards science.[11]


Key Texts


Ancient Society

Perhaps one of the most influential texts regarding Cultural Evolutionary theory comes from Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society, published in 1877.[12] Morgan’s research was an attempt to understand the perceived differences in development across various cultures. Measured mostly by technical developments observed in different cultures, Morgan attempted to cross-culturally compare surveyed groups, aligning them as “Savage”, “Barbarian”, or “Civilized.”[13] Jerry D. Moore, author of An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists, notes that Morgan’s purpose was to clarify that “Savagery in one culture, barbarism in another, and civilization in a third were not the result of different races being genetically condemned to backwardness or development; they were simply societies perched at different stages on a common progression of cultural evolution.”[14] Morgan adopted a unilinear approach, suggesting that all peoples follow a single path to development. Different groups from around the globe were evaluated based on tool, language, and technology use, and from there, placed upon a development hierarchy, suggesting a parallel between social and technological progress. Morgan writes,


“The latest investigations respecting the early condition of the human race are tending to the conclusion that mankind commenced their career at the bottom of the scale and worked their way up from savagery to civilization through the slow accumulations of experimental knowledge.”[15]



Primitive Culture

Edward Burnett Tylor, a contemporary of Morgan, noted his own theory of the evolutionary process of religion in his book, Primitive Culture, first published in 1871.[16] Through his research, Tylor attempted to explain the past and predict the future by classifying and comparing different cultures. Tylor writes, “Culture or civilization, taken it its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."[17] 


Image provided by e-booksdirectory.com

In his research, Tylor makes broad generalizations about culture and believes that all "savages" anywhere in the world are all alike.  Tylor recognized man as one unified group, but claimed that all men were in different grades of development, which could be recognized systematically and concretely. Tylor noted that trusting isolated statements from ethnographers was dangerous and that one needed corresponding accounts from around the world.[18]


The bulk of Tylor's work focuses on making blanket generalizations about diverse cultures. Tylor claims that even though there is great distance between groups of “savages,” they all have the same qualities. His method for studying culture relies not on focusing upon individuals, but rather studying the special habits of a group and studying the prevalence of those habits. By studying habits and their frequency, Tylor proposes that one can place groups of people into the different levels of culture. According to Primitive Culture, ways of defining culture are definite and systematic. Tylor writes, “The principal criteria of classification are the absence or presence, high or low development, of the industrial arts, especially metal-working, manufacture of implements and vessels, agriculture, architecture, the extent of scientific knowledge, the definiteness of moral principles, the condition of religious belief and ceremony, the degree of social

Image provided by cambridge.org 

and political organization, and so forth."[19]


Volume two of Primitive Culture emphasizes the development of religion as a basis for understanding culture. His work recognized so-called "primitive cultures" as having a religion based in magic, unseen beings, and animism. However, Tylor proposes that all belief structures are steeped in animism and the belief in spiritual and personal unseen beings. He argues that "primitive cultures" make an intellectual error by believing that certain objects - including animals, plants, and rocks - have souls and possess consciousness like people and that these souls were detachable. He discusses souls passing from one being to another, such as from the deceased to a rock or plant.[20] Tylor argues that this is an error in judgement and these cultures are therefore "primitive." Tylor's research is not without flaws; see "Armchair Anthropology" in Critiques.




     In this section, we are going to present some of the many critiques of the Cultural Evolution theory, that it is unilinear, "armchair anthropology," ethnocentric and ahistorical. Anthropology did not happen overnight and these critiques, along with the critiques of subsequent methods and theories, helped shape anthropology and its methods today. 


Effacing Cultures of it's Countless Dynamics: Unilinear Evolutionism

     Said to be Morgan's "brand of evolutionism," this theory states that all societies follow the same basic line of evolution judged upon the scale created by Morgan himself.[21] However, Unilinear Evolutionism is flawed. Cultures evolve over time and differ depending on space. Human diversity is not linear, nor can all humans be placed in the same development standards.

[22]By saying that because one culture (european society) evolved in this pattern, all others must do that or they are not as advanced, is not necessarily true. All will not follow a single path, that is the whole idea of evolution and changing patterns. Every culture accomplishes different goals, meets different challenges and behaves differently in order to survive: not all will face the same obstacles and situations that drove some to advance while others could stay the same. Cultures adapt to different environments and evolve accordingly in a process called natural selection.[23] See Cultural Ecology for more detail on this argument.

   "We our present condition... to the struggles, the stufferings, the heroic exertions and the patient toil of our barborous, and more remotely, of our savage ancestors. Their labors, their trials and their successes were a part of the plan of Supreme Intelligence to develop a barbarian out of a savage, and a civilized man out of this barbarian"(Morgan's closing lines of Ancient Society (1877:554)). [24] By describing his unchanging stages of development, Morgan assumes too much and leaves much room for more modern critiques of his unilinear ideals. The Development theory and the Modernization theory are two of these.

Development theory:

Is a conglomeration of theories about how desirable change in society is best to be achieved. Such theories draw in a variety of social scientific disiplines and approaches.[25]

Modernization theory:

Is a theory of development which states that the development can be achieved through following the process of development that were used by the currently developed countries[26]

A question we anthropologists musk ask in considering Cultural Evolution as a plausible theory is this: do Morgan and Tylor allow for evolution to continue past Victorian society? Did they bear in mind future civilization, or think that human developent was at its peak? 


Empirically Flawed: Armchair Anthropology

     A primary critique of Cultural Evolutionism is what contemporary anthropologists call Armchair Anthropology. Used largely by Edward Tylor, armchair anthropology was when an anthropologist worked with studies and data collected by others like missionaries, explorers, and colonial officials.  In other words, these researchers did not collect their own information. The label essentially comes from the idea that these anthropologists did not have to leave their armchairs to do their research.[28]

    Accordingly, Harvard Professor of Anthropology James Ferguson calls the theory "emperically flawed," meaning that there isn't enough evidence and experience to back it up. [29] Armchair anthropologists based everything off of other peoples’ (possibly biased) descriptions of the culture and did not observe first hand. This form of anthropology focused on theory over practice and therefore did not value the intimate details of societies, which is fallacious when trying to write about them. For Morgan the question of how societies developed from one evolutionary level to the next was nothing if not theoretical. His typology of developmental stages aimed at nothing less than the explanation of both human history and diversity. The distinction between "primitive" and "modern" societies was a theoretically argued one, rather than practical. Armchair anthropology leads to ethnocentricism, judging another's culture using one’s own cultural standards.[30]



    Many anthropologists have argued that the cultural evolution theory is ethnocentric, stating that all cultures have a capacity to be on the same level as the Western civilization, Post-Enlightenment and Modernist era. Ethnocentrism says that other cultures are primitive, not yet at the level of western societies. Further, the theory holds Christianity as the ideal religion for humanity, although a science-based society is best. Morgan's line of evolution advances towards all civilized cultures practicing the christian belief system, and then unto the ideal scientific and secular state . To put this in a simpler context, Morgan might say that a Jew in today's world is uncivilized, and that Christians have not achieved their full cultural potential.

     One critic, James Ferguson, asks from who's point of view can one society be seen as higher than another[31]. This ties into the idea that Cultural Evolution further allowed for cultural hegemony of the West over the rest, in the forms of colonization and ongoing imperialism. It is still applicable today, in our globalized societies, where the West holds priority and influence over the rest of the world, particularly the third world. There continues to be turmoil across the globe between cultures arguing which religion and what societal trends are the best to follow. The West often sets these standards and further looks down upon those cultures who have yet to discover the trends that they are best run upon ie: democracy and morality.[32] We can't blame these ethnocentric theorists for the discourse they inherited from their forefathers, though it is important to recognize the elitist, western-superiority attitude. These concepts helped set up a system that continues to breed these attitudes for future Americans both scholarly and generally.



     The cartoon above depicts Morgan's theory that evolution of culture ends with the "modern white man," typically an enlightened modernist. By taking the common evolution sketch and adding the oblivious look on the seemingly most evolved man along with the caption, the artist criticizes this idea. Furthermore, the man is nude, depicting his own vulnerability and flaws that are common to all humans. This critique portrays that really, all cultures are on the same level of achievement , no one is better than the other and to think of your culture as better is to be an "Elitist!" or, to put it in anthropological terms, ethnocentric.



     The ahistorical approach to the critique of Cultural Evolution is based around the idea that Anthropology is the study of culture across all time and space, not in one time or space. Therefore pinning people to a static societal expectation is fallacious. Peoples' lives are still unfolding, so there are not obvious answers, definitions, and patterns to their lives. Each culture, subculture, etc. unfolds in discreet ways.[34]

     One one hand, Cultural Evolution was a vision of human unity. On the other, it was a device of differentiating and ranking contemporary societies according to their level of evolutionary development. Because of this, in spite of the best laid plans of the Supreme Intelligence, "other tribes and nations have been left behind in the race of progress." To Tylor, development was the active principle according to which, new and higher stages of human society might emerge out of order and simpler societies. He believed development was the driving motive force that unites all human history. By saying this, Tylor facilitates the persistent contrast between civilized and primitive that also plays a key role in the colonialism ideology.[35] 


Other Critiques


Boasian Anthropology

     As one of the first theories in the field of anthropology, Tylor and Morgan's Cultural Evolutionism has been critiqued by many of its contemporaries. Within anthropology, the evolutionary schemes of 19th century theorists are generally taken to have been definitively refuted in the early 20th century, most of all by the work of culture relativist Franz Boas and his students.[36]
     Boas' theory of cultural relativism rejects the idea that we can hold one society as a standard for others (see Boasian Anthropology: Historical Particularism and Cultural Relativism). Boaz states that trusting isolated statements from ethnographers was dangerous and that one needed corresponding accounts from around the world.[37]



     In the era of colonialism, the theories are bound to be biased, aimed towards Western superiority. Many colonial officials used anthropological discourse to typecast the people of the area they chose to dominate. For example, British discourse of Islamic Society in Egypt as "backwards" gave them free reign to rule over the society, enforcing their superior Western, Enlightened, Christian laws, moral, principles on the people to bring them towards true civilization. Today, we recognize the setbacks in the elitist attitude that is certainly derived from a western superiority complex during the colonial period. Unfortunately, anthropologists of the time contributed to the ethnocentrism, finding ways to "prove" natives of the colonized area needed Western aid and rule.


Broad Comparison

     Another critique is that there are too many broad generalizations. Cultural Evolution does not compare enough specific traits of a culture and leaves too much out of the analysis that is used to classify cultures as either barbaric, savage, or civilized. A good analysis of a culture relies on using the minor details and particularities, what is unique to the specific culture, as well as the more generalized, universal and comparative ones. The comparisons that the basic ideas of Cultural Evolution deal with are very basic and broad, oversimplifying too many aspects of a particular culture. 

Some of the criteria used by Morgan included material possessions and the creating of art such as pottery. A major flaw with this requirement lies in the example that it put the Polynesians in a progress trap in upper savagery because they never made pottery.  However, in sociopolitical terms, Polynesia was a very advanced and complex society that included the ancient Hawaiian state.[39] Another broad basis of catagorizing cultures was through their religion: if their culture doesn’t change to include a new religion (or, best, the supremacy of Science post the Enlightenment era), it doesn’t matter what else they do or accomplish, they are still in the same evolutionary stage. For example if they belive in ghost, which is incorporated in animism beliefs, they would still be in the savagery state.[40] 



     The cartoon above displays the fatal flaw in the Cultural Evolutionist theory: it tries to categorize world cultures into basic and common when really, categories do not apply to everyone. The cartoon asks how an anthropologist would classify the man, who is naked and hairy, wearing sunglasses, reading a newspaper, smoking a pipe, uses fire to cook his kill, a hunter that uses bows and arrows, lives in a straw/mud hut, on a lounge chair... Each of these characteristics and assets could apply to a different stage in the evolutionary line set by Tylor and Morgan, so how does one limit him to a single category?


     Morgan incorrectly placed emphasis on sorting societies according to their level of evolutionary development, instead of based on other criteria such as the basis of their societies, how they functioned according to their needs, and the fact that cultures change differently around the world. 

Cultural evolution rested mainly on Morgan's research of the Iroquois and comparing them to his own Western culture (see Key texts in Cultural Evolution). The characteristics of and the comparisons between these two cultures can not possibly create a standard to which anthropologists can judge other societies. 



     In the wake of devastationg criticisms of the emperical adequacy of the 19th century evolutionary schemes, the emphasis on sorting societies according to their level of evolutionary development largely dropped out of anthropology in the first half of the 20th century. In both the US and in Britain, the task instead came to be seen as one of understanding each unique society in its own terms, as one of many possible ways of meeting human social and psychological needs (see Malinowski's Functionalism), or as one "pattern of culture" (see Benedict), one "design for living" (Kluckholm.)[42]

     Nonwestern cultures were no longer to be understood as "living fossils" trapped in evolutionary stages through which the West itself had already passed.[43]Differient societies are really different, not just the same society at a different stage of development. Different primitive societies must not be placed ona  ladder and ranked against each other; all are equally valid, forming whole cultere paterns or functioning systems worth studying in their own right."

     You can see how this theory was created because of the bias of their time period and limited resources for practical research available to these authors. Despite its flaws, Cultural Evolution served as a launching pad for other more accurate studies of culture. It encouraged anthropologists to go and see for themselves how to apply these theories in real life. Cultural evolution was a theory that simply displayed the discourse of its time and may have been refuted earlier or even prevented were practical anthropology the standard of the era rather than theoretical anthropology.


  1. Rogers, James Allen. “Darwinism and Social Darwinism.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1972), pp. 265-280.
  2. Morgan, Lewis Henry "Ancient Society". or. 1877, pg 9
  3. Morgan, Lewis Henry "Ancient Society", or. 1877, pg. xvi
  4. Fortes, Meyer "Kinship and the Social Order: The Legacy of Lewis Henry Morgan" Forward-xi
  5. Lowie, Robert H. "Edward B. Tylor," American Anthropologist. Vol. 19-2, 262.
  6. "Edward Burnett Tylor," Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Vol. 37 (Jan. - June, 1907), p. 1-2.
  7. Moore, Jerry. 2009. Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists (Third Edition). Lanham and New York: Alta Mira Press.
  8. Lowie, "Edward B. Tylor," 262-263.
  9. Bernhardsson, Magnus Thorkell "Reclaiming a Plundered Past" pp. 22-36
  10. Erickson, Paul A. and Liam D. Murphy. 2008. A History of Anthropological Theory (Third Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 49.
  11. Erickson, A History of Anthropological Theory, 53.
  12. Morgan, H. Lewis. Ancient Society. First Indian ed. London: MacMillan & Company, 1877. Transcribed by Ibne Hasan, February 2004. www.marxist.org. Web. 13 September 2010.
  13. Moore, Visions of Culture.
  14. Moore, Visions of Culture.
  15. Morgan, Lewis Henry. Ancient Society. 4 vols. London: MacMillan & Company, 1877. N. pag. Marxists.org. Web. 18 Sept. 2010. .
  16. Moore, Visions of Culture.
  17. Tylor, Edward B. Primitive Culture. New York: Brentano's Publishers, 1871. 1.
  18. Tylor, Primitive Culture.
  19. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 27.
  20. McClenon, James. "Tylor, Edward B." Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Ed. William H Swatos. Hartford Institue for Religion Research, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2010.
  21. Kottak, Conrad. Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity, New York: McGraw Hill, 2009, p. 63
  22. Lecture, Professor Carole McGranahan, ANTH2100 Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology, 1 September 2010
  23. Lecture, Professor Matthew Sponheimer. Introduction to Physical Anthropology, September 2009
  24. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p.141
  25. Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008.
  26. Edelman, The Anthropology of Development and Globalization.
  27. Kottack, Cultural Anthropology
  28. Lecture, Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Fronteirs of Cultural Anthropology, 1 September 2010
  29. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 144.
  30. Kottack, Cultural Anthropology
  31. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 144.
  32. "Introduction" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 5-32
  33. Sutton, Ward, New Yorker Magazine
  34. Lecture, Carole McGranahan, ANTH 2100 Fronteirs of Cultural Anthropology, 1 September 2010
  35. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. 142.
  36. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p.142
  37. Tylor, Primitive Culture.
  38. Packard and Cooper. "A History of Development" and Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008.
  39. Kottak, Cultural Anthropology, 63.
  40. Kottak, Conrad. Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity, New York: McGraw Hill, 2009, p. 63
  41. Gabrielle Biscaye, Frontiers of Cultural Anthropology 2100
  42. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 142-147
  43. Ferguson, James. "Anthropology and Its Evil Twin" IN Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008. p. 146.

Comments (16)

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 8:01 pm on Sep 11, 2010

Synopses of critiques (Gaby + Becca?)
Examples from Key Texts to show why each is a legitimate critique (Taylor?)
Any cartoons or parodies of the theoretical approach that you can find (Gaby +Becca?)

Sarah Kell said

at 2:41 pm on Sep 13, 2010

Question, so I think I did the citations wrong. Citations 6-9 are all the same. But all those quotes and information came from the same place. How do you credit the same source without repeating it over and over? It seems a bit redundant. Or are you supposed to just repeat it like that? Because for Key Texts there are less sources since we're basically talking about a specific book.

Sarah Kell said

at 2:47 pm on Sep 13, 2010

I should probably also add more on Tylor's religion argument in the key texts section since it's talked about in Key figures

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 4:09 pm on Sep 13, 2010

i hate this system. I just spent an hour writing/editing and then it had an error and didnt save. AHHH!

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 4:36 pm on Sep 13, 2010

could either Taylor or Becca use text from our textbook to back up critiques? thanks

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 8:10 pm on Sep 13, 2010

i think we need to explain our cartoon?

Hayden Griggs said

at 8:00 pm on Sep 14, 2010

I'm having trouble citing my contributions in the Key figures section... anyone else experiencing a rejection thingy when the try to use the footnote insertion?

Sarah Kell said

at 7:19 pm on Sep 16, 2010

Are we supposed to be citing with MLA or APA?

Hilary said

at 12:25 pm on Sep 17, 2010

I think we're actually citing Chicago style... I've been following the history department guidelines for it. http://www.colorado.edu/history/guidelines/referencing.html

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 1:55 am on Sep 19, 2010

Taylor D, can you further exlain/finish up the arguments from the book and class? looks like you started and never finished. also, please dont forget to scan my cartoon.
Becca, will you explain ur cartooon or shall I?
Rest pf the group- if you're finished, please help the critiques section, its coming along, but slowly.

Rebecca Oliver said

at 11:23 pm on Sep 19, 2010

Hey critiques.
I tried to edit and organize everything the best I could but there are a few things I didnt really know what to do with:
I *** the loose ends in the Ahistorical heading
I dont know who originally wrote the colonialism bit, but does it need to be cited at all?
Also there are some random cites in the "other critiques" section...someone want to footnote em?
Whats the deal with broad comparrison? Do we want to say more there?
and finally, the cites at the bottom...whoever put them there might want to organize that.

molly.small@colorado.edu said

at 9:28 am on Sep 20, 2010

Hey, can anyone help me with the formating of the subheadings for main points - I don't know how it got all messed up!

Hilary said

at 10:19 am on Sep 20, 2010

Molly - what happened with the citations in main points? All of the numbers are 1 and aren't connected to a footnote....?

Rebecca Oliver said

at 11:08 am on Sep 20, 2010

Im copy/pasting the random cites here in case someone needs them, but im going to delete them off the page..... yeah

Edelman, Marc. Haugerud, Angelique. The Anthropology of Development and Globalization. From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Blackwell: Oxford, 2008.


1http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/courses/361/Morgan1877.html, accessed 19 September 2010

2 Conrad Kottak, Cultural Anthropology: Appreciating Cultural Diversity, New York: McGraw Hill, 2009, p. 27

Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, . . .

Gabrielle Biscaye said

at 12:02 pm on Sep 20, 2010

can someone go over and edit the footnotes of KOTTAK I noticed they were incomplete
I am going to edit the other sections now too
ALSO--- MAIN POINTS - you need to better describe each of the points...what is barbary? savagery? civ?????

You don't have permission to comment on this page.