BULLETIN OF THE TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM Number 6 April, 1963 The Ethnography and Ethnology of FRANZ BOAS By LESLIE A. WHITE TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM THE MUSEUM OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 24th & Trinity ; Austin 5, Texas Table of Contents PAGE Foreword 5 Part I: Ethnography 7 Part II: Ethnology 34 Conclusion 59 Literature Cited 67 List of Illustrations FIGURE PAGE 1. Franz Boas on board the Gennania en route to Baffinland,1883 Frontispiece 2. Franz Boas 6 3. SketchmapofBritishColumbia,showingfieldoperationsof Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 1897 14 4. a. Franz Boas on left, with Eskimos b. Pencil sketch of Arctic village by Franz Boas 19 5. a, b. Bella Coola Indians in Berlin, 1885 20 6. Nawiti, a Kwakiutl village on Vancouver Island, B.C 22 7. Kwakiutl kerfed and bent wooden boxes. The “hunters’ boxes” tapered from top to bottom to permit storage in bow or stern of canoes. Ordinary box boards were cut straight 28 8. Kwakiutl wooden dishes 29 9. George Hunt and his wife, date unknown 31 10. Kwakiutl woman with goat horn spoon at mouth and rocking cradle 32 11. Kwakiutl masks, Vancouver Island, B.C 38 12. a. Kwakiutl woman wearing cedar bark cape; b. Kwakiutl chief holding broken copper, with son; c. Kwakiutl wo­man with artificially deformed head, left profile; d. Same woman as c, full front 50 Fig. 1. Franz Boas on the Germania, en route to Baffinland, 1883. Courtesy of Helene Boas Yampolsky. TheEthnographyandEthnology ofFranzBoas* by Leslie A. White Department of Anthropology, The University ofMichigan Foreword In the preparation of the following paper I have tried conscientiously to address myself to Boas’ own publications and to ignore, insofar as possible,the commentaries of others, so that my conception of his work could be formed as independently as possible. I have, however, drawn upon essaysabout Boas in instances where quotations would illuminate his work or con­tribute to abetter appreciation of it. Before beginning the actual writing of this paper, I read or reviewed al­ most everything listed in Boas’ complete bibliography as published in Kroe­her, et al., 1943, pp. 67-109, covering the years 1884 to 1943, inclusive, per­taining to the ethnographic field work and ethnological interpretations of Boas. I did not read any of the material published in German; almost all, if not all, of this has its counterpart in English publication. The material cov­ered by me was very voluminous, numbering in the thousands of pages. On some field trips Boas occupied himself with physical anthropology and linguistics as well as with conventional ethnographic work. I have endeavored to include in my study all of his field trips during which ethnographic work was done. I have, however, excluded from my review his technical work in linguistics. Biographic note Franz Boas was born in Minden, Westphalia in 1858. His father was a prosperous business man. He studied at Heidelberg, Bonn, and Kiel, takinghis doctorate at the latter institution in 1881. He majored in physics and mathematics, but shifted toward physical, and later, cultural geography. In 1883-84 he was in Baffinland on a scientific expedition. His first field trip to the North Pacific Coast was made in 1886. He taught anthropology at Clark University from 1888 to 1892. He served as Chief Assistant in anthropology at the World Columbian Exposition in Chicago, in 1893. A year later he was appointed Curator (anthropology) in the Field Museum, Chicago. In 1896, * This paper was prepared for a conference on the History of Anthropology, sponsored by the Social Science Research Council, and presented at the conference in New York on April 13-14, 1962. 5 Fig. 2. Franz Boas. Courtesy of Columbia University. he wasappointedAssistantCuratorinethnologyandsomatologyattheAmer­ican Museum of Natural History, New York. In the same year he became a lecturer in physical anthropology at Columbia University; in 1899 he was appointed Professor of Anthropology at Columbia. He directed the series of Jesup North Pacific Expeditions from their inception in 1897. In 1905, he resigned from the staff of the American Museum of Natural History. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and, in 1931, served as Presi­dent of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1937 he retired from his professorship at Columbia. He died in New York in 1942 (Kroeber, 1943;Herskovits, 1953,pp. 127-28). PARTI: ETHNOGRAPHY “Boasmustbeunderstood,firstofall, as afieldworker,’'RobertH.Lowie (TheHistoryofEthnologicalTheory,p. 131). Boas embarked upon his first field trip in 1883; his last venture into the field was in 1930, when he was seventy-two years old. And when he could no longer go to the field himself, he brought a Kwatkintl Indian to New York in 1937 in order to continue his researches (Benedict, 1943, p. 60). His pub­lications upon his explorations and researches amount to many thousands of pages and cover a period of six decades: from letters on his trip to the arctic in 1883 to Kivakiutl Tales in 1943. In terms of time spent in field researches and in magnitude of literary output, his record is impressive. But, to his achievement in cultural anthropology one must add his extensive work in lin­guistics and physical anthropology. And all this paralleled a long and dis­tinguished career as a professor at Columbia University. The main outlines of the history of Boas’ ethnographic researches are easily summarized. He spent the year 1883-84in arctic North America amongthe Eskimo. His investigations of the cultures of the Northwest Coast beganinBerlinin 1885andendedinNewYorkin 1937,withmanyfieldtripstothe actual region between these dates. He collected some folk-tales in Mexico in 1912 while he “was engaged in work for the International School of Ameri­can Archaeology and Ethnology” (Boas, 1912a, p. 204). Between 1919 and 1921 he worked at some pueblos—at Laguna, Zuni, and Cochitf—in New Mexico.He alsotookadvantage, onafewoccasions, toobtaindatafrommem­bers of non-Western societies whom he chanced to encounter in Chicago and New York. “During the past spring,” he wrote in “Notes on the Eskimos of Port Clarence”(1894a, p.205),“Ihadthe goodfortunetofallinwithapartyofEskimofromPortClarence, Alaska,whostoppedinChicago[where Boas was engaged in the World’s Fair] on their way to Washington . . Follow are the results of my fragmentary inquiries.” . In the winter of 1914, Louis Shotridge, a full-blood Chilkat (Tlingit) In­ 7 dian, born on the Chilkat River, and who had been a member of the staff of theUniversityMuseum,UniversityofPennsylvaniasince 1912,wenttoNew York to study linguistics with Dr. Boas, according to the Museum s director, G.B.Gordon.Inaprefatorynoteto“Grammatical NotesontheLanguageof the Tlingit Indians” (1917, p. 7) Boas said: “the following notes on the Tlin­git language were obtained from Mr. Louis Shotridge, who spent about six weeks inNewYorkduringthewinterof1914-15...” Welearnfrom areportofthe GhiefoftheBureauofAmericanEthnology(Holmes, 1916, p. 18) that “field work required in completing the Handbook [of American Indian Languages] was limited to a brief visit by Doctor Boas totheCarlisleIndian SchoolinPennsylvania.” Working with Mr. C. K. Simango, a Mundau from Portuguese South Africa (Herskovits, 1953, pp. 47-48), Boas published four papers on the Vandau: the concept of the soul among the Vandau, the avunculate, the relationship system, and tales in proverbs (the first was published in 1921, the latter three in 1922, see our bibliography). Ella Deloria was a Plains Indian studying at Teachers’ College, Columbia. With her Boas produced the Dakota Grammar,published in 1941. It is curious, inviewofthefactthatBoas’ fieldworkhasbeenemphasized so much by those who have written about him, that no one has taken the troubletobringtogetherthe mostelementaryfacts abouthisfieldtrips, such as the number of trips, the places where he worked, and the dates of the in­ vestigations.Boas supplies someinformationonsome ofthese points insome —but far from all—of his publications, and even when he does, his informa­tion is sometimes indefinite and incomplete. In more than one instance, in his reports and monographs on the Northwest Coast, he says “in the winter of” such and such years, mentioning two consecutive years, when, as he states in other places, he was actuallv in the field only in the fall and up to and includ­ing December. Thus, in four places (Boas, 1888a, p. 47; 1888b, p. 49; 1889a, p.233; 1890,p.801),hetellsusthathewasinBritishColumbia“inthewin­ter of 1886-87.”But, as we shall see below, he arrived in the field in Septem­ber and returned to New York in December. In one publication (Boas,1896a, p. 257) he states that he was in the field “in the winter of 1894-95,”but in another place he says “during the months from September to Decem­ber,1894,1revisitedBritishColumbia...”(Boas, 1895a,p.523). In the preface to Kwakiutl Tales (1910, p. v) he savs merely that the tales had been collected “on various journeys to British Columbia.” And in the preface to Keresan Texts (Pt. I, p. VIII), he states that the material was collected “during the years 1919-1921,” but he does not specify what por­tions of these years were spent in the field or even indicate at which of the seven Keresan pueblos the data were obtained. Apparently Boas did not feel that it was necessary, or important, to provide information of this sort. I present herewith a list of dates and places of Boas’ ethnographic field trips. It is based upon data obtained for me by a research assistant, Miss Meredith Jean Black, from Boas’ diaries and correspondence in the archives of the American Philosophical Society, 0 from a microfilm of abstracts of Boas’ correspondence made by his daughter, Mrs. Helene Boas Yampolsky,and from information provided by Boas himself or by one or two of his co­ workers in the field. This is the first time, I believe, that such a list has ever been compiled. It is not perfect and complete, however; on the contrary, we knowthatsomeofthedatesare onlyapproximate. 1. To Baffinland, August, 1883 to August, 1884 (Boas, 1884, pp. 248, 270). 2. 1886, to the North Pacific Coast, September 18 to December 16. 3. 1888,totheNorthPacificCoast,fromthelatterpartofMaytothelatterpartof July (see Boas, 1890, p. 801). 4. 1889,totheNorthPacificCoastfromaboutthemiddleofJulyuntiltheearly part of October (see, also, Boas, 1891a, p. 604). 5. 1890, to the North Pacific Coast. It appears, from letters, that he was in Port­land on June 9, and in Oakland, California, on July 24; a letter from Horatio Hale, dated October 10, indicates that Boas hadrecently returned to the east. “In 1890 Ifell inwitha numberofBellaCoolawhowerefishingforsalmon inFraserRiver” (Boas, 1898a, p. 27); he refers, also, to his summer’s work in Boas, 1894b, p. 454. 6. 1891, to the North Pacific Coast from approximately June to latter part of October. The Chinook Texts were recorded in the summers of 1890 and 1891 (Boas, 1894c, p. 5). 7. 1894-95. “During the months from September to December, 1894,1 revisited British Columbia. . .” (Boas, 1895a, p. 523); in the preface to The Kwakiutl of . VancouverIsland(1909b,p.308)Boaswrites“In 1895IrevisitedBritishColum­bia. . . .” But from material at the American Philosophical Society it would appearthat he went to California about the end of December or early in January, where he gave a lecture at Stanford University. He did some field work also: in “Anthro­pometrical Observations on the Mission Indians of Southern California” (1896g, p. 261) he states that the work was done “in the winter of 1894-95.” He returned to New York in January, 1895. 8. 1897,totheNorthPacificCoast,fromJune2untilthe“middleofSeptember”(Boas, 1898b, pp. 8, 11; also, Boas, 1905a, p. 93, where he says he worked with the Tsimshian, Bella Coola, and Thompson Indians). 9. 1900,fromJunetoSeptember.WorkwiththeThompsonRiverandtheVan­couver Indians of British Columbia (Boas, 1905a, p. 93). 10. 1912, in Mexico where, as we have already noted, he collected some folk­ taleswhile“engaged inworkfortheInternationalSchoolofAmericanArchaeologyand Ethnology...(Boas, 1912a, p. 204). 11. 1919, at Laguna Pueblo, New Mexico. He left New York late in May or * I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Dr. John F. Freeman, Research Associate at the American Philosophical Society, for his generous assistance in acquainting me with this material. 9 early in June. He was in Laguna by June 16, and had returned to New York byJuly 10. 12. 1920, to Pueblos in New Mexico: San Felipe and Santo Domingo and per­haps others. He left New York the latter part of May or early in June; he had returned toNewYorkby July 13. 13. 1921, to Cochiti, and possibly other pueblos. He left New York on Septem­ber 9 and returned by the middle of October. Goldfrank (1927, p. 5) tells us that she “accompanied Professor Franz Boas, who was making a special [sic]studyoftheKereslanguage,”toCochitiPueblo“inthefallof 1921andthespringof 1922.” 14. 1923, to the North Pacific Coast. His expense account gives the dates of November 4 to December 24. Bella Bella Tales (1932a) were collected in the fall of 1923 (Boas, 1932a, p. VI). 15. 1930-31,totheNorthPacificCoast.HearrivedinVancouveronOctober21 and returned to New York the latter part of January. Mead (1959b) has pub­lished letters from Boas to Ruth Benedict, written in October and November, 1930. In the preface to Kwakiutl Tales (new series, 1935, p. VII) Boas states that they were obtained at Fort Rupert in the winter of 1930-31. Boas spent the summer of 1892 in Germany. In 1893 he was engaged in work with the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. In 1896 be was appointedLectureratColumbiaUniversityfortheperiodJuly1,1896toJune30, 1897. He wrote to G. M. Dawson on June 4, 1896, that he would give up his plansfor field work during that summer, but would be back in the field in the sum­mer of 1897. In “The Jesup North Pacific Expedition” (Boas, 1905a, p. 93)Boas has a list of men who did field work and the years during which it was done. For himself, he lists 1897 and 1900 as being in the North Pacific Coast,but mentions no field work for 1898,1899,1901, and 1902. In the preface to The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians (1930a, Pt. I, p. x)Boaswrote:“In 1903Mr.HuntvisitedNewYork. Ihadnoopportunityto ... revisit the nativevillages onthecoast ofBritish Columbiauntil 1923whenI went to Bella Bella. . . . But, on the same page, he said: “Twice more, in 1912and 1927,ImetMr.HuntinVictoria,BritishColumbia.”Idonotknow what tomake ofthese reports. If we omit his trip to Baffinland, which was undertaken primarily as a geog­rapher, and the year in Mexico, where his ethnographicresearches appear to have been very limited, the amount of time spent by Boas in the field is ap­proximately as follows: 1886 3 months 1900 3 months 1888 2 months 1919 1A months 1889 1890 3 months 2 months 1920 1921 1/2 months 1 month 1891 4 months 1923 2 months 1894-5 4 months 1930-1 3 months 1897 months Total 33/2 months Of the total, 33/2 months, 4 were spent in New Mexico; 29% on the North Pacific Coast. Ifourknowledge ofthenumberand datesofBoas’fieldtrips isinsufficient, our information on the way in which these trips were financed and the aus­pices under which they were undertaken is even more meager and inade­quate. In 1882, when he was planning an expedition to Arctic America he wrote “I have drawn up a budget, and I find that for from 500-600 dollars everything can be cared for’’ (Boas, 1882, p. 114). He hoped that he mightobtain “the sponsorship of the American Geographical Society. . . . [for]through this organization, Hall in a very short time received from privateindividuals nearly everythinghe needed for his trip. . . .’’ ( ibid.). As we shall note shortly, the German Polar Commission provided him with passage to America and with supplies and equipment for the field. And, according to Kroeber (1943, p. 8), Boas, “his own funds being insufficient, arranged for additional financing from a newspaper—the Berliner TagebJattwhich pub­ lishedaseriesofhislettersandtravelreportsfrom1883to1885.’ , In 188.5-86,whenBoaswasinBerlin—andpresumablyafterhehad“spent two strenuous weeks with the [Bella Coola] Indians” who were being “ex­hibited” there (Boas’ letter to M. K., his fiancee, dated February 5, 1886,quoted by his daughter, Mrs. Helene Boas Yampolsky, 1958, p. 312)—he tried, but without success to obtain funds for a field trip to Canada (ibid.).Bastian, to whom Boas applied for assistance, was rude to him (ibid.). When Boas was in New York in the summer of 1886, on his way to the Northwest Coast, he addressed a letter to Charles P. Daly, the president of the American Geographical Society, asking him to “lend him his valuable as­sistance.” “Most probably I shall get a free passage on the Canadian Pacific Railroad by the help of my Canadian friends,” he wrote Daly (Boas, 1886a, p. 525), and “instruments will be lent to me by my friends in Washington.”But he needed money: “I estimate that I must have a credit of $l,OOO for the pmq)Ose. Though I suppose that only $750 will be needed I ought to be al­lowed to spend the above amount as I cannot judge now how much travel-ling there will have to be done” (ibid.). He adds: “I consider this amount a small one as compared to the importance of the object in view and beg to have your support for my plans.” But, according to Benison (1949, p. 525),“Boas wasunabletogetanyfinancialaidfromthe GeographicalSociety.” In the letter to Daly, cited above, Boas says that he had applied to the Ca­nadian Geological Survey for financial support, but “on account of the small appropriations of that institution they could not give me any material help.” Mrs. Yampolsky (1958, p. 312) reports that Boas “tried to interest the Ethnographic Bureau of Canada and his efforts finally bore fruit—his three months’fieldtriptoVancouverIslandinthefallof 1886.”Boas,himself,states in the preface to The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island (1909b, p. 307) that “with the financial aid of personal friends, I was enabled to visit the coast of British Columbia in the fall of 1886/' Whether the “personal friends” were officers of the Ethnographic Bureau of Canada, or whether assistance came from these two different sources, are questions that we cannot answer. He did,however,obtainafreepassontherailroadtothewestcoast (Yampolsky, 1958, p. 313). Intermittently between 1888 and 1898, Boas conducted anthropologicalresearches on the Northwest Coast under the auspices of the British Associa­tionfortheAdvancementofScience.Therehasbeen somedifferenceofopin­ion as to how and when this working arrangement was effected. Benedict (1931, p.279)statesthatitbeganin1886,whichisdefinitelyanerror.DeLa­guna (1960, p. 102) states that “in 1888 Franz Boas was sent by E. B. Tylor to the Northwest Coast for his first summer’s investigations for the British Association for the Advancement of Science.” Kroeber (1943, pp. 11-12) writes: “In the summer of 1888 he [Boas] revisited the Indians of British Columbia, this time under the auspices of the British Association Commit­tee on the Northwestern Tribes of Canada, of which Tylor was chairman and Bloxam secretary. Whether he applied for the work, or how he came to be selected, is not clear; nor when he met Tylor.’ We have Boas’ own state­ment ofhowitcameabout: “The meagre results of my first journey [in 1886] brought me the oppor­tunity to revisit British Columbia in 1888, following an invitation of Horatio Hale, then editor of the Committee of the British Association for the Ad­vancement of Science for the Study of the Northwestern Tribes of Canada, which had been appointed at the Montreal meeting in 1884” (Boas, 1909b, p. 308). We learn from the fourth Report of the Committee, consisting of E. B. Tylor, chairman,and others,appointedbytheBritishAssociationforthe Ad­vancement of Science “to investigate the Physical Characters, Languages,and Industrial and Social Conditions of the Northwestern Tribes of the Do­minion of Canada” that they had “been enabled to secure the services of Dr. Franz Boas . . . who has consented to return to that province [BritishColumbia] for the purpose of continuing his researches there on behalf of the Committee. . . .” (Report of the British Association for Advancement of Sci­ence;London, 1889,p.233).ContainedinthisreportwerealetterfromBoas addressed to Horatio Hale and “Preliminary Notes on the Indians of British Columbia” (pp. 233-242). Boas submitted, and the Committee published, re­ports of his researches in subsequent reports of the Committee: Fifth Report, pp. 801-893, 1890; Sixth Report, pp. 562-715, 1891; Seventh Report, pp. 408­449, 1892; none in the Eighth Report; Ninth Report, pp. 454-463, 1894; Tenth Report, pp. 523-592, 1895; Eleventh Report, pp. 569-591, 1896;Twelfth and Final Report, pp. 628-644 (with Livingston Farrand), 648-682, 1889. These dates are for the publication of the Reports of the British Asso­ciation;thefieldtripswereusually,butnotalways, ayearearlier. Our information concerning the extent to which the British Association supported Boas’ field work on the Northwest Coast is rather meager. A letter from Horatio Hale to Boas, dated May 14, 1888, enclosed a letter of credit and railroad tickets (archives of American Philosophical Society). A sum of $6OO was specified in correspondence between Boas and the Committee on North Western Tribes prior to the field trip of 1889. Letters from Horatio Hale (June 27, 1889) and Daniel Wilson (July 12, 1889) tell Boas that the Committee had approved the sum of $l,OOO for three months work in the summer of 1889. The Sixth Report of the Committee (Boas, 1891a, p. 553) states that “the grant made to the Committee was supplemented by $5OO from the Canadian Government. . . . The Committee ask for reappoint­ment, and for a grant of 200 7. A letter from D. Wilson, a member of the Committee,toBoasonJune3, 1891,enclosedadraftfor$2BOforthesummer —and best wishes for the trip (American Philosophical Society). In 1894 a sum of $5OO was placed at the disposal of Boas and Dawson for three months in the field. The Tenth Report of the Committee (Boas, 1895a, p. 522) alludes to funds provided by the British Association and mentions a “large con­tribution by the Canadian government to the funds at the disposal of the Committee.” Thefield trip of 1894-95was supported “throughan arrangementwith the Committee of the British Association... . the U. S. National Museum, and the AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory”(Boas, 1909b,p.308). The field trip to the Mission Indians of Southern California was financed by a grant from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (Boas, 1896g, p. 261). Boas had a close working relationship with the Bureau of American Eth­nology for many years. A letter from Major J. W. Powell, director of the Bureau, to Boas, dated December 21, 1888, informs the latter that the Bureau would support his linguistic (Salish) researches during the summer of 1889 tothe extentof$450. “Toward the close of the calendar year,” wrote Major Powell, in his reportfor 1894-95, “Dr. Franz Boas . . . communicated with the Bureau suggestingthat he be given authority and means for visiting the Kathlamet Indians . . . forthepurposeofcollectingtexts... hewasauthorizedtocarryouthisplanof operations, the material tobe conveyed to the Bureau for a stipulated sum. Dr. Boas devotedseveral weekstothe work,andafterhisreturntothe United States prepared the material for publication” (Powell, 1897, p. LXV). In his Director’s Report for 1898-99, Major Powell wrote: “. . . workingunder a small allotment, Dr. Franz Boas continued the preparation of lin­guistic material collected among the tribes of Northwestern United States and contiguous Canadian territory” [adding that the material would be published] (Powell, 1903, p. XXI). “At the opening of the year [l9Ol-02] Professor Franz Boas, of Columbia University, received an honorary appointment as philologist [from the Bu­ reau of American Ethnology] and was intrusted with the supervision of a considerable part of the linguistic researches in which the Bureau is engaged’(Powell, Ko4,p. XXXIV). We do not know the extent to which Boas linguistic or ethnographic re­searches were supported financially by the Bureau of American Ethnology,but it would appear that such aid was rather meager. The field researches made by Boas and others under the auspices of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition were financed by Mr. Morris K. Jesup, presi­dent of the American Museum of Natural History. It was organized in 1897 “at my suggestion” says Boas (1909b, p. 309). The Jesup North Pacific Expe- Fig. 3. Sketch map of British Columbia showing the field of operations of the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition in 1897. Courtesy of American Museum of Natural History. dition was not a group enterprise as was the Torres Straits Expedition of 1898, for example. Rather, it consisted of a number of field trips by a number of individuals—John R. Swanton, Harlan I. Smith, Livingston Farrand,James A. Teit, and Franz Roas on the west coast of North America, and Waldemar Jochelson and Waldemar Bogoras in northeastern Asia. The project was placed under the direction of Boas, and publication of its results wasexecutedunderhiseditorship. Mr. Jesup“donatedtotheMuseum the means” to cany on the work of the expedition (Boas, 1905a, p. 92). In a letter to George Hurlbut, librarian of the American Geographical Society,written in 1900, Boas said “we are about to send an expedition to Siberia for thepurposeofethnologicalinvestigations . . Mr.Jesup,whoisdefrayingthe . expensesoftheexpedition....”(Benison, 1949,p.526). Mr.HomerE.Sargent,ofChicago—later,ofPasadena—“formanyyears de­frayedalltheveryconsiderableexpensesofMr. [JamesA.]Teit’swork(Boas,1930b, p. 25). We find other mention of Mr. Sargent’s “generous financial support” of, at least Teit’s work, and possibly that of another, or others (Hodge, 1916, pp. 18-19; Fewkes, 1925, p. 12). We do not know whether or not any of Boas’ ethnographic field researches were supported by Mr. Sargent. In the preface to Ethnology of the Kwakiutl (1921a, p. 45), Boas wrote: “The material contained in the following pages was collected partly in con­nection with the work of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, partly after the close of the expedition, largely with funds provided by friends interested in the scientific work of the Department of Anthropology in Columbia Uni­versity.” Boas unquestionably obtained funds for research from foundations in later years of his field work—“research funds rolled in on him for the asking”(Kroeber, 1956,p.153)butwehavenodataonthispoint. We turn now to his field researches and the publications resulting there­from. Field Work in Arctic America From a letter written by Boas to his uncle, Dr. Abraham Jacobi, in the fall of 1882welearnthathe (Boas)hadappliedfora“FellowshipinBalti­more” in order to “learn the things which, as a geographer, I will later need to know. I wanted to prepare myself in Baltimore ... to go on scientific tripsfora...fewyears,toseeandtolearn....I verymuchhopedtofindin Balti­more . . . theopportunitytojoinanexpedition,tofindaplaceforgeographi­cal research, or better still be sent somewhere all by myself. My research interest is completely oriented toward the American polar area. I am, so far as ispossible,wellqualifiedforthis.I amentirelyfamiliarwiththeliterature on the region . . . the principal objective of my work would concern the mi­ 15 grations of the Eskimo" (Boas, 1882, p. 114). Elsewhere in the letter he writes, “I have in mind a geographical investigation ... I am making studies of the Eskimo and their knowledge of the land thev inhabit, as well as of the O7 entire region, in the hope of demonstrating a certain relationship between the number of people in a tribe, the distribution of food, and the . . . [word un­decipherable]. I am learning here the things that are needed for making a ... scientific expedition, and finally, most important of all, I am learning and already know the Eskimo language ...” (ibid.). Boas hoped to obtain the sponsorship of a geographical society, especiallythat of the American Geographical Society, and hoped, also, to get free pas­sage to America on a whaling vessel or on the “ship that calls for supplies at the [German meteorological] station in Cumberland Sound” (ibid.). Boas’ efforts to find support for his expedition were successful. “On my re­quest," he reported later, “the German Polar Commission gave me every as­sistance for the work I intended to do, granting me a passage on board the Germania, the use of the houses of the station [in Baffinland] and a goodsnpplv of provisions, hunting-gear and some instruments’’ (Boas, 1884, pp.246-47). On the 20th of June, 1883, Boas left Hamburg on the German schooner, Germania, for Arctic America. With him was Wilhelm Weike, his servant. This poor fellow was not to accompany his master on much of his explora­tion, however, as his (Weike’s) feet were frozen on a journey in December, and he was incapacitated at the station at Kikkerton for the rest of the win­ter. The Germania entered Davis Strait on July 9, but did not reach the sta­tion at Kikkerton until about the last of August, due to ice and weather (Boas, 1884, pp. 247-48, 260-61). “Dr. Boas spent about twelve months from August, 1883 till the 25th of August, 1884, in exploring from his headquarters at the Kikkerton Islands Whaling-station, the coasts of Cumberland Sound and Davis Strait. as ... far as Cape Paper in latitude 69° 50' north, traversing in all his journeysnearly 2,400milesofcountrymostofwhich hadpreviouslybeenunexplored"(editor’s note to Boas, 1885, p. 768). "Besides the mere geographical work, which took most of my time,” Boas wrote in 1884, "I made ethnographical collections and observations, which givemanynewpointsofviewreferringtothereligions ideasandtraditionsof theEsquimaux. AsIlearnedthelanguageofthispeople,Iwasabletounder­stand the old songs and tales as I lived amongst them as one of them, I learned their habits and ways,... I saw their customs referring to birth and death,theirfeasts,etc.” (Boas, 1884,p.271). The impression that the first sight of Eskimos made upon this young cul­turedGerman scholar is vividlvrecorded by Boas: “When our ship was about to enter the port ofKikkerton .. . there came .. . aboat-loadofEskimos toofferustheirhelp. Ihadnot formed a goodopinionof the appearance of these people, but I was really astonished at the figures I saw. The little bandy-legged fellows who ran laughing and chewing over the deck of the vessel, with their long black hair, flat faces, and dripping eyes,made an extremely repulsive impression; and when we were visited by a boat-load of women, among whom were a few antiquated matrons, my aver­sion toward my fellow residents reached its highest point. It really seemed as if the ugliest of the uglv had been selected to receive us, for I was after­ward surprised by many a cheerful and pleasant face, or a strong, well-bnilt figure” (Boas, 1885,pp. 771-72). Before he left Germany in 1883, Boas published three articles on the Es­kimos, and his letters on his trip began to appeal' in the Berliner Tagehlatt in August, 1883. His publications on his year in the arctic were numerous (seebibliography in Kroeber et at, 1943, pp. 67-72). “His purely geographicalarticles on the Arctic continued to appear until 1888,” says Kroeber (1943, p.9), “but even by then they had been surpassed in number and volume byethnological ones on the Eskimo.” Boas published two “popular” articles upon his arctic adventure that are especiallv interesting: “A Journey in Cumberland Sound and on the West Shore of Davis Strait in 1883 and 1884,” in the Journal of the American Geo­graphical Society in 1884; and, “A Year Among the Eskimo,’ Bulletin of the American Geographical Societv, 1887. They are vivid, well-written accounts of his travels and hardships, the Eskimos, their dog-teams, hunting, amuse­ments, myths, and so on. “Cumberland Sound and its Eskimos’ (The PopularScience Monthly, 1885), also describes his life among the Eskimos. Much of the material in one article is repeated in another; the myth of Sedna, the cere­mony of the Kailertetang, the ritual slugging match in which visiting strangerand welcoming host engage, etc. One paragraph, for example, appears in identical wording in “Cumberland Sound and its Eskimos” and in The Cen­tral Eskimo (p. 603), and again, slightly different, in “A Year among the Eskimo” (p. 391): “When late in the fall storms rage over the land and release the sea from the icy fetters by which it is as yet but slightlv bound, when the loosened floes are driven one against the other and break up with loud crashes, when the cakes of ice are piled in wild disorder one upon another, the Eskimo be­lieves he hears the voices of spirits which inhabit the mischief laden air.” In 1889 Boas published, with H. Rink, a short paper, “Eskimo Tales and Songs” (Boas, 1889b, pp. 123-131): the translations, the first excepted, and the linguistic notes were provided by Rink; the explanations of the songs, byBoas. Five years later he published “the texts and translations of a few more [Eskimo] tales, ditties, and songs which were collected by me in Cumberland Sound in the years 1883 and 1884” (Boas, 1894d, p. 45). We have already 17 noted his work, while in Chicago in 1893, with some Eskimos from Alaska (Boas, 1894a). More “tales, ditties and songs, collected by me [Boas] in CumberlandSound werepublishedin 1897(Boas, 1897a). Boas also published the field observations of others—of sea captains and missionaries: 1) a short paper on "The Religious Beliefs of the Central Eski­mo”(Boas, 1900);and2)twolengthypaperson“TheEskimoofBaffinLand andHudsonBav”(Boas, 1901a,370pp.;1907,pp.371-570). Boas chose two of his articles on the Eskimo, “The Folk-Lore of the Eski­mo” (1904) and “The Relationships of the Eskimo of East Greenland” (1909) for republication in his anthology, Race, Language, and Culture (1940). Boas’ major ethnographic publication was, however, The Central Eskimo, publishedin 1888bytheBureauofAmericanEthnology.Itwasanoteworthyachievement, but hardly “monumental” as Kroeber (1943, p. 9) has termed it.It is a simple,straightforward,lucidlywrittenmonographof270pages,of which 40 are devoted to distribution of tribes, 45 to hunting and fishing, 54 to social and religious life, 26 to tales and traditions, and 10to poetry and music. Many aspects of Eskimo culture are treated superficially, or not at all. In one paragraph, for example, he (1) describes women doing housework in front of lamps; (2) women take care of puppies, if any; (3) children are carried in hoods, are suckled and weaned; (4) “when about twelve years old they [children] begin to help their parents, the girls sewing and preparingskins, the boys accompanying their fathers in hunting .” (5) parents treat their children kindly and the children are obedient (pp... 565-66). One of the subjects completely ignored by Boas is that of relationship terms: “. . . not onlydid[he]notcollectkinshipterms,”saysEggan (1960,p. 180),“butfor some reason did not utilize those published by Morgan a decade earlier from the same region." Boas drew upon many previously published works on the Eskimo and the Arctic in writing The Central Eskimo, but perhaps he was notacquaintedwithMorgan’s SystemsofConsanguinityandAffinity (1871). Field Work on the Northwest Coast Interestingly enough, Boas began his study of Northwest Coast culture in Berlin in 1885. A Captain Adrian Jacobsen had brought a group of Bella Coola Indians to Berlin where they were “exhibited” for about two weeks,during which time Boas made a brief study of their language and culture (Boas, 1886b, 1909b, p. 307). He published four articles on his investigationsbefore he ever set foot on the Northwest Coast (Boas, 1886b, 1886c, 1886d, 1886e). As we have already seen, Boas reached British Columbia in the fall of 1886, and immediately plunged into field researches and publication. In Fig. 4a. Franz Boas on left, with Eskimos. Courtesy of Helene Boas Yampolsky. Fig. 4b. Pencil sketch of Arctic village by Franz Boas. Courtesy of the American Philosophi­cal Society. Fig. 5a.Coolain1885.PhotographsbyCarl Gunther. CourtesyofProvincial MuseumofHistory,B.C. Bella Indians Berlin, theNaturalVictoria, b. Bella Coola Indians in Berlin, 1885. Photographs by Carl Gunther. Courtesy of the ProvincialMuseumofNaturalHistory, Victoria,B.C. 1887liepublished 40articles,eightofwhich dealtwiththe NorthwestCoast; three ofthem werepublished inGermany. According to Codere’s tabulation (1959, p. 61), “Boas’ Kwakintl and Northwest Coast publications total more than 10,000 printed pages, written over a period of almost six decades”; his “major” works on the Kwakintl alone ran to 5,255 pages. What does this extensive literature consist of? It is not easy to devise a classification that will accommodate Boas’ publi­cations onthe NorthwestCoast,but thefollowingbreakdownwill giveafair idea of their nature. Preliminary and General 1887 The Coast Tribes of British Columbia (Science) 1887 Notes on the Ethnology of British Columbia (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society) 1888 IndiansofBritish Columbia (TransactionsoftheRoyal SocietyofCanada) 1888 Indians of British Columbia (Popular Science Monthly) 1888 The Development of the Culture of Northwest America (Science) 1889 Preliminary notes on the Indians of British Columbia (Fourth Report of the Committee to study North-Western Tribes of Canada; British Assn, for Advancement of Science) 1890 The Indians of British Columbia (Fifth Report) 1891 TheIndiansofBritishColumbia(SixthReport) 1895 The Indians of British Columbia (physical; Tenth Report) 1896 The Indians of British Columbia (Bulletin, American Geographical So­ ciety ) 1896 The Indians ofBritish Columbia (Eleventh Report) 1899 Physical Characteristics of the Tribes of British Columbia, with Livingston Farrand (Twelfth Report) 1906 The Tribes of the North Pacific Coast (Annual Archaeological Report, Ontario) All but one of these articles were descriptive and some were relatively brief. But it is significant to note that already in 1888, only a year or so after he first set foot in an Indian village, he undertakes a general statement on “TheDevelopment ofthe Culture ofNorthwestAmerica.” Boas’ first article on the Kwaldutl Indians, the tribe that was to occupy so much of his time for some fifty years, appeared in 1887, within a year after his firsttriptoBritish Columbia.Anumber ofothers appeared duringthe first decade of his work in this area: Kwakiutl 1887 Census and Reservations of the Kwakiutl Nation (Bulletin of the Amer­ican Geographical Society) 21 Fig.6. Nawiti, a Kwakiutl Village on Vancouver Island. Courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History. 1888 On Certain Songs and Dances of theKwakiutl ofBritish Columbia (Jour­ nal of American Folk-Lore) 1888 Dawson on theKwakiutl (unsigned; Science) 1889 The Houses of the Kwakiutl Indians, British Columbia (Proceedings of theU. S.NationalMuseum) 1892 Vocabulary of the Kwakiutl Language (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society) 1896 Songs of the Kwakiutl Indians (Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographic). One of Boas’ most distinguishing traits as a field worker was bis emphasis upon the importance of obtaining and recording ethnographic data in the language of the natives themselves, i.e., in texts; he was the first anthro­pologist, as far as I know, to do this, and he followed this course more ex­tensively than any other anthropologist that I know of. Boas felt that it was important to “present the culture as it appears to the Indian himself.” “For this reason,” he wrote in 1908 (Boas, 1909b, p. 309), “I have spared no trou­ble to collect descriptions of customs and beliefs in the language of the In­dian, because in these the points that seem important to him are emphasized, and the almost unavoidable distortion contained in the descriptions given bythecasual visitorand studentiseliminated.For manyyearsI have advocated a more extended application of this method in our studies of the American aborigines ...” Not only did Boas record voluminous texts himself, he taught two Indians to write their own languages and persuaded them to record ethnographicmaterial;we shallreturn tothispointlater. Paul Radin, one of Boas’ early students, reports as follows upon Boas’ in­structions regarding field work: “To Professor Franz Boas he [Radin] is under especial obligations for directing him to the Winnebago, for the methods of research inculcated in him . . . and particularly for impressing upon him the necessity of obtaining as much information as possible in text” (Radin, 1923, p. 48). We list herewith Boas’ principal publications in text: Texts and Translations 1894 Chinook Texts 1901 Kathlamet Texts 1902 Tsimshian Texts 1905 Kwakiutl Texts 1906 Kwakiutl Texts, second series 1912 Tsimshian Texts, new series 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl 1925 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl 1928 Bella Bella Texts 1930 The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians Total .... 278 pp.261 pp.240 pp.528 pp.267 pp.220 pp.1418 pp.357 pp.291 pp.572 pp.4,432 pp. To these texts from the Northwest Coast should be added Keresan Texts (1925; 344 pp.) from the southwest and their translation (1928; 300 pp.).What do these texts consist of? Myths and folk-tales for the most part.Chinook Texts contains 187 pages of myths, eight pages of historical tales,and 83 pages of “beliefs, customs [pregnancy, marriage, birth, death, whal­ing, elkhunting,etc.],andtales.” TsimshianTextsareoffolk-tales.Thebulk of Kwakiutl Texts (1905) consists of “traditions”; there are some “miscel­laneous texts,” and a few songs. Tales and miscellaneous material are re­ corded in Bella Bella Texts. We turn next to collections of myths and tales, many of which were re­cordedbothintextand translation: Myths and Tales 1888 Myths and Legends of the Catloltq 19 pp.1896 Traditions of the Tsetsaut 26 pp. 23 1898 Traditions of the Tillamook 1898 Mythology of the Bella Coola 1910 Kwakiutl Tales (texts and translations)1916 Tsimshian Mythology (texts and translations)1918 Kutenai Tales (texts and translations)1932 Bella Bella Tales 1935 Kwakiutl Tales (translations)1943 Kwakiutl Tales (texts for 1935) Total .... 34 pp.103 pp.495pp.335 pp.387 pp.178pp.230pp.228 pp.2,035 pp. To which we may add: 1920 Spanish Tales from Laguna1926 Ten Folk-tales in Modern Nahuatl 1928 Keresan Texts (translation) Grand Total Total. .... 17 pp.26 pp.300 pp.343 pp.2,378 pp. Boas general ethnographic works from the Northwest Coast deal with the Kwakiutl Indians; some of them are recorded in both text and translation. General 1897 The Social Organization and Secret SocietiesoftheKwakiutlIndians 428pp.1909 The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island (some texts) 222 pp. 1921 EthnologyoftheKwakiutl,Pts. 1and .... 2 (texts and translations) 1418pp.1925ContributionstotheEthnology ofthe Kwakiutl (texts and translations) 357 pp. .... Total 2,425 pp. What do these general works deal with? In order to give a partial answer tothisquestion,wereproducetheirrespective tablesofcontentsbelow,with thenumberofpagesdevotedto eachchapterorsubject. The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians Chapter Number of pages I. The Indian Tribes of the North Pacific Coast 12 11. The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl 14 111. The Potlatch 18 IV. Marriage 9 V. Clanlegends 28 VI. The spirits presiding over the religiousceremonials and their gifts 26 24 VII. The organization of the tribe during the seasons of the winter ceremonial 14 VIII. The dances and songs of the winter ceremonial IX. The winter ceremony of the Kwakiutl X. The winter ceremonial at Fort Rupert, 1895-96 XI. Ceremonials of other tribes of Kwakiutl lineageXII. The Laolaxa 70 45 63 16 12 XIII. The religious ceremonials of other tribes of the North Pacific Coast 29 XIV. The growth of the secret societies Appendix: Songs and texts 6 70 These chapter headings do not always indicate faithfully the contents of the chapters.Forexample,after abriefintroductoryparagraphinthechapter on clan legends, Boas savs: “It seems desirable to introduce at this place a fuller description of the plan of the house than has heretofore been given.The houses of the Kwakiutl . .” and he goes on for more than four pages de­scribing the houses before saying: “I proceed now to a discussion of the clan legends” (p. 371). The emphasis upon ceremonialism rather than upon social,economic, andpoliticalorganizationis,ofcourse, obvious. TheKwakiutl ofVancouverIsland, 1909 “The title of this book is somewhat misleading,” observes M. Mauss in his review in VAnnee Sociologique. “It is not a new monograph on the Kwakiutl, which however would have been very desirable in order to place the former theories of M. Boas in harmony with the new documents which he has him­ self published. We have here merely a fragment of a study of their material civilization, and, more particularly, of their industrial and esthetic arts” (Mauss, 1909, p. 857, my translation. The Social Organization of the Kwa­kiutl Indians was reviewed by Emile Durkheim in VAnnee Sociologique,3:336—40, 1898-99; Ethnology of the Kwakiutl was reviewed by M. Mauss, ibid, 1:417-19, 590-91, 1923-24). Here is the Table of Contents of The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island (abridged): I. Introduction, p. 307 11. Industries, p. 310 Work in stone, p. 310 FlakingPeckingPerforatingCutting and grindingMaking of stone hammers Types of hammers, p. 314 Tools for woodwork, p. 319 25 Woodwork, p. 327 Examples of woodwork, p. 341 Preparation of fibres, p. 369 Basketry, p. 382 Weaving, p. 395 Netting, p. 399 Preparation of skins, p. 400 Painting, Decorating, Dyeing, p. 402 Objects made of shell, p. 405 Kelp bottles, p. 405 Fire-making, p. 407 111. Measurements Measurementof Space, p. 410 Measurementof Time, p. 412 IV. House and House-Furnishings, p. 414 Houses, p. 414 Household Utensils and Furnishings, p. 417 V. Meals, p. 427 VI. Travel and Transportation, p. 444 VII. Fishing, andHunting Sea-Mammals, p. 461 IX. Hunting Land-Mammals and Birds, pp. 507-516 Plates XXXVII-LII and their explanations, pp. 517-522. I have omitted all sub-subheadings except those under “Work in stone”;they are numerous and detailed. This work consists almost exclusively of detailed descriptions of the manu­facture and use of tools, and of various techniques employed in arts and crafts: “The Kwakiutl tribes . . . used for their stone implements hard pebbles of dolerite and similar rocks (tsEquls), which are found on the east end of ... Malcolm Island. The hardest and toughest pebbles that can be found, and that have a handy form—somewhat cylindrical, and tapering to a rounded point—are used for battering down the pebbles that are to be shaped. The battering-pebble is held in the hand loosely, and the battering-strokes are delivered slowlv. Thus small fragments are removed, and this process is con­tinued until the object has assumed the desired shape. Then the details are worked out with a smaller and lighter battering-stone, with which quite lightstrokesaregiven..andsoon(p. 310). If one wished to make a Kwakiutl canoe he could do so by following the detailed description of materials and processes of manufacture set down on pp.376-378.Thetextisillustratedwith 173figuresand52plates;someofthe latter are photographs of Indians, villages, etc.; others are of masks—some exceptionally beautiful ones in color—or other paraphernalia. About 80 pages are devoted to texts and translations, in vertical columns on a page. 26 ThelatterportionofTheKwakiutl ofVancouverIsland dealswithdetailed processes ofpreparing and serving meals,and withrules ofetiquette that are observed, especially when guests are present. Customs of eating are de­scribed : “In eating with a spoon, the people squat down, the right elbow resting on the right knee [the position is illustrated by a photograph, PI. XXXI]. The food is taken up on the point of the spoon, and is sipped. After eating, most people dip the point of the spoon in water that is passed about. Then the spoon cannot be used for purposes of witchcraft. “While eating, the left hand is kept under the blanket. It is considered im­proper to eatwithboth hands. “Noblemen and particularly girls of noble descent, must not eat much. When eating, they hardly open the mouth. They use pointed spoons, from which thev sip. They must not show their teeth when chewing. Girls, while eating, must not look into the fire and avoid looking about in the house” (p.427). Bathing:“Youngpeople generallybatheinfreshwater,and onlyoldpeoplebathe in the sea. Young people should bathe every morning before breakfast, on account of their prospect of coming into contact with the supernaturalworld. Bathing removes the human smell; and when they are fresh and clean, O 7J the spirits will come to them and warn them of approaching danger. Cere­monial purification generally requires washing in ponds and rubbing the bodvwithhemlock-branchesuntilbloodis drawn”(p.456). TheEthnology of theKwakiutl, 1921 Chapter Number of pages I. Industries 116 11. Hunting, fishing, and food-gathering 50 111. Preservation of food 82 IV. Recipes 297 V. Beliefs and customs 147 VI. Social customs 45 VII. Social divisions 41 VIII. Family histories (texts and translations) 442 IX. Songs 38 X. Addenda (odds and ends) 72 XI. Vocabularies 78 XII. Critical remarks 8 Total 1,416 .... This is a fascinating volume. All the material is presented both in text, in the Kwakiutl language, and in English translation. Fifty items are treated in 27 Chapter I, “Industries." Here is a description of the way to make a “Dish for pounding Salal-Berries”: “The husband of the woman first goes to get a good piece of cedar-wood without knots, three spans long and four spans wide and one short span high.He takes his ax and chops out the inside, until it is hollow and like a box. When it gets thin, he takes his hand-adz, turns it bottom-side up, and adzes it overfinely atthebottomandthe ends,sothatitdoesnot slant;andafterhe has finished the outer side, he puts it bottom downward and he adzes it inside, so that there are no lumps. After he has finished this, he takes his straight Fig. 7. Kwakiutl kerfed and bent wooden boxes. The “hunters’ boxes” are tapered from top to bottom to permit storage in bow or stern of canoes. Ordinary box boards were cut straight. CourtesyoftheAmerican MuseumofNaturalHistory. 28 knife and his bent knife, and he cuts all around the corners with the straightknife,aroundtheinside>ofwhathe isworkingat;andafterhehasdoneOso, he takes his crooked knife and shaves out the inside until it is very smooth. This is the box for pounding salal-berries, and it is just like a box after it is finished. Now the box for pounding salal-berries is finished, for it is called that way’’ (pp. 59-60). Almost 300 pages are devoted to 155 recipes for preparing and cooking Fig. 8. Kwakiutl wooden dishes. Courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History. 29 various foods; there are 30 recipes for cooking salmon, alone. The chapters on "Beliefs and Customs’ and “Social Customs’’ are a hodge-podge of all sorts of “social life and customs,” ranging from ways of disposing of the navel-string of a baby boy, or prayers to young cedar trees, to huckleberry feasts and swearwords.Muchinformation isgivenaboutsocialritual andetiquette.A recipe, for example, may tell us not only how the food is cooked, but how it is served to guests and the etiquette with which it is eaten. The section on “Socialpositionand marriagelaws’’(12pp.) dealswithdaughtersofchiefs,chieftainesses, endogamy and exogamy, names and crests, etc. The followingitem, “Distribution of Seal,” throws a spotlight on an important aspect of social life: "The hair-seal also teaches the common people their place; for chiefs re­ceive the chest, and the chiefs next in rank receive the limbs. They only givepieces of the body of the seal to common people of the tribes, and they givethe tail of the seal to people lowest inrank. Therefore trouble often follows a seal-feast and a feast of short and long cinquefoil-roots; for when a man who gives a seal-feast with many seals hates another man, he gives him a piece of blubber from the body, although he may be of noble descent; and they do the same with the short cinquefoil-roots. That is all about this” (pp. 750-51). ContributionstotheEthnologyoftheKwakiutl(1925) is,ineffect,a con­tinuation of Ethnology of the Kwakiutl (1921). Its contents are: Dreams,54 pp.; Rank, property, and inheritance, 56 pp.; The acquisition of names,246 pp. One might suppose that The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians (2 vols.,1930), which we have listed above among Texts, is a general treatise on the religion of the Kwakiutl, but such is not the case. Part I consists of texts re­corded by Boas; Part 11, of translations. But, here again, the material consists of odds and ends pertaining to supernaturalism: mythological concepts,shamanism, pravers—some 40 prayers are recorded—to the sunrise, of a wo­man after the death of her sister, to bears, fish, berries, etc.—medicines (fordiarrhoea,for swelling ofbreasts,burns, etc.) Everyone who reviews Boas’ voluminous literary output is much impressedwith it. “The massive achievement of Boas in the field of descriptive ethnog­raphy,” says Herskovits (1953, p. 62), “would alone be sufficient to give him an outstanding place in his science.” The magnitude of his literary output is,indeed, impressive. But one should not overlook the fact—as some have done —that a very considerable portion of it was the work of other men: the ma­terialfor severalofhismajorethnographicworkswascollected andrecorded by collaborators. In the preface to The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwa­kiutl Indians Boas says: “the great body of facts presented here were ob­served and recorded by Mr. George Hunt. I am indebted to him also for ... 30 explanations of ceremonials witnessed by myself . . . and for finding the In­dians who were able to give explanations on certain points” (p. 315). The Kwakiutl Texts (1905) "were recorded by Mr. George Hunt. . between the years 1895 and 1900 (Boas, 1905b, p. 3). Kwakiutl Texts, .second series (1906), also, "were recorded by Mr. George Hunt between the years 1900 and 1903” (Boas, 1906a, p. 2) In the preface to Ethnology of the Kwakiutl (p. 45), Boas states that Mr. Hunt “recorded data relating to the material culture, social life, customs, and beliefs of the Kwakiutl Indians. So far as accuracy and contents are concerned, he is responsible for the material con­ tained in this book.” The material for Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl, texts and translations, “was obtained from Mr. George Hunt (Boas, 1925b, p. v). Boas' Preface to The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians is not wholly clear to me, but I conclude from his lengthv discussion of Hunt’s work that he (Hunt) collected the material and probably made the transla­tions as he had in previous works. Finally, Hunt contributed the Nootka myths published in Tsimshian Mythology. George Hunt’s father was a Scotchman, his mother a Tlingit Indian. He Fig. 9. George Hunt and his wife, date unknown. Courtesy of the Provincial Museum of NaturalHistory, Victoria, B.C. Fig. 10. Kwakiutl woman with goat horn spoon at mouth and rocking cradle. Courtesyof theAmerican Museum of NaturalHistory. grew up “at Fort Rupert among the Kwakiutl, and their language was his mother tongue.” He took a “deep interest in everything pertaining to the ethnology of the Kwakiutl Indians. During the World Columbian Expositionin Chicago in 1893, Boas, who had charge of anthropological exhibits, begantoteach Hunt, whowas“inchargeofanumber ofKwakiutl Indians” at the fair, “to write Kwakiutl, his mother tongue.” And in the same year (1893)Hunt “began to record material in the Kwakiutl language.” “On repeatedvisits to British Columbia,” writes Boas, “I had an opportunity to criticallydiscuss with him the material he had written, which resulted in constant im­provement inhis methodofwritingandinmyknowledgeofthe phoneticsof thelanguage....Therecords madebyMr.Huntweretransmittedtomefrom time to time. After I had made a study of the texts I revised them critically, with the assistance of Mr. Hunt, in regard to both phonetics and grammar.This work was done during my visits to British Columbia in 1897 and 1900” (theprecedingdataarefromBoas,1897b,p.315;1905b,p.3; 1909b,p.308;1930a, p. IX). Hunt“spentseveralweeksinNewYorkin1901’ incollaborationwithBoas (Boas, 1921a, p. 45). Again in 1903, “Mr. Hunt visited New York to arrangethe collections made by him and by myself for the American Museum of Natural History, and I [Boas] was able to improve his own writing and my own hearing” (Boas, 1930a, Pt. I, p. X). In reviewing Kwakiutl Textssecond series, in Science (Boas, 1908, p. , 178), Boas explained why “the bulk of this work was intrusted to Mr. Hunt. It was “due to the fact that the Kwakiutl mythology is enormously extensive,and must be obtained from representatives of all the different families to whom the family traditions belong. The writer of these lines [Boas], who is responsible for the collection, could not undertake tins work himself, and for thisreasonhetaughtMr.HunttowriteKwakiutl, and,bvcarefullycontrol­ling his work, trust-worthy material has been gathered.” We summarize Hunt’s contribution to Boas’ publications on the Kwakiutl: 1897 The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl 428 pp. 1905 Kwakiutl Texts 528 pp. 1906 Kwakiutl Texts, second series 267 pp. 1916 Nootka myths in Tsimshian Mythology 48 pp. 1921 Ethnology of the Kwakiutl 1,410 pp. 1925 Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl 357 pp. 1930 The Religion of theKwakiutl, Pts. I and II 572 pp. Total 3,610pp. .... Henry W. Tate, also, assisted Boas in his ethnographic work. Tate was a full-blood Indian who lived in Port Simpson, British Columbia; his native tongue was Tsimshian. Texts and interlinear translation of Tsimshian Texts “were written down by Mr. Henry W. Tate ... in Tsimshian,” Boas wrote in the preface (p. 67), adding that “this material was revised by me.” The myths comprising Tsimshian Mythology were recorded during a twelve-yearperiod bv Tate in the Tsimshian language (Boas, 1916, p. 31). The transla­tionsweremadebyBoas,“based on afreeinterlinearrenderingbyMr.Tate” (ibid.). Tate’s contribution to Tsimshian Mythology covered 335 pages, and thattoTsimshian Texts, 220pages,makingatotalof555pages. Thus, the contributions of Hunt and Tate to Boas’ monographic outputamounted to 4,165 pages. We have no intention or purpose to minimizeBoas’ output or contribution by any means. On the contrary, we readily recognizethat the labor of supervising, revising, editing, proof-reading, and publishingthe material recorded by them in itself involved enormous labor and was a signal achievement—perhaps the most significant one that can be credited to Boas; we shall return to this point later, however. Our purpose is merely to call attention to, and make explicit, the contribution that these Indians made 33 to Boas’ field work and publications. Boas himself gave them full credit, but mostcommentators havetendedtoignoretheirassistance. PART II: ETHNOLOGY Boas, “the faithful recorder was, above all, a thinker” (Lowie, 1947, p.316). We have reviewed the data collecting and recording labors of Franz Boas. We nowturntohis interpretationofthe material gathered.What was Boas’ conception of his data? What was his “philosophy” of ethnology? How did he define his goals of interpretation? And, finally, what were his achievements? Much has been made of the fact that when Boas was a university student he applied himself to physics. It has been claimed, again and again, that it was early training in an “exact” science that equipped Boas to introduce “rigorous scientificmethod”intoanthropology.“Allhislife [he,Boas] thoughtlikeaphysicist,” saysKroeber (1943, p.22;seealsopp.6,7,25;andKroeber,1935, pp. 539, 540, 541, 544, 545). Goldenweiser (1933, p. 153), Radin (1933, pp. 9, 60), and Spier (1943, pp. 109, 116) make similar statements. Among Boas’ students, Lowie has stood apart notably on this point (Lowie,1940, pp. 598-99; 1944a, pp. 59-60). The plain fact is, however, that Boas expressly disavowed the goals and methods of interpretation of physics (as he defined them), and espoused a philosophy diametrically opposed to that of physics before he became an anthropologist.Wehavealready seenthat, asastudent,Boas“followed Theo­bald Fischer from physics into geography” (Kroeber, 1956, p. 158). We have seen, also, that as early as 1882 he considered himself a geographer (Boas,1882). In his significant and revealing article, “The Study of Geography,”published in February, 1887—almost immediately after his first trip to the NorthwestCoast—Boascontraststhe philosophyandmethods ofphysics with those of cosmography and geographv (a part of cosmography), and alignshimself with the latter. “. . . single facts become less important to him [thephysicist], as he lays stress on the general law alone. On the other hand, the facts are the object which is of importance and interest to the historian . . . Cosmography . . considers every phenomenon as worthy of being studied . foritsownsake”(p. 138).“Losingsightofthesinglefacts,he[thenaturalist] sees only the beautiful order of the world. The cosmographer, on the other hand, holds to the phenomenon which is the object of his study . . and lov­ingly tries to penetrate into its secrets until every feature is plain. and clear” (p. 140).Fortyyearlater,Boasconfirmedhisearlierrejectionofthemethod andgoalsofphysicsinfavorofthoseofgeography(Boas,1936,p. 137).And “whenfromgeographymyinterestwas directedtoethnology,”hewrote,“the same interest prevailed” (ibid.). 34 Boas’ interest was, therefore, focused upon the particular, rather than the general. “In ethnology all is individuality,’’ he said (Boas, 1887e, p. 589).“The general impression” that one gets of the culture of the Northwest Coast tribes, said Boas (1888a, p. 53) after his first field trip, “is that it is uniform;but the traveller finds many customs peculiar to one tribe, and not practicedby another.” The more one looked the more different the cultures became; one no longer saw forests but only trees—or perhaps just branches and twigs.Boas “first impression of the Kwakiutl “was that of bewildering confusion' (Boas, 1909b, p. 307). Let us see, now, how he coped with these varied cul­tures as he found them inthefield. Boas had very definite ideas about the purpose and goals of ethnology bythe time he had completed his first field trip to the Northwest Coast—if not before. His views are best set forth in an exchange of letters with O. T. Mason (principally) in Science, Vol. 9, 1887, and in a lecture, “The Aims of Eth­nology,” delivered in New York in 1888 (published in Race, Language, and Culture, 1940). “My view of the study of ethnologv is this,’ he wrote in Science (vol. 9, p. 588): “The object of our science is to understand the phenomena called ethnologicaland anthropological, in the widest sense of the words,—in their historical develop­ment and geographical distribution, and in their physiological and psychologicalfoundation. These two branches are opposed to [i.e., distinguished from] each other in the same way as are biology and the so-called systematic ‘organology,’ or as I have called it in another place (Science, ix, No. 210), when treating of the study of geography, ‘physical science and cosmography;’ the former trying to de­duce laws from phenomena, the latter having for its aim a description and explana­tionofphenomena.Itried to showthatbothbranches areofequalscientificvalue” (Boas, 1887e). In “The Aims ofEthnology” (1888h), he says: “. . . the first aim of ethnological inquiry must be critical analysis of the charac­teristicsofeachpeople.Thisistheonlywayofattaining asatisfactoryunderstand­ing of the cultures found in wider areas. The means at our disposal for makingsuch an analysis are varied: bodily form, language and culture are results of his­torical processes and may', therefore, be utilized for the study of history" (p. 629) . . ethnology deals with the history of primitive peoples. . . . The history of mankind is to be reconstructed by investigations of bodily form, languages, and customs” (p. 638). The second task of ethnology, according to Boas (1888h) is the discoveryof laws: “A comparison of the social life of different peoples proves that the foundations of their cultural development are remarkably uniform. It follows from this that there are laws to which this development is subject. Their discovery is the second, 35 perhaps themoreimportantaimofourscience”(p. 634).“Thefrequentoccurrence of similar phenomena in cultural areas that have no historical contacts suggeststhatimportantresults maybederivedfromtheirstudy,foritshowsthatthehuman mind develops everywhere according to the same laws. The discovery of these is the greatest aim of our science” (p. 637). Thus, as Boas saw it, the first task of ethnology was observation—the “criti­cal analysis of the characteristics of each people —then reconstruction of the culture history of peoples and areas, and finally the “discovery’ [formulation]of laws of cultural development. Boas quickly and industriously set about to make observations in the Northwest Coast, which he reported yearly (with some exceptions) in bis reports to the Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, appointed to study the North-Western Tribes. He observed “bodily form, languages, and customs.” And veryquickly, also, he began to reconstruct culture history. But here there is some confusion among the commentators on Boas’ ethnology. According to Herskovits (1953, p. 59), “Boas thus approached the ques­tion of the historic contact between nonliterate societies, the task of recon­structing history which again and again be emphasized was the basic prob­lem of anthropology . . .” Radin (1933, p. 17), however, asserts that “Boas’ method is fundamentally unhistorical.” Kroeber (1935, p. 541), too, says that “Boashasneverreallyfollowedthehistoricalmethodexceptinarather nar­row, special sense”; also, “Boas’s work also is now recognized as mainly lack­ingspecifichistoriccontentorresult...”(Kroeber, 1946,p.8).Goldenweiser objects strongly to the views of Radin and Kroeber: “As Boas’ student for many years and his academic associate for as many more, I want to express my demurrer to this thoroughly erroneous interpretation” (1941, p. 156).Spier (1959, pp. 147-48) has tried to show what Boas meant by ‘historical’: “Boas meant only that each cultural trait and configuration must have had a specific antecedent form. This did not involve the need to provide a sweep­ing picture-in-time. It sufficed for his purpose to envisage a “before and ... after' picture at a particular time and place.” We believe that Spier’s inter­pretation is sound and just—but let us turn to the writings of Boas himself. At the very outset of his investigations on the Northwest Coast Boas fo­cused his attention upon this question: What was the origin of these cultures and howdidtheydevelop?And mostofbisresearches were directedtoward the solutionofthisproblem.“Foralongtime,” hewrotein 1888,“theremark­able culture of the Indians of Northwest America has attracted the attention of ethnologists; but, so far, no progress has been made in solving the difficultproblem of the origin of this culture” (Boas, 1888a, p. 47). “The customs which we observe today are evidently the modern development of ancient forms” (Boas, 1899, p. 678). “The culture of the Northwest American tribes, which to the superficial observer seems so uniform, originates from many different sources, and that only a thorough knowledge of the languages, folklore, and customs of these tribes and their neighbors will enable us to trace at least a part of their ob­scure history” (Boas, 1887c, p. 428). “The general impression is that it [“theculture of the coast tribes”] is uniform but the traveller finds many customs peculiar to one tribe, and not practiced by another. These slight variations are one of the best clews for historical investigation. Among the Kwakiutl, for instance, we find a very elaborate system of secret societies, of which onlyfaint traces exist among the Coast Salish and among the Tlingit. Therefore we must suppose that the general culture can be traced back to various sources” (Boas, 1888a, p. 53). “. . . philological researches will prove a very powerful means of solvingthe questions regarding the history of the Northwest American tribes. In the studyofthe evolutionofthecultureofthese tribes,the question,...what originally belongs to each tribe, and what has been borrowed from foreign sources, must constantly be borne in mind. But one of the fundamental ques­tions to be answered before any definite results cau be obtained is: what tribe and peoples have been influenced or have exerted an influence uponNorthwest American culture? The answer to this question will define the area of our studies” (Boas, 1888a, p. 51). And, finally, Boas states that the aim of the Jesup North Pacific Expedi­tion “is the investigation of the history of man in a well-defined area. . . . The expedition has for its object the investigation of the tribes, present and past,ofthecoastsoftheNorthPacificOcean”(Boas, 1898b,p.4).“Whatrelations these tribes bear to each other, and particularly what influence the inhabi­tantsofonecontinentmayhaveexerted onthoseoftheother,areproblemsof greatmagnitude.Their solutionmustbeattemptedby acareful studyofthe natives of the coast, past and present, with a view of discovering as much of their history as may be possible” (ibid., p. 6). Thus, the task Boas set himself was, in effect, the reconstruction of the cul­ture history of the Northwest Coast. This was to be accomplished by deter­mining how the various tribes had “influenced” each other; how one had ac­quired a custom or trait from another. And this, in turn, was to be achieved by “patient, careful and detailed studies of physical form, languages, folk-lore and customs of the tribes in the region.” “The method of detailed comparisonofcontiguous tribeswillreveal the effectsofintermixture,linguistic borrow­ing, and exchange of cultural forms. By following out patiently and in detail the lines of interchange of culture, it is possible to trace the historical devel­opment of the tribes inhabiting a definite region” (Boas, 1905a, p. 91). As early as 1888 Boas published a preliminary statement on “The Develop­ment of the Culture of North-West America” in Science (Vol. 12, pp. 194­96). This article exemplifies his method: he comments upon similarities and Fig. 11. Kwakiutl masks, Vancouver Island, B.C. Courtesy of the American Museumof Natural History. differences among the tribes, speculates upon the influence of one upon an­other, draws inferences about culture history, and makes some conclusions with regard to the course of events. And during the next decade or so, his writings are full of historical reconstructions: “This custom [a cannibal ritual] is principally practiced among all tribes of Kwakiutl lineage; but it is also found among the Bilqula and Komoks, who have evidently adopted it from the Kwakiutl” (Boas, 1887c, p. 426). Incidentally, Boas was inclined to belive that the Kwakiutl was exceptionally influential in North-West Coast culture history; this was the tribe to which he devoted particular attention and persevering labor for many years. The Tsimshian obtained certain dances from the Heiltsuk, “the Haida adopted them from the Tsimshian. In all these dances ornaments of cedar bark, dyed red, are used, and it appearsthat this custom also originated among the Kwakiutl (Boas, 1889a, p. 240).“The legends of the Tsimshian favor the theory that they reached the coast much later than the other tribes. The Nutka, finally, are so much influenced by the Kwakiutl that a study of their customs does not reveal any facts as to their origin” (Boas, 1888e, p. 196). “It is evident that the culture of the Bil­qula is very greatly influenced by that of the Kwakiutl . . .” (Boas, 1892a, p. 424). Occasionally Boas worked out long and involved processes of cultural de­velopment—or history; Boas tended to use these terms interchangeably in certain contexts. “Summing up the preceding considerations, we may saythattheKwatkiutl consisted inolden timesofaseriesofvillagecommunities amongwhichdescentwascountedinthe paternalline,and themembers of each community were considered descendants of one ancestor. These com­munitiescombinedin groups,butthe composingelements ofthe groupskept acertaindegreeofindependenceandcontinuedtobe considered asrelatives. Each clan, as we may call the composing elements of the tribe, developed a clan tradition, which was founded upon the acquisition of amanitou by the mythical ancestor, the manitou becoming hereditary in the clan. Owing to the influence of the northern tribes, this manitou became attenuated to a crest, which, in consequence of the same influence, no longer descends in the male line, but may be given in marriage, so that it descends upon the daugh­ter’s children” (Boas, 1897b, pp. 337-38). Also: “The traditions of the Bella Coola are, to a great extent, totemic. Onlymembersoftheclanhavetherighttorelatetheirtraditionsand touse the carvings based on their traditions. This has led to a system of endogamicmarriage which was intended to prevent the acquisition!! of clan rights byother clans. This system is breaking down under the influence of the Kwa­ kiutl system of exogamic marriage” (Boas, 1897c, p. 537).How does one determine that tribe A borrowed trait x from tribe B? One observes that both A and B possess trait x. But how does one tell that A bor­ 39 rowed it from B rather than the reverse? Or, perhaps both A and B got the traitfromtribeD.How doesonedeterminethedirectioninwhichinfluence is exerted? Does tribe A influence B or does B influence A, or does each in­fluence the other? The difficulties of historical reconstruction did not appear to be great to Boas. He engaged in this kind of interpretation without hesitation and with the airofgreatconfidencefromthe verystartofhis fieldworkon the North­west Coast. One can actually see culture history, that is, if one were well-trained and looked hard enough. It would appear that Boas simply assumed this from the following: “the study of the present surroundings [of a tribe] is insufficient [to explain its culture]: the history of the people, the influence of the regions through which it passed on its migrations, and the people with whom it came into contact, must be considered. All of these are phenomenawhich may directly he observed hy a well-trained observeror may be traced , with greater or less accuracy by historical researches’ (Boas, 1887e, p. 588;emphasis ours). Boas was interested in psychological processes as well as historical proc­esses in socio-cultural situations: “During these years, from 1886 to 1892,the information that was accumulating seemed to show that under the pres­ ent conditions the Kwakiutl and Nootka offered the most promising fields of research, partly because they were less affected by the whites than other tribes, partly because they exhibited peculiar transitional stages, in which newly acquired customs appeared tohave assumed novel significance—a con­dition favorable to the study of the psychological and historical processeswhich are characteristic of the cultural development of comparatively primi­tivetribes”(Boas, 1909b,p.308). Historical researches would provide one with the “history” of the develop­ment;psychologicalinvestigationswouldyieldthe“laws”ofcultural develop­ment. It is interesting to note than Goldenweiser, one of Boas’ early students,entitled his anthologyHistory,Psychology and Culture (1933). We find, therefore, Boas resorting to psychological, as well as historical,explanations of socio-cultural phenomena on the Northwest Coast. And he found psychological explanations quite as easy to make as historical reconstructions: "One of themostremarkable features in theinnerlifeofthetribesof thenorthern coast of British Columbia is the great importance of the clan legend, which is con­sidered one of the most valuable properties of each clan or family. It is carefullyguarded in the same way as material property, and an attempt on the part of a per­ son not a member of the clan to tell the tradition as his own is considered one of the gravest offenses against property rights. The possession of a clan tradition is felt by the Indians to be one of his most important prerogatives. When, therefore, theBellaCoolasettledontheBellaCoolariver, andwerethrownintocontactwith 40 the northern Coast tribes, the lack of a well-developed clan tradition must have been felt as a serious drawback. . . . The possession of clan traditions was felt as agreatadvantage, andconsequentlythedesiredevelopedtopossess clantraditions. . . . The desire to guard the traditions which were once acquired led to the devel­opment of endogamic institutions, in order to prevent the spread of the traditions over the whole tribe” (Boas, 1898a, pp. 123, 125). The validityofhistoricalreconstructions.Almosteveryonewhohaswritten about Boas has characterized him as “rigorous,” “critical.” Boas “insisted on discriminating between absolutely established fact and plausible conjecture"(Lowie, 1944a, p. 60; emphasis ours). Kroeber (1952, p. 146) tells us that Boas’ “unsparing mind exacted proof even in the complex and difficult situ­ations which prevail in culture, and he refused to deal with problems in which strict proof seemed impossible” (emphasis ours). Bunzel (1960, p. 403), Spier (1959, p. 154) and Kluckhohn and Prufer (1959, p. 21) say es­sentially the same thing. Let us see, then, how Boas arrived at “absolutelyestablished fact,” “strict proof.” Sometimes Boas was moderate and tentative. In his summary of his field work on the Northwest Coast, prepared for the Twelfth and Final Report of the Committee of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1899), Boas wrote: “this decoration is so uniform that the explanation givenhere seems to be verv probable" (p. 679); “I am not quite certain if the deco­ ration of armour and weapons is totemistic or symbolic” (p. 680); and, “it is not possible to prove definitely that the secret societies developed in this manner from customs related to war expeditions, but the close relationshipofthetwocannotbedoubted” (p.678). But as a rule he is quite positive: “only one explanation of this fact is pos­sible . . .” (Boas, 1899, p. 672); “. . . linguistic evidence proves that the Bella Coola and the Coast Salish at one time inhabited contiguous areas on the coast . . .” (Boas, 1898a, p. 123); “I have found the Kwakiutl names used bythe Nutka, Salish, Tsimshian, and Haida. This fact seems to indicate that these legends and customs have spread at a comparatively recent date over the coast, and it is a proof that they originated among the Kwakiutl” (Boas, 1888e, p. 195). Certain words (names) are used both among the Hopi and the Keres (Sia) in the Snake ceremony (White, 1962). I am inclined to be­lieve that they are Keresan words (as was Fewkes)— perhaps because I have worked principally among the Keres as Boas worked chiefly with the Kwa­kiutl. But I cannot prove that they are Keresan words. And even if I could, would this prove that the Flopi borrowed the Snake ceremony from the Keres, or that Sia (Keres) borrowed it from the Hopi? We are remined of a flat as­sertionbyElsieClewsParsons, adiscipleofBoas:“ThatAcomagotitsclan system from the Hopi is proved [sic] by the fact that the paternal aunt gives 41 hergodchildoneofherclan’s stockofpersonalnames, anamingpractice pe­culiartotheHopi”(Parsons, 1936,p.559).In one instance, Boas arrives at finality and proof because he cannot imagineany otherexplanationfor a situation: . . it seems to my mind that this exceedingly intricate law . . . can not be ex­plained inanyotherway than as anadaptationofmaternallaws by atribe which was on a paternal stage. I can not imagine that it is a transition of a maternal society to a paternal society, because there are no relics [Tylor’s “survivals”] of the former stage . . .” (Boas, 1897b, pp. 334-35). And before he has finished with this point he comes to “conclusive proof”: “The fact that they [i.e., certain traditions] invariably and always are explainedby genealogies, such as the above, seems to my mind conclusive proof that a paternal organization of the tribe preceded the present one” (ibid., p. 335). Perhaps it was Boas’ habit of presenting his inferences and intuitions as “proofs,” and his aggressiveness of expression that have led Kroeber, Lowie,Spier, Bunzel, and others to the conclusion that he insisted on “absolutelyestablished fact" and “strict proof.” In “The Growth of Indian Mythologies,”for example, he writes as follows: “the phenomena . . . can be explained onlyby the theory ~.” (p. 2); “only one explanation of this fact is possible” (p. 3);“the very complexity . . . cannot possibly be explained by any other method” (p. 6); “these are facts that cannot be disputed” (p. 9); “I take clearly and ex­pressly issue with the view of those modern anthropologists who . . .” (pp.9-10); “But I insist ...” (p. 10); “This is the method which I insist is neces­sary...” (p. 11). How did Boas arrive at his conclusions—his “absolutely established facts,”his “strict proofs”? He observed the incidence and distribution of customs,myths, masks, etc., and then he simply decided that tribe A had influenced tribe B, or had borrowed trait x from tribe C. It “seemed to his mind” that these were reasonable assumptions. Perhaps they were, but this does not con­stitute proof; other assumptions equally reasonable might have been made. Where is the technique of verification? He “concludes,” on the basis of mythologicand meagerarchaeologicalevidence,thatthe Kwakiutl clan “was originally a village community” (Boas, 1897,p. 334). He relies upon “recent tradition, the historical truth of which cannot well be doubted. . . .” (Boas,1920b, pp. 111-112). “It remains to substantiate what I have said [about a transition in Kwakiutl social evolution from a paternal stage to a maternal stage] by telling the legends of a few clans” (Boas, 1897b, p. 335). “Accord­ing to their own [the Tsimshian] statements they [certain dances] were ob­tained by intermarriage with the Heiltsuk” (Boas, 1889a, p. 240). “The Kwakiutl state that this custom was introduced among them no longer than 42 sixty years ago, and that it originated [sic] among the Heiltsuk" (1899, p.678). Well, if the Kwakiutl said so ... But the most remarkable bit of historical reconstruction indulged in byBoas is the following: “The physical appearance of the Bella Coola provesthat at one time they must have intermarried to a great extent with the Bella Bella. Through these marriages the peculiar customs of the Coast tribes were first introduced among them” (Boas, 1898a, p. 123). If this means what it says,itbordersontheincredible; one goesaboutamongtheBellaCoola and the Bella Bella tribes, taking note of their physical appearance. This provesthat “at one time” they “must have intermarried to a great extent,” and as a consequenceofthiscertaincustomswereborrowedhy onetribefromanother (whynot theotherwayaround?).Lowie’sremarkabout“Boas’s insistenceon definite proof of cultural diffusion” (Lowie, 1947, p. 304) is a loval tribute to his “revered teacher,” as Lowie (1944b, p. 324) has called him. But it falls somewhat shortofbiographicalaccuracy. Mythology and Folk-Lore Boas was tremendously interested in mythology and folk-lore as is evi­denced by his extensive collections of materials and his numerous articles on the subject. “It is one of the most interesting problems of ethnology to studythe development of a system of mythology,” he wrote almost at the outset of his field researches on the Northwest Coast (Boas, 1889a, p. 238). He was editor of the Journal of American Folk-lore from 1908 to 1925. How are myths and folktales of preliterate peoples to be explained? This question had, of course, concerned many scholars before Boas became an anthropologist, and continued to be a live subject of inquiry during his lifetime. Some of Boas’ articles on mythology are polemic in nature. In “The Growth of Indian Mythologies” (1896), he bristled: “I take clearly and expressly is­suewiththeviewofthosemodernanthropologistswhogosofar astosaythat he who looks for acculturation [diffusion] as a cause of similarity of culture has not grasped the true spirit of anthropology ’ (pp. 9-10). It may be safelypresumed, I believe, that he was referring to Brinton’s address as retiringpresident of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Springfield,inAugust-Septemberof 1895,inwhichheextolled“thepsychicalunity of man” as the “corner stone of true anthropology,” and went on to saythat “the comparative mythologist or the folk-lorist of the old school” who failed to appreciate independent origins and development “had not caught upwiththeprogressofethnologicscience”(pp. 4, 10). Unfortunately, however, Boas does not clearly distinguish the issue in­volved in the interpretation of mythologies. On the one hand there is the 43 problem of explaining mythology in general. Are myths explanations of nat­uralphenomena,subsequentlytransformed, assomehaveheld?Are they the result of the transformation of human heroes into gods? Are they the expres­sion of unconscious wishes or frustrated desires? Or are they the stuff of which dreams—or sheer fantasies—are made? On the other hand is the par­ticular problem of why this tribe has the specific myths and tales that it has. There are two kinds of problems: the general and the particular, and Boas does not distinguish clearly between the two. Instead, he criticizes, or op­poses, the attempts to solve the general problem bv pointing out that they cannotsolvetheparticularproblems—whichispreciselylike theBoasian anti-evolutionist argument that a general theory of cultural evolution cannot ex- O OJ plain the histories of particular peoples or regions (see White, 1957; and 1959b, p. 116).Of course a general theory of myths cannot tell us why this or that tribe J O JJ has theparticularmythsthatithas;thisis amatterofculturehistory,not psy­chologv. And Boas is primarily interested in particulars (recall his dictum: "in ethnology everything is individuality”) and therefore in history. Psycho­logical theories of the origin and nature of myths in general are not at all in conflict with the techniques of determining why each tribe has the particularmyths that it has. Had Boas clearlv realized this he would have spared him­self some effort and emotion and he would not have confused his students andreaders; i.e.,ledthemtobelievethatthehistoryofparticulars isopposed to a psvchological explanation of the general, and that history is to be pre­ferred to psvchology. "The teachings of a childlike primeval philosophv ascribing personal life to nature at large, and the early tyranny of speech over the human mind,have thus been two great and, perhaps greatest agents in mythological de­velopment,” according to Tvlor (1929, 1:304), adding, however, that “other causes, too, have been at work. Tvlor went on to say that “so uniform in­deed is such development that it becomes possible to treat myth as an or­ganic product of mankind at large, in which individual, national, and even racial distinctions stand subordinate to universal qualities of the human mind” (ibid., pp. 41.5-16). Here the emphasis is definitelv upon the general,the universal. But emphasis upon myth in general, as the product of the human mind,mighteasilyslipoverintosomething else: eachtribehastheparticularmythsthatitdoesbecause ofthe universalcharacter ofthe humanmind—or,toputthematter in the conventional idiom ofanthropology,because ofthe psychicunity of mankind, each tribe’s myths are to be accounted for in terms of uni­versal qualities of the human mind. This would mean that similarities in non­contiguous areas are due to independent development rather than to diffu­sion (or dissemination, to use Boas’ early term). And, carried to the extreme, it would mean that similarities of myths and tales in contiguous areas would still be due to independent origin rather than to diffusion. “Not more than twenty-five years ago,” wrote Boas in 1914 (Boas, 1914, p. 380), “Daniel G. Brinton asserted that the similarity of Iroquois and Algonquian mythologies was due to the sameness of the action of the human mind, not to transmis­sion.”Michelson(1929) makesthesameassertion.Brintonwas,ofcourse,an extreme exponent of the theory of independent development as opposed to diffusion to account for cultural similarities in different areas, contiguous or non-contiguous. But neither Boas nor Michelson cites the reference to such an assertion in Brinton’s writings. In American Hero-Myths Brinton consid­ers “an absolute identity of mythological conception . . . between the two nations [lroquois and Algonkin]” which he attributes to “parallel develop­ment” rather than to “historical identity.” “The impressions which natural occurrences makeonmindsofequalstagesofculture areverymuchalike,”he says. This is especially true of primitive peoples. “This is a simple and reason­able explanation for the remarkable sameness which prevails in the mental products of the lower stages of civilization, and does away with the necessityof supposing a historic derivation one from the other or both from a common stock” (pp. 61-62). American Hero-Myths was published in 1882, however, 33yearsbefore Boas’statement. Boas does not deny that the impact of natural phenomena upon the human mind finds its expression in mythology. “Certainly,” he says (1896e, p. 5),“the phenomena of nature are at the bottom of numerous myths, else we should not find sun, moon, clouds, thunder-storm, the sea and land playing so important a part in all mythologies” (emphasis mine). And, “there can be no doubtthatthe impressionmadebythe grandeurofnatureuponthemindof primitive man is the ultimate cause from which these myths spring” (Boas, 1896e, p. 9; emphasis ours). “What I maintain,” he goes on to say, “is onlythat the specific myth cannot be simply interpreted as the result of observa­tion of natural phenomena. Its growth is much too complex” [i.e., derived from many sources] (ibid., p. 5, emphasis mine). Of course, no one, as far as I know, has ever asserted that a general theoryof myths could explain why each tribe had certain specific myths at a par­ticular time—no one, that is, unless perhaps Brinton did. Nevertheless, Boas is moved repeatedly to reject the theory of nature myths: “Therefore they cannot be explained as symbolizing or anthropomorphizing natural phe­nomena. . . .” (Boas, 1891b, p. 20). And, “we are therefore led to the con­clusion that from mythologies in their present form it is impossible to derive the conclusion that they are mythological explanations of phenomena of nature observed by the people to whom the myths belong, but that many of them, at the place where we find them now, never had such a meaning”(Boas, 1896e, p. 5; emphasis mine). Boas would have been willing to grant, 45 as a previous quotation has made clear, that originally—or “ultimately/’ to use his own word—a myth may have been inspired bv a phenomenon of nature. But, his point is that a tribe might have borrowed a “nature myth”from another tribe, who in turn might have borrowed it from still another, and so on, so that the reason why a particular tribe has a certain myth is not because it originated it to explain a phenomenon of nature, but because it borrowed it. "... I draw the conclusion,” says Boas (1896e, p. 5), that the mythologies as tve find them now are not organic growths [is he, perhaps, referring to Tylor here? See our previous quotations from Tylor], but have gradually developed and ob­tained their present form by accretion of foreign material. Much of this material must have been adopted ready-made, and has been adapted and changed accord­ing to the genius of the people who borrowed it” (emphasis mine). The tenor of Boas’ treatment of mythologies is not to distinguish for the reader thetwokindsofproblemsinvolved—thegeneralandpsychological,on the one hand and the particular and historical on the other—and to make it clear to him that one can address himself to the one or the other, as he pleases; that there is no conflict between the two. Instead, Boas leaves the reader with the distinct impression that historical analysis and interpretation are tobepreferredover generalpsychologicalinterpretations: “For an explanation of myths,” he wrote in 1891, “we need, first of all, a careful studyoftheircomponentparts, andoftheirmodeofdissemination,whichmust be followed by a study of the psychology of dissemination and amalgamation. Onlyafter these have been done shall we be able to attack the problem of an explanationof myths with the hope of success” (Boas, 1891b, p. 20; emphasis mine). In “The Growth of Indian Mythologies” (1896e), Boas generalizes from mythologies in particular to culture in general: “In order to understand the growth of the peculiar psychical life of the people, the historical growth of its customs must be investigated closely, and the only method by which the history can be investigated is by means of a detailed comparison of the tribe with its neighbors. This is the method which I insist is necessary in order to make progress towards the better understanding of the development of man­kind. In order to investigate the psychical laws of the human mind we ... ... .” must treat the culture of primitive people by strict historical methods. . . (p. 11). Two years later, in his introduction to Teit’s “Traditions of the ThompsonIndians of British Columbia,” Boas wrote: “the present character of Indian mythologies can be understood only by historical studies regarding their origin” (p. 16; emphasis mine). Boas wasimpressed withevidenceofdiffusionofmythsandtalesfrom the verystartofhisfieldworkinthe NorthwestCoast: “On thenorth-west coast 46 of America this study [‘the development of a system of mythology ] is the more interesting, as we can show how legends migrated from tribe to tribe” (Boas, 1889a, p. 238). A decade later he wrote: “I have tried to show that the material of which they [myths] are built up is of heterogeneous origin, and that much of it is adopted ready-made” (Boas, 1898c, p. 18). And he formu­lated some principles of diffusion: 1891: “Whenever we find a tale spread over a continuous area, we must assume that it spread over this territory from a single center” (Boas, 1891b, pp. 14-15).Also, "I believe we may safely assume that, whenever a story which consists of the same combination of several elements is found in two regions, we must conclude that its occurrence is due to diffusion. The more complex the story is . . . the more this conclusion will be justified” (ibid., pp. 13-14). 1896: “The identity of a great many tales in geographically contiguous areas has led me to the point of view of assuming that wherever considerable similaritybetween two tales is found in North America, it is more likely to be due to dis­semination than to independent origin” (Boas, 1896e, p. 4). 1914: “Two rules have been laid down as necessary for cautious progress: “First, the tale or formula the distributionof which is investigated, and is to be explained as due to historical contact, must be so complex that an independentorigin of the sequence of non-related elements seems to be improbable. . . . "The second rule is, that for a satisfactory proof of dissemination, continuous distribution is required. The simpler the tale, the greater must be our insistence on this condition." (Boas, 1914, p. 381). Boas positionseemstobebothcautiousandreasonable.Hewasnotan ex­treme diffnsionist. “I am, of course, well aware,” he wrote, “that there are many phenomena of social life . . . which we have good cause to believe have developed independently over and over again” (Boas, 1896e, p. 10). “How much [of similarity in different areas] is due to independent thought or to gradual adaptation, under the influence of environment and of new social conditions,remains tobe determinedbydetailedcomparative studies” (Boas,1898c, p. 16); “in many cases, the final decision will be in favor of inde­pendent origin; in others in favor of dissemination” (Boas, 1896e, p. 10).And in some instances he is quite unwilling to consider the possibility of dif­fusion; “It seems to me that the idea of a chain of arrows reaching from the earth to the skv [found in myths in Melanesia and on the Northwest Coast]is not so complicated as to allow us to assume necessarily a single origin. Fur­thermore, the distance between the two countries in which the element oc­curs is so great, and there is apparently such a complete absence of inter­mediate links, that I am not convinced of the sameness of the elements. Even the apparently complicated story of the Invisible Fish-Hook . . which is . common to Melanesia and Northwest America, does not convince me” (Boas,1914, p. 384). 47 The Kwakiutl The principal object of Boas’ ethnographic researches was the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island. His investigations of this tribe embraced a half-century, and his major publications devoted to them exceed 5,000 pages(Codere, 1959, pp. 61-62). WedonotknowvervmuchabouthowBoasconductedhimselfinthe field, what his relationships with the Indians were like, and so on. Was he ever accompanied by his wife and children? This invariably affects profoundlythe relationship of the ethnographer to the people he is studying. Did he reside in a household as a “member" of a family? Did he take part in the daily life of the people? For one who “must be understood first of all as a field worker (Lowie, 1937, p. 131), we know precious little about his life and work in the field. AttheoutsetofhisfieldworkontheNorthPacificCoasttheIndians feared that he might interfere with their customs (potlatches and winter dancing were then prohibited by law), but he assured them that he had come only to acquaint himselfwiththem andtheir wavsoflife.Theygavehimafeast,and he reciprocated. Laudatory speeches were exchanged. But these were mere formalities. “On one of my later visits," he wrote, “I had received an Indian " name, Heiltsakuls, 'the one who says the right thing,' (Boas, 1896c, p. 232).And this is all we have known, from Boas directly, about his field experiencesuntil his daughter, Mrs. Helene Boas Yampolskv, published, in 1958, "Ex­cerpts from the Letter Diary of Franz Boas on his first field trip to the Northwest Coast." Some of Boas principal students, those who were close to him in the early years, have given us their opinions concerning Boas as a field worker, but they are not in agreement on this point. Kroeber (1956, p. 158): “I conclude that Boas liked direct encounter with cultural and linguistic phenomena. . . . But thismightwellmean data(phenomena) ratherthanIndians,asheadds: “He got intensive satisfaction out of contact with such phenomena, out of dealing with them—absorbing, analyzing, describing them" (ibid.). Golden­weiser (1941, p. 155) tells us that “In field work Boas found a sort of chasten­ing influence. It took him away from books, from theory, from speculation,from students and lectures. Spier (1943, p. 114) believed that “it is probablethat he [Boas] did not wholly enjov field work, that he disciplined himself to it." The diary letters published by Mrs. Yampolskv give us a vivid picture of Boas on his first field trip. They complain a great deal about the difficulty of finding good informants, and about their unreliability; he comments fre­quently about his '"much running about" and his consequent fatigue; he is impatient to fill his notebooks, and complains about “time lost”; he is op­pressed with the dirt, drunkenness, and various discomforts. Fromthese lettersand otherclues,andfrom thenature ofhispublications, we would judgethat Boas’ principal aim, when in the field, was to sit down with a good informant and fill his notebooks—and then go home. There is no indication whatever, as far as my knowledge goes, that he ever thought of himself as a “participant observer,’ that lie ever tried to take part in their dailylife and become personally acquainted withthe people. Melville Jacobs (M.A. Columbia University, 1923; Ph.D. 1931) speaksabout Boas’ “resistance to identification with people. The austere visitor prob­ablv mingled politelv with the natives, but with some discomfort and alwayswith a feeling of pressure to get the scientific task accomplished. Partici­pantobservationwasmuchless possibleforhimthanfor mostofhis students. His temperament would not have permitted him to devise a method of analy­sis which dwelt upon people’s feelings about their myths and tales” (Jacobs,1959,p. 127). There is more than a little evidence to indicate that Boas was prudish and puritanical. “Obscenity was too distasteful to permit him to make inquiriesabout sexual components of stories,” says Jacobs (1959, p. 126); “One cannot suppose that he enjoyed slang or primitive music; he felt that both were rather crude.” Kroeber (1956, p. 158) speaks of a “puritanism” that was “characteristic” of Boas. “In almost none of Boas’ writings or in those of George Hunt is the ribald in Kwakiutl life visible” (Codere, 1959, p. 69); and shecites anIndianinformantwhoquotesBoas’disapprovalof“alot ofnearlynaked women” that they saw in a theater in New York (ibid.). There is no wav of estimating the extent to which this trait of Boas operated as a censor of the ethnographic data he collected. He, himself, was aware of this, as he states in the prefaces of some of his volumes of texts and myths and tales. Perhaps the unpublished material in the archives of the American Philo­sophical Society will throw much more light upon Boas, the field worker. “The social organization of the Kwakiutl is very difficult to understand,” Boas wrote after some three or four field trips (Boas, 1891a, p. 608). And,indeed, his difficulties were great. We shall review a few simple, but funda­mental, points upon which early investigations centered: Did the Kwakiutl have clans (or gentes)? If so, were they exogamous or not? If so, were theymatrilineal or patrilineal? These are simple questions, and one would think that definite answers could be found after some field investigation. But this provednottobe thecase.Boashad greatdifficultywithallofthem. After two field trips to the Northwest Coast Boas wrote: “the tribes of the northwest coast of America are all divided into gentes” (Boas, 1889c, p. 202),and for some years Boas discussed the clans, or gentes, of the Kwakiutl. The word clan appears in translations of texts in The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Is­land (1909b, pp. 433, 435). But by 1920, he had abandoned “clan” and “gens” because they were “misleading,” and used the Kwakiutl term, numaym, in­stead (Boas, 1902b, p. 115). When “The Growth of Indian Mythologies” Fig. 12. (a) Kwakiutl woman wearing cedar bark cape. (b) Kwakiutl chief holding broken copper, with son. (c) Kwakiutl woman with artificially deformed head, left profile. (d)Same woman as c, full front. All Courtesy of the American Museum of Natural History. (1896) was reprinted in Race, Language and Culture (1940), the word clan,which had been used a number of times, was replaced bv “division.” And, it is interesting to note, two of Boas’ early (and most distinguished) students,interpreted the record in opposite ways. Goldenweiser; “Being important in all tribes [on the North-West Coast], the clan reaches its maximum develop­ment among the Kwakiutl” (Goldenweiser, 1933, p. 223; written in 1910).Lowie: “The Kwakiutl of Vancouver . . are without clans” (Lowie, 1948, p. 259). Did the Kwakiutl, then, have . clans (or gentes)? Whatever the answer may be, it appears definitely not to be eitheryes or no. In the Fifth Report of the Committee of the British Association (1890),Boas reports: “Neither was I able to arrive at a fully satisfactory conclusion regarding the question whether marriages inside a gens of the Kwakiutl are absolutely prohibited, but I believe that such is the case” (p. 828). In the Sixth Report, the following year, he says that “the gentes are not exogamous,but marriages between cousins are forbidden” (p. 610). Before the decade of the 1890s had ended, Boas had decided that the clans are exogamic (Boas,1897b, p. 334; 1898a, p. 122). I interpret a passage in “The Social Organiza­tionoftheKwakiutl,”writtenin 1920,tomeanthatthegroupingsinquestion were not exogamous: “The observations . . make it clear that among the . southernKwakiutl [The SouthernKwakiutl arethe famous 'Kwakiutl’ ofthe North Pacific Coast,’ Codere, 1961, p. 431] . . . the village community is con­ceived as a closed group and forms the basis of modern social organization.The exogamous lines, which are superimposed upon the village communities and embrace all of them, and which are an essential feature of the social sys­tem of the northern tribes, do not occur” (p. 123). And again, two other anthropologists differ diametrically on this point. Goldenweiser says that the Kwakiutl clans “are not exogamous; here, in fact, a woman is advised to marry into her own clan for among her own people she is likely to receive better treatment”—and there is a footnote at this point which reads “personalcommunication from Boas” (Goldenweiser, 1933, p. 221). Goldman, on the other hand, says “the Kwakiutl numayms are exogamous” (1937, p. 195).Question: were the Kwakiutl clans, or numayms, exogamous or weren’t they? We turn now to the last of our three questions, namely, were the clans (gentes, or numayms) matrilineal or patrilineal? In a report for 1888, Boas stated that a child belongs to the gens of the father “among the Kwakiutl and Salish’’ (1889c, p. 202). But in another re­port for the same year (Boas, 1889a, p. 237), he says that “among the Salish and the Kwakiutl the child follows, as a rule, the father’s gens, but he mayalso acquire his mother s gens’’ (emphasis ours). In the following vear: “The marriage customs [of the Kwakiutl] are of pe­culiar interest on account of the transition from maternal to paternal insti­tutions that may be observed here. . the marriage ceremonies of the .. 51 Kwakiutl seem to show that originally matriarchate prevailed also amongthem” (Boas, 1890, pp. 838, 829). In his report on his summer’s field work in 1890 Boas wrote: ‘The child does not belong by birth to the gens of his father or mother, but may be a member of any gens to which his father,mother, grandparents, or great-grandparents belonged. Generally each child is made a member of another gens . . .” (Boas, 1891a, p. 609). In The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians Boas postulates“an adaptation of maternal laws by a tribe which was on a paternal stage. I can not imagine that it is transition of a maternal society to a paternalsociety” [in 1889 the supposed transition was from maternal to paternal; see above]; he also finds what “seems to his mind,” “conclusive proof that a pa­ternal organization of the tribe preceded the present one” (Boas, 1897b, pp.334-335). In 1898; “The Kwakiutl have a peculiar organization, which maybe considered a transitional stage between maternal and paternal institu­tions. Descent is in the paternal line; but [a man inherits from his maternal grandfather]” (Boas, 1898a, pp. 121-22). In 1920, in “The Social Organiza­tion of the Kwakiutl,” we learn that a child could be assigned to his father’s numaym, to his mother’s, or to still some other (p. 116). Also, Boas observes that he does “not see anv reason for a change of . . . [his] opinion in regard to the relative antiquity of the transfer of names and privileges through the male or female line” (p. 122). This apparently refers to Boas’ previouslystated opinion that “maternal descent was later than paternal” (p. 124). Again, we note how some of Boas students interpreted Boas’ account of Kwakiutl social organization. Goldenweiser: “Paternal descent prevails among . . . [the southern Kwakiutl], although certain curious traces of ma­ternal descent have also been observed” (1933, p. 221). Reichard: “The Kwa­kiutl Indians . . . have taken over certain aspects of matriliny which show themselves to be adjustments to a patrilineal system” (1938, p. 425). Bene­dict, also, says that the Kwatkiutl “compromised” between patriliny and matriliny (1934, pp. 18.5-86, 227-28). It seems fairly clear that Boas never reallv understood Kwakiutl social organization. His descriptions of it are both confused and contradictory, and as a consequence, some ofhis outstanding students were led to differing, and even contradictory, conclusions about clan organization, exogamy, etc., as we have seen. He did not possess, and was unable to formulate the conceptof ambilateral lineage, in which descent may be reckoned in either the male or the female line, (see White, 1959a, pp. 176-82, for a discussion of am-bilateral lineages with particular reference to the Kwakiutl); he persistedindefinitely in thinking in terms of unilateral clan organization. Being unable tosee,andtoaccept, theKwakiutl astheywere, i.e.,ambilaterally,orbilater­ally, organized, he had to interpret them as being transitional from one stageof evolutionary development to another. When Boas came finally to drop 52 such terms as clan, gens, and sib as “misleading,” and to substitute the Kwa­kiutl term numavm, lie did not define the latter term. And his essay, “The SocialOrganizationoftheKwakiutl,” 1920,fallsfarshortofalucidexplana­tion oftheir social structure. There were two types of social structure on the Northwest Coast accordingto Drucker (1955, p. 108): “autonomous local group consisting of a [mat­rilineal] lineage,’' or “an extended family in which descent may be reck­oned through either line, or both.” The ...Kwakiutl lived in an area where “there were no moieties, clans, or lineages. Descent was reckoned bilaterally,with only a slight preference for the male line" (ibid., p. 116). Codere (1961, pp. 441-42) states that the Kwakiutl were “both lineage-based and bilateral,” a condition which she says seems “somewhat paradoxical on first glance”(ambilateral lineages are no more paradoxical than unilateral lineages;Codere remarks that “the paradox disappears on close examination'). We venture to suggest, at this point, the reason why Boas did not, and could not, understand Kwakiutl social organization—or their whole culture, for that matter. The reason derives from Boas fundamental philosophy of ethnologv, which we have already noted. He was so obsessed with particulars(“in ethnology everything is individuality”) that he could not see generaloutlines or forms. In the Introduction to Volume I of the publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1898), Boas made these revealing and sig­nificant statements: “The historyofanthropology isbut arepetitionofthatof other sciences. When the facts begin to array themselves in seeming order, the ultimate goalof inquiry appears to be near at hand. The fundamental laws which gov­ernedthegrowthofcultureandcivilizationseemtomanifestthemselves con­spicuously, and the chaos of beliefs and customs appears to fall into beautiful order. But investigation goes on incessantly. New facts are discovered, and shake the foundation of theories that seemed firmly established. The beauti­ful simple order is broken, and the student stands aghast before the multitude and complexity of facts that belie the symmetry of the edifice he had la­boriously erected. . .. “Anthropology has reached that point of development where the careful investi­gation of facts shakes our firm belief in the far-reaching theories that have been built up. The complexity of each phenomenon dawns on our minds. . . . Heretofore we have seen the features common to all human thought [i.e., cultures!. Now we begin to see their differences. We recognize that these are no less important than their similarities, and the value of detailed studies becomes apparent. . . .” (pp.3-4; emphases mine). No better, more realistic portrait of the mind of Franz Boas was ever sketched than the one we have just exhibited. Boas “was saturated with a 53 sense of the complexity of the phenomena he investigated, wrote Lowie (1944a, p. 60), “and any simple explanation evoked his distrust.” What with his laboriously detailed investigations, his penchant for conjectural history,his reliance upon “recent tradition, the historical truth of which cannot well be doubted” (Boas, 1920b, pp. 111-112), his acceptance of the testimony of informants on ethnological problems, his ambivalent attitude toward theories ofculturalevolutionwhichallowedhimtoregardtheKwakiutl astransitional between two stages of development on the one hand, and to reject “unilinear evolution” on the other, Boas came fairly close to leaving the “chaos of beliefs and customs” just about where he found it. “A clear understanding of the constitution of the numaym is made very difficult. . . . he wrote in 1920b after three decadesof“analyzingtheirculture bycarefuland exactmethods” (p. 111). Great “obstacles to a clear understanding of the social organizationof the Kwakiutl still remained in 1920 (Boas, 1920b, p. 111). And Boas “tried to clear up the situation by recording the histories of a number of ” families in all possible detail(ibid., p. Ill; emphasis mine). The genealogydescribed and illustrated by Boas on pages 112-13, makes the confusion al­most complete. But if Boas found an understanding of Kwakiutl social organization diffi­cult, the reconstruction of their culture history was incredibly easy. Since we have alreadv examined Boas’ technicpies of historical reconstruction and his canons of demonstration, we shall merely quote here a comprehensive ac­count ofthehistoryofKwakiutl culture asBoasreconstructed it.Character­isticallv enough, it is found, not in a work on Kwakiutl culture, but in his essay,“TheGrowthofIndianMythologies”(1896e, p.8): “It seems that the Kwakiutl at one time consisted of a number of village com­munities. Numbers of these village communities combined and formed tribes;then each village community formed a clan of the new tribe. Owing probably to the influence of the clan system of the northern tribes, totems were adopted, and with these totems came the necessity of acquiring a clan legend. The social cus­toms of the tribe are based entirely upon the division into clans, and the rankingof each individual is the higher—at least to a certain extent—the more importantthe legend of his clan. This led to a tendency of building up clan legends. Investi­gation shows that there are two classes of clan legends: the first telling how the ancestor of the clan came down from heaven, out of the earth, or out of the ocean;the second telling how he encountered certain spirits and by their help became powerful. The latter class particularly bear the clearest evidence of being of a recent origin; they are based entirely on the custom of the Indians of acquiring a guardian spirit after long-continued fasting and bathing. The guardian spiritthus acquired by the ancestor became hereditary, and is to a certain extent the totem of the clan,—and there is no doubt that these traditions, which rank now with the fundamental myths of the tribe, are based on the actual fastings and acquisitions of guardian spirits of ancestors of the present clans. If that is so, we 54 must conclude that the origin of the myth is identical with the origin of the halluci­nation of the fasting Indian. .. As we noted at the outset, Boas began his study of the Kwakiutl in 1886. Fifty years later he was working with a Kwakiutl informant in New York. His writings on this tribe greatly exceed 5,000 printed pages. Yet, with all this,he didnot“complete a single,large-scaleportraitofatribalculture,not even of his beloved Kwakiutl” (Lowie, 1947, p. 313). And Codere, who has goneoverBoas’Kwakiutlstudies verythoroughlybelieves that“it isnotpossibleto present a synthesized account ofKwakiutl culture based upon Boas’ works (Codere, 1959,p.66).Whatarethereasonsforthis? We have already elucidated the principal reason, I believe: Boas could not seethe forestforthetrees, and couldscarcelyseeatreebecause ofthemulti­plicity and “complexity’’ of its boughs, branches, and twigs. “Can’t see the forest for the trees’ is a well-worn, trite saying, and we dislike to repeat it ad nauseam. But howcan onesayitbetter? Boas edited the thousands and thousands of pages of ethnography pro­duced by George Hunt and Henry W. Tate. He may have re-ordered the materialtosomeextent(althoughwestillfindadiscussionofKwakiutl house types in a chapter on clan legends; 1897b). And in some places, perhaps, he amplified or clarified it. But for the most part, we are justified in believingthat he left it very much as he found it. The justification derives from the fact that Boas presented great masses of his own ethnographic data without commentary, without the bare information that would be needed to render it intelligible to the reader. And Kroeber (1956, p. 151) tells us that “much of this [corpus of data] was collected and written out by Hunt in Kwakiutl;and, in line with his method and principles, Boas left it unaltered. “One criticism which can justly be made of Boas’ Kwakiutl Tales” wrote Sapir (1912, pp. 197-98), is that they are inadequately annotated. Outside of references to earlier published versions of Kwakiutl myths . . practically . no assistance is given to the student of Kwakiutl mythology and culture toward the understanding of the tales. This is the more regrettable in that the stories are full of ethnological references requiring elucidation. One not infrequentlv finds himself in doubt as to the exact significance of a passage,for which it would not be altogether easy to find an explanation in Boas’ other writings. ” In Boas’ Kwakiutl and Tsimshian monographs, wrote Radin (1933, pp.8-9),“wefindthebarefactspresentedwithoutcomment,unlessitbe toindi­cate the distribution of certain specific traits. Neither the individuals from whom the data were obtained nor the data themselves are evaluated, and this manifestly is not an accident. Surely it is not unwarranted to assume that he wishesthefacts tospeakforthemselves.” 55 “It iseasytogothroughathousandpagesofhis [Boas’] monographswith­outencounteringalineofinterpretation (Lowie, 1947,p.316). Boas failure to make his monographic material intelligible to the reader was especially marked in the case of The Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians (1930), according to Radin (1933, pp. 64-65): “What does he tell us about the informants from whom he obtained his data? Occasionally their names are given and the group to which they belong indicated. Not always that. Nor does Boas add one single word by way of explanation of specific details ’ that are quite meaningless without annotation (emphasis mine). Why did not Boas help his readers toward a comprehension of the data he made avail­ableto them?Didhe,ordidhenot,understandthemhimself? It is no wonder that “Konrad Theodor Breuss, acknowledging the uniqueamplitude of the Kwakiutl material, wondered what it all meant’ (Lowie,1944a, p. 62). One of the best—if not the best—known of Boas’ ethnographic findings on the Northwest Coast is that of the potlatch of the Kwakiutl. It has been de­scribed in numerous textbooks, and through Benedict’s Patterns of Culture, has been made known perhaps to millions. Close readers of his account have pointed out that it would be impossible for the potlatch to function as he described it: with each borrower returning a loan with 100 percent interest; his description was inaccurate. But, says Kroeber (1956, p. 152), “Boas’ fault isnot thathe neverknew better—he undoubtedly did—butthat henevertook the time to re-explain the system.” Kroeber was the senior editor of Source Book in Anthropology which, in two successive editions, reprinted the Boas-Huntdescriptionofthe potlatchofthe Kwakiutl. Boas’ account of Kwakiutl potlatching was deficient in another respect:“Boas certainly knew about play potlatching,” says Codere (1956, p. 344),although he did not publish anything about it. It was one of the many thingshehad stilltocommunicateabouttheKwakiutl” [afterfifty yearsofresearch and morethan 5,000pagesofpublications,L.A.W.]. Boas’ treatment of the potlatch has led to distortion and confusion in ethnologv: hepresentsthissocialritual asaneconomicinstitution.The “eco­ ” nomic system . finds its expression in the so-called ‘potlatch,’ (Boas, 1899, .. p.681;seeWhite, 1959a,pp.238-42,forourdistinctionbetweenaneconomic process and a social ritual). The “underlying principle” of the potlatch, saysBoas (1897b,p.341),“is thatoftheinterest-bearinginvestmentofproperty.”Others use such terms as credit, capital, and usury in describing the potlatch or Kwakiutl culture generally. Radin (1927, p. 326) observes that “such a ritual [sic] could have of course developed only in an atmosphere pervaded bythespiritofcapitalism . . .”Andarecenttextbookspeaksofthe“overdone capitalism of the Kwakiutl” (Hoebel, 1958, p. 396). It is unfortunate, first of all,thatthissocialritual(‘“theultimatemotivationofthepotlatch isrivalry, not profit,” Bunzel, 1938, p. 358) should be presented as an economic insti­ tution, and doubly unfortunate that economic terms proper to Western cap­italist society should be applied to this preliterate, non-monetarv culture. As for the social organization of the production, distribution, use, and consump­tion of goods as an economic process, Boas has virtually nothing to say—­except insofarasitmayappear intexts. Boas researches on the Northwest Coast have bequeathed to ethnologyanother source of misrepresentation and confusion, namely, his account of the social structure of the tribes of that region. “The people of this country,”he observed in his Fifth Report (1890, pp. 830, 823), “are divided into three classes: common people, middle class, and chiefs.” Among the Lkungen . “therearethreeclassesofpeople,thenobility . .themiddleclass . . . andthe common people” (1891a, p. 569). In 1906, he distinguished four classes “on the north Pacific coast”: “chiefs, nobility, common people and slaves” (Boas, 1906b, p. 242). Boas has been followed in this delineation of class structure by virtually all of his principal students and by others as well. “All the tribes of the Pacific Coast of America are divided into three classes, a nobility, com­mon people and slaves” (Radin, 1927, p. 322). Lowie uses Boas descriptionof class structure among “the natives of the coast of British Columbia” to refute the “palpable nonsense” of Lewis H. Morgan who maintained that American Indian societv was democratic (Lowie, 1920, pp. 351, 353, 389).Codere, however, tells us that Boas regarded Kwakiutl society as “class­less,” and that after 1920 “he described Kwakiutl society as classless” (Co­dere, 1957, pp. 474, 485). I am not sure that I fully understand Codere here, nor have I found Boas’ description of Kwakiutl societv as classless. In “The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl” (1920b, p. 116), he says that "the con­ ditions among the Kwakiutl and the Nootka must have been quite similar in so far as a sharp line between the nobility and the common people did not exist”—how the phrase “in so far as” qualifies the presence or absence of a “sharpline” isnot cleartome,either. However, in 1924 Boas distinguished five classes among the Bella Bella,“according to rank,” one of them being a “nobility” (Boas, 1924, pp. 376-77).And Lips, in an essav published under Boas’ editorship in 1938 said, speakingof the tribes of the Northwest Coast: “We find chiefs, nobility, middle class,bondsmen,andslaves,andthereisevenanotherclassofpreferredpeople ...” (Lips, 1938, pp. 511-12; a footnote reference at this point cites Boas’ 1924 paper on the Social Organization of the Tribes of the North Pacific Coast as authority). And in 1952 Herskovits, a devoted follower of Boas, speaks of “a relatively stable class system composed of nobles, commoners, and slaves” among the Kwakiutl (Herskovits, 1952, p. 476). Class structure survives in the literature atleast. It is unfortunate that Boas should have presented social distinctions as to 57 rank as a class structure. And it is doubly unfortunate that he should have designated them with such misleading terms as noble, commoner and slave, borrowed from relatively modern Western European culture. Whole areas of Kwakiutl culture are either ignored or treated very super­ficially in Boas’ ethnography. He has a few pages on Kwakiutl Terms of Relationship" in Tsimshian Mythology (pp. 489-95), but this is about all he has on the subject. Social life in general, the composition of households, the family, the rearing of children, and many other subjects are ignored or men­tioned in passing in texts. According to Codere (1959, p. 69), Boas “neither recorded nor caused to be recorded [Boas gave George Hunt instructions about what he was to in­vestigate and record, as Boas tells us in a number of instances, L. A. W.] much about informal behavior, as distinct from formal public affairs, myths,family histories, and such surelv cultural matters.” Also: “It is clear, however, that Boas presented relatively little material to work with on the more amiable side of Kwakiutl life, that Benedict ignoredsuch materials as were present . . . and that both Boas with his ‘atrocious but amiable’ Kwakiutl and Benedict with her ‘paranoid’ Kwakiutl took the struc­tural material at face value for purposes of determining the meanings and qualitiesoftheculture”(Codere, 1956,p.336). We have already noted the almost complete absence of “the ribald” in the writingsofbothGeorgeHuntandBoas (Codere, 1959,p.69). In reply to Codere’s observation (1955, p. 1304) that “there is no singlereference to any of Boas’ publications on the Kwakiutl, although material on Kwakiutl drinking figures prominentlv in the volume [Lemert’s Alcohol and the Northwest Coast Indians],” Lemert replies: “With regard to my neglect of Boas, I may say that I searched his writings at length for some reference to Kwakiutl drinking but with no success. This is ex­tremely puzzling to me in the light of the obvious existence of the whiskey feasts among the Kwakiutl—at the very least among those of Kingcome Inlet” (Lemert,1956, p. 561). Murdock, also, has found Boas’ ethnography of the Kwakiutl to be de­ficient: “Despite Boas’ 'five-foot shelf’ of monographs on the Kwakiutl, this tribe falls into the quartile of those whose social structure and related prac­tices are least adequately described among the 250 covered in the presentstudv[SocialStructure]”(Murdock, 1949,p.xiv). The following summary judgment of Boas’ studies of the Kwakiutl is made by Verne F. Ray: “Boas’ picture of the Kwakiutl is not only deficient because he failed to heed the cautions which he enumerates for others but also because he allowed this one-sided portrait to stand, not only for all Kwakiutl culture but for the Northwest 58 Coast generally. His overgeneralization for the Kwakintl and his failure to speak out in correction of the errors of his students, such as Benedict, has had the result that the ethnographic picture for the Northwest Coast as visualized, taught, and accepted by many anthropologists is that which in fact applies only to the nobilityof the southern Kwakintl. This situation, so painful to research scholars of the Northwest Coast, is not given attention by Herskovits [in Franz Boas, The Science of Man in the Making, 1953] despite the fact that this was Boas’ principal area of ethnographic research” (Ray, 1955,p. 140). “A major deficiency in Boas’ work with the Kwakintl,” according to Ray (ibid., p. 139), “was his neglect of the patterns and behavior of the lower classes: his nearly exclusive concern with the nobility and his presentation of this picture as representative of Kwakintl life.” Conclusion I do not propose to offer here a comprehensive and definitive evaluation of Boas’ labors and achievements in ethnography and ethnology on the basis of this review of much—but far from all—of his work. But, having read, re­read, or scanned scores of articles and monographs—thousands of pages—inthe course ofwritingthisarticle,afewcommentsofmyownmaybe in order. I am impressed, as many before me have been, by the sheer magnitude of Boas’ output. Even when one takes account of the thousands of pages re­corded by Hunt and Tate, the result is still impressive and, of course, the labor of editing and proof-reading the work of Hunt and Tate was very great—and tedious. And we may well believe that he did this himself in view of thefactthathe“copied out inhis ownhand” the 344pagesofKeresan Texts (1925a) “for zincograph reproduction, in order to save the Ethnological Society the added cost of typographical composition” (Kroeber, 1943. p. 21); Jacobs (1959, p. 121, and Bunzel, 1960, p. 461, also remarks upon this labor of love and economy. Boas’ “contributions [to the study of folklore]overwhelm the spectator by their sheer massiveness” (Lowie, 1944a, p. 61). But, I suppose that almost everyone would agree that mere quantity is not enough. Ibringupthispoint,though,becausesomeofBoas’admirers appear to believe that there is merit in size alone (“the massive achievement of Boas in the field of descriptive ethnography would alone be sufficient to give him an outstanding place in his science,” Herskovits, 1953, p. 62; emphasis mine). We have already noted that the value of much of Boas’ text material is seriously impaired by his failure to provide that information which is essen­tialforitscomprehensionandusebythereader(“. .athousandpagesofhis . monographs without encountering a line of interpretation”). But we shall return to this point later. Weturnnowto someofhis ideas, his philosophy ofethnology. “The first general theoretical problem on which he [Boas] worked,” says 59 Benedict (1943, p. 61), “was that of the importance of the diffusion of traits in human culture.” We believe this to be a fair and accurate statement. But theideaofdiffusionwasnotnovelbyany means. Asearlyas 1865E. B.Tylor“had discussed diffusion with insight and acumen,” as Goldenweiser (1931, p. 661) has remarked. Lowie (1917), too, has asserted that, although Tylor was “certainly a strong believer in the independent evolution of cultural phenomena in distant areas of the globe, he was very much alive to the in­fluence of diffusion” (p. 264); as a matter of fact, says Lowie, “in many con­creteinstances,”Tvlor“goesmuchfarther[as adiffusionist] thanatallevents modern American ethnologists are inclined to follow” (p. 265). Tylor’s as­signing the Mexican game of patolli an Asiatic origin, for example, was much more daring than anything Boas proposed. Actually, Boas was a conservative diffusionist in that he insisted, as we have already noted, upon continuous distribution. Lewis H. Morgan, another “evolutionist,” also invoked diffusion freelv in his ethnological work (I have cited many instances of this in White,1945, pp. 341-43). Indeed, Brinton (1896, p. 9) criticized both Tylor and Morgan for their unwillingness to accept independent development in cer­tain instances. And then there was Boas’ own countryman, Fredrich Ratzel,who was an early exponent of diffusionism. Thus we see that Boas was not an innovator in espousing diffusionism, and as a diffusionist he was modest and conservative in his claims. It should be remembered, however, that although Boas had distinguishedand influential predecessors in the field of diffusionism, he had a contempo­rary in the United States during the 1890s who was a stout champion of in­dependent origin and development in its extreme form: Daniel G. Brinton. It is reasonable to suppose that some, at least, of Boas’ animus toward inde­pendent development, and his preference for diffusion, was due to Brinton’s position and influence. But Boas’ enthusiasm for diffusion led him into a grievous error, namely,that the occurrence of diffusion negates theories of cultural evolution. “It was the assembled documentation of this truth [that each culture is a compositeresult of diffusion],” says Benedict (1943, p. 61), “that led him [Boas] to opposetherationalreconstructions ofculturalevolution.” Boas’ article, “The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropol­ogy” (1896), is a significant landmark in his ethnological writings, it seems to me. In it he makes a definite break with “the view of bv far the greaternumber of living anthropologists” (p. 901), namely, that of independent de­velopment—“the working of the uniform laws governing the human mind” (p. 901). At the outset of the article Boas pays his respects to the “momen­tous discovery” that “human society has grown and developed everywhere in such a manner that its forms, opinions and its actions have many funda­mental traits in common” (p. 901). He recognizes that certain cultural forms 60 have “arisen independently over and over again” (p. 903). “We agreed,” he says,“thatcertainlawsexistwhich governthe growthofhumanculture,and itisourendeavortodiscovertheselaws” (p.905).But—andherecomesthe break: hismanifestoofanewprocedure. The assumption of psychic unity and of independent development leads,Boas reasons, “to the conclusion that there is one grand system according to which mankind has developed everywhere” (p. 904). But “this theory has for its logical basis the assumption that the same phenomena are always due tothesamecauses”(ibid.).Hethen“demonstrates” (argues)thatlikeeffects may result from unlike causes, which leads him to conclude that “we must also consider all the ingenious attempts at construction of a grand system of theevolutionofsociety asofverydoubtfulvalue....”(p. 905).Boas then contrasts the “comparative method (evolutionism) with the “historical method.” The former, he says, “has been remarkably barren of definite results, and I believe,” he says, “it will not become fruitful until we renounce the vain endeavor to construct a uniform systematic history of the evolution ofculture....”(p. 908;emphasismine). Boas sets forth the specifications of the “historical method”; they turn out to be just what he had been doing on the Northwest Coast ever since he set footinBritish Columbia. It consists of: “A detailed study of customs in their relation to the total culture of the tribe practicing them, in connection with an investigation of their geographical distri­bution among neighboring tribes, [which] affords us almost always a means of determining with considerable accuracy the historical causes that led to the for­mation of the customs in question and to the psychological processes that were at work in theirdevelopment" (p. 905; emphases mine). This is the core of Boas’ ethnology. The belief that the occurrence of diffusion negates theories of cultural evolution was impressed upon Boas’ students. “The extensive occurrence of diffusion,” says Lowie (1920, p. 434) “by itself lays the axe to the root of anytheorv of historical laws” (emphasis mine). Seventeen years later (Lowie,1937, p. 60), he wrote that “diffusion plays havoc with any universal law of sequences.” But Boas never really understood the philosophy of cultural evolution. “We musttrytounderstand moreclearlywhatthe theory ofunilinearcultural development implies. It means that different groups of mankind started at a very early time from a general condition of lack of culture; and, owing to the unity of the human mind, and the consequent similar response to outer and inner stimuli, developed everywhere approximately along the same lines” (Boas, 1938, p. 178; emphasis mine). But he has confused the culture historyof peoples with the evolution of culture. Evolutionist theory did not say that 61 Seneca school children would have to work their way through hieroglyphicwriting before they could learn the alphabet, but that in the evolution of writing aseriesofstages—picturewriting,rebus, orhieroglyphicwriting,and alphabetic writing—would be traversed. The effect upon ethnology of Boas' antievolutionary crusade has been ex­ceedinglv unfortunate, but as I have discussed this matter elsewhere (seeWhite, 1959b, for a summary of previous papers), I shall not deal further with it here. History. We need add little to what we have already said about Boas his­torical reconstructions. Thev range from the probable through the possibleto the preposterous. And almost none is verifiable except in a very general way, namely, that a myth, found distributed throughout a large multitribal,contiguous area, must, in all probability, have diffused from tribe to tribe. But his reconstructions in particular and in detail are virtually beyond the possibility of verification. And his deduction from the physical appearanceof two tribes that they must have intermarried at one time, and in that way onetribeborrowed traitsfrom the other islittle shortoffantastic. Boas apparently really believed that his historical reconstructions were perfectlv valid, for in contrasting the “comparative [i.e., evolutionist] meth­od with the “historical method,’ he maintained that the latter was “much safer,” “because instead of a hypothesis on the mode of development actual history forms the basis of our deductions” (Boas, 1896f, p. 907; emphasesmine). The idea that his reconstructions might be as hypothetical, as conjec­tural as—and actnallv, if anything, more unverifiable—than the evolutionists’ hypotheses apparently never entered his mind. And Lowie (1940, p. 599)faithfully echoes Boas on this point: Boas “stressed real history as a corrective ofevolutionary schemes...” Boas’ historicalreconstructions wererepeatedbyhis students,and throughrepetition came to be regarded as “absolutelv established fact” (Lowie,1944a, p. 60). “The Kwakiutl . . originally lived in local bands. . . .” (Bene­ . dict, 1934, p. 185; what can originally possibly mean here?). Boas’ thesis that the Kwakiutl were in a transition stage between patriliny and matriliny was accepted without hesitation or question bv Swanton (1904, p. 479; 1905, p.671), Goldenweiser (1914, p. 420), Benedict (1934, pp. 185-86, 227-28),Reichard (1938, p. 425), and others. Two of Boas prominent students could be severely critical of historical reconstructions when they were made bv others, however. Both Golden­weiser and Lowie reveiwed W. H. R. Rivers’ The History of Melanesian So­ciety in which the author reconstructed the culture history of an area. Goldenweiser (1916, p. 827) wrote: “Deliberately evading any attempt to furnish proof of diffusion in specific instances, the author erects a purelyhypothetical structure, based on a bewildering maze of assumptions invari­ 62 ablyfavoringinterpretations throughdiffusionwhile disregardingalternative interpretations' (emphases mine). Lowie (1915, p. 589): “[Lowie] cannot avoid feeling that some other student who shared Dr. Rivers’s knowledge of this area might construct an argument no less consistent, elaborate, and plausible, yet widely diverging from that here presented. At many a particu­lar point alternative interpretations suggest themselves. . .” These are pre­ . cisely the points that might be made with regard to Boas’ historical recon­structions. Butwe donotfind themintheliterature. Psychology. His psychological explanations are little, if any, better than his historical reconstructions: “The possession of clan traditions was felt as a great advantage, and consequently the desire developed to possess clan tra­ditions. The desire to guard the traditions which were once acquired led ... to the development of endogamic institutions, in order to prevent the spreadof the traditions over the whole tribe” (Boas, 1898a, p. 125; emphasis ours).One is tempted to remark that this is the way Boas would have felt and be­haved if he had been a Bella Coola Indian. One wonders how a scholar like Krober could have written the following; “His [Boas’] unsparing mind ex­acted proof even in the complex and difficult situations which prevail in culture, and he refused to deal with problems in which strict proof seemed impossible” (Kroeber, 1952, p. 146). C.M.Barbeauistheonlyanthropologist,asfar asIknow—lhavenotmade an exhaustive survey of the literature—who has seriously criticized Boas’ field work and his interpretation of his data—and this concerned only Boas’ Tsimshian Mythology (1916); Barbeau had done field work himself with this group. Boas’ sections on “Social Organization of the Tsimshian” “teem with controversial matters,” according to Barbeau (1917, p. 557) who disagreeswith Boas on many points. Alternative hypotheses to those proposed by Boas suggested themselves to Barbeau on every hand; i.e., many interpretations were possible but virtually none was verifiable. “We cannot help feeling,” writes Barbeau, “that had Dr. Boas had a pro­longed opportunity ofstudying in thefield [instead,presumably, ofrelying upon Tate] Tsimshian village, kinship, and clan organization, he would have revised many of his views on the subject, resulting as they do partly from the scantiness of his data and from the evident lack of insight evinced by Tate” (ibid., p. 557). Texts. The latter comment brings up the question again of having natives record texts. Boas favored this, as we have seen, because he believed it tended to eliminate “the almost unavoidable distortion contained in the de­ ” scriptions given by the casual visitor and student(Boas, 1909b, p. 309; em­phasis ours). But what about the bias, and consequent distortion, wrought bythe native? I have worked intermittently with Indian informants among the Pueblos ofthe SouthwestforthirtyyearsandIhaverepeatedlynotedatend­ 63 ency on their part to present an account of their culture that would depict it in a favorable light—from their point of view; this meant omitting some things, and exaggerating others. I do not believe for a minute that a goodnativeinformantislessgiventobiasanddistortionthan agoodscientist.And, in Barbeau’s estimation, Henry Tate had many serious shortcomings (Bar-bean had considerable specific and direct information about Tate). The text material on social organization “furnished him [Boas] by Tate was one-sided and very incomplete,” falling “far short of the requirements when they are expected to yield a satisfactory perspective of a confused domestic his­tory and an intricate social structure” (Barbeau, 1917, p. 553). Moreover, Tate was “lower class,” which Barbeau believed handicapped him as an informant. Laws. In 1888 Boas asserted that “the discovery of these laws [accordingto which “the human mind develops everywhere”] is the greatest aim of our science (Boas, 1888i, p. 637). Incidentally, Boas always spoke of “discover­ing,” or “finding,” laws, not offormulating them: “the concept that scientific laws are found in nature rather than formulated by the scientist is tvpical of Boas (Buettner-Janusch, 1957, p. 321). In 1896 “we agreed that certain laws existwhichgovernthegrowthofhumanculture,andit isourendeavorto dis­cover these laws” (Boas, 1896f, p. 905) even though at that very moment he was abandoning the generalizing “comparative method for the particulariz­ing “historical method. Decades later, toward the close of his scientific career,hesetforth this,hisfinalviewonthesubject: "In short, the material of anthropology is such that it needs must be a historical science, one of the sciences the interest of which centers in the attempt to under­stand the individual phenomena rather than in the establishment of general laws which, on account of the complexity of the material, will be necessarily vague and, we might almost say, so self-evident that they are of little help to a real under­standing” (Boas, 1932b, p. 612; emphasis mine). The similarity of this point of view to that expressed in “The Study of Ge­ography” forty-five years earlier is impressive; it is the same Boas down to the last detail. “So consistent was his theoretical position,” savs Bunzel (1960, p.404),"thatitisfrequentlyhardtotellwhetherapaperwaswrittenin 1888or 1932.”In hisearlyyears inanthropologyBoaspaidhisrespects tolaws andto the importance of “discovering” them. But as he made perfectly clear in “The Study of Geography” (1887), he was not interested in generalizing but in particularizing—in ethnology “everything is individuality.” It is not surpris­ing, therefore, that Boas never did discover any significant laws, and, at the close of his scientific life he believed that none of much value was attainable. What, then, might reasonably be said in concluding our tour of much of Boas’ ethnography and ethnology? 1. He collected, and caused to be collected and recorded, a vast mass of factual material. But, 2. he not only did not produce a coherent and intel­ligible picture of Kwakiutl culture as a whole; it is not possible for others to do this on the basis of Boas’ data (Codere, 1959, p. 66). And, accordingto Ray (1955, p. 140), Boas and some of his students have presented a dis­torted picture, not only of the Kwakiutl, but of the entire Northwest Coast. 3. His historical reconstructions are worthless, for the most part, and fantastic in some respects. He made a convincing case for the diffusion of myths, but in this respect he was not original, or outstanding among diffusionists. And ifall ofhis detailedhistoricalreconstructions couldhave beenprovedcorrect they would have added up only to the conclusions that contiguous socio­cultural systems interact and affect one another, which is hardly a great scientific discovery. 4. His unwillingness to generalize tended to oppose the development of a science of culture. 5. His antievolutionism did cultural anthropology great harm from which it is only recently recovering. Inmyopinion,Boas’greatestachievement, his mostenduringcontribution,will turn out to be the textual material that he, George Hunt, and Henry Tate so laboriously collected and so painstakingly recorded. But even here it is exceedingly difficult to come to a satisfving conclusion with regard to their value. As we have seen, they are very inadequately annotated, and we are left without the information that is necessary to their adequate comprehen­sion. And, so far, no one, as far as I know, with the possible exception of Werner Muller (Welthild und Knit der Kwakiutl-lndianer) has undertaken to make extensive use of this material. Benedict’s portrait, is a distortion;Goldman’s sketch is commendable as far as it goes, but it certainly does not encompass or utilize a vast amount of the material available. Therefore, it remains to be seen what use can be made of this storehouse of fact in the future;any judgmentatthistimeseemsprematuretome. But, regardless of the use to which this textual material may be put in the future—whichistosay thevalueandsignificanceofthese data—laminclined to believe that these texts constitute Boas’ principal contribution to cultural anthropology. After all, what are they to be compared with? Not his “critical approach,” his “rigorous scientific method,” his “convincing demonstrations,” or his constructive theories. I am much inclined to agree with Swanton who, inareviewofBoas KivakiutlTexts,wrote: “Therefore, though unattractive, not to say repellent, to the average reader,accustomed togarbledandEuropeanizedfragmentsofIndianlegendsfromwhich theIndianspirithas utterly departed,thesetextswillbeturnedtoagain andagain, not only by the philologist, folklorist, mythologist, and student of religious phe­nomena astoaninexhaustiblesourceofreliableinformationregardingthethoughtlife of the people from whom they were obtained” (Swanton, 1907, p. 744). Reichard, also, believed that the texts are “the strongest rocks in Boas’ self-built monument (1943, p. 55). The Purpose of this Study Since Boas has been so sacrosanct in the annals of American anthropology(he “was literally worshippedby some . . Kroeber, 1943, p. 23), and since he is still held in highest esteem in many quarters, a review of his work that falls short of eulogy may well evoke the resentment of some, and perhaps in­cline them to impute unfriendly motives to the author. In complete honestyand sincerity I can say that I harbor no hostile attitude towards Boas the man or Boas the scientist. I do believe, however, that Boas’ stature as a cul­tural anthropologist has been greatly—even grotesquely—exaggerated byhis disciples and others. And, as a consequence of this, many anthropolo­gists, not only in the United States but in other countries as well, have distorted and unjustifiable conceptions of many important ethnological prob­lems. All this, I think, is unfortunate. The purpose of this studv has been to provide a more realistic picture of Boas as ethnographer and ethnologist than we have ever had before. We have taken considerable pains to dig out and assemble some facts about Boas’ field work that no one has done before. We have let Boas speak for himself in his own words. The result of all this is a portrait of Boas that is different—shock­ingly different—from the highly idealized image of him created by his dis­ciples (“worshippers”). I hope that my study will help to correct many mis­conceptions, both with regard to the work of Boas and to various ethnologicalproblems withwhich he was concerned. Were it not for the long-established adulation of Boas his errors and other shortcomings as ethnographer and ethnologist would occasion little surprise,and would merit both understanding and sympathy. When he went to British Columbia in 1886 he had little qualification for scientific work in ethnologyother than intense interest, industry, and perseverance. It is true, of course,thathe venturedintothefieldofanthropologicalliterature,but there islittle evidence that it made any impression upon him: his mind was made up in 1887-88as “The Study ofGeography” (1887d), “Museums ofEthnology and their Classification” (1887e) and “The Aims of Ethnology” (1888hj make clear. Thescienceofethnologywasbutlittleadvancedinthe 1880’sand’9os,and some concepts that are commonplace today were unknown at that time. Take the concept of ambilateral lineages, for example; it did not enter ethnologicaltheory until the 19205. No one would criticize a field worker of the closing years of the nineteenth century for not using this concept in describing the social structure of the Kwakiutl. Boas’ use of (1) the concept of unilateral lineages,and(2) thetheoryofthesequenceofstagesfrommatrilinytopatri­liny was in close accord with the ethnology of the times. But one might rea­sonablyraise the questionwhyan “independentand eruditethinker” (Lowie, 66 1937,p. 151),amanwhowasonthewaytobecoming“theworld’s greatestanthropologist” (Kroeber, 1943, p. 5), could not have formulated this con­ception—the facts lay right before his eyes. Here again we have the contrast between aman, arealman, in arealsituationintimeand place,withbothits resourcesanditslimitations,andthe glorifiedimage ofthatman.It isnotthat Boas isbelittledinthisstudy;itisthegrotesqueimageofhimthatisexposed.Our study helps us—or at least me—to understand how a number of Boas' most prominent students could cometobelieve thatBoas founded the science of anthropology. He “came to anthropologv as a culture-hero,” said Golden­weiser (1941, p. 153). “He found anthropology a collection of wild guessesand a happy hunting ground for the romantic lover of primitive things; he left it a discipline in which theories could be tested. . . ,” (Benedict, 1943, p.61). Boas “found anthropologv a plavfield and jousting ground of opinion;he left it a science .” (Kroeber, 1952, p. 146). Boas was “the man who made anthropologyinto ..ascience....”(Mead, 1959b,p.35). There is no need to list and enumerate here the anthropologists ofconsider­able scientific stature who preceded Boas; thev are too well known for that. How, then, could his students have come to believe that it was Boas who “made anthropology into a science”? On the one hand “he cited the interpre­tations of others rather infrequently, and he disparaged more often than he approved or concurred in their views. When he formally analyzed work, it was usually to point out errors in method. . . . He used the material and re­sults of others sparingly, except for his students and followers . . .” Kroeber,1956, p. 156). On the other hand, lie presented to “his students and follow­ers” an image of anthropology, his anthropology. If Boas created anthro­pologv, he createditinhis ownimage. Theanthropologythathepresentedto his students was composed of the sort of studies that he had engaged in all of his professional life. The belief that anthropology as a science was the creation of Boas is, of course, unwarranted (grotesque). But it is as least understandable. LITERATURE CITED Barbeau, C. M. 1917 Review of Boas, Tsimshian Mythology. American Anthropologist, 19: 548-63. Reprinted in Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist,Frederica De Laguna, ed., Evanston, Illinois, 1960. Benedict, Ruth 1931 Professor Franz Boas, President of the AAAS. Scientific Monthly, 32: 279-280. 1934 Patterns of Culture. Boston and New York. 1943 Obituary of Franz Boas. Science, 97: 60-62. 67 Benison, Saul 1949 Geography and the early career of Franz Boas. American Anthropologist, 51: 523-26. Boas, Franz 1882 Lettertohisuncle,Dr.AbrahamJacobi.InHerskovits,1957. 1884 A Journey in Cumberland Sound and on the West Shore of Davis Strait in 1883 and 1884. Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, 16; 242-72. 1885 Cumberland Sound and its Eskimos. Popular Science Monthly, 26: 768­ 79. 1886 a Letter to Charles P. Daly, President of the American Geographical Society. In Benison, 1949. 1886b The Language of theBilhoola inBritish Columbia. Science, 7: 218. 1886 c Letter regarding ethnological studies on Vancouver Island with particu­ larreference to masks. Globus, 50: 352. 1886 d Sprache der Bella-Coola Indianer. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesell­schaft fur Anthropologic, Ethnologic nnd Urgeschichte, 18: 202-06. 1886e Mitteilungen liber die Vilxula-Indianer. Originalmittheilungen aus dem Kaiserlichen Museum fur Volkerkunde, 177-182, 2 plates.1887 a Census and Reservations of the Kwakiutl Nation. Bulletin of the Ameri­can Geographical Society, 19; 225-32. 1887b The Coast Tribes of British Columbia. Science, 0.5., 9: 288-89 (un­signed).1887c NotesontheEthnologyofBritishColumbia.Proceedings oftheAmerican Philosophical Society, 24: 422-28. 1887 d The Study of Geography. Science, 9: 137-41. Reprinted in Race, Lan­ guage and Culture, 1940. 1887e Museums of Ethnology and their Classification. Science, 9: 587-89. 1888 a The Indians of British Columbia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canadafortheyear 1888.Vol. 1,section2,pp.47-57. 1888b On Certain Songs and Dances of the Kwakiutl. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 1: 49-64. 1888 c The Central Eskimo. Sixth Annual Report, Bureau of American Eth­nology. Washington, D.C. 1888 d Myths and Legends of the Catloltq of Vancouver Island. The American Antiquarian, 10: 201-11 and 366-73. 1888e The Development of the Culture of North-West America. Science, 12: 194-96. 1888f The Indians of British Columbia. Popular Science Monthly, 32: 628-36. 1888g Dawson on theKwakiutl (unsigned). Science, 11: 105. 1888h The Aims of Ethnology, a lecture. Published in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1889 a Letter and Preliminary Data. Fourth Report of the Committee on North-Western Tribes of Canada. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1889. 68 1889b With H. Rink. Eskimo Tales and Sones. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 2: 123-31.1889c TheHousesoftheKwakiutlIndiansofBritishColumbia.Proceedingsof theU.S.NationalMuseum, 1888,11:197-213.Washington,D.C. 1890 The Indians of British Columbia. Fifth Report of the Committee on the North-Western Tribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Advancementof Science, 1890,pp. 801-893. 1891 a The Indians of British Columbia. Ibid., Sixth Report, pp. 562-715. 1891b Dissemination of Tales among the Natives of North America. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 4: 13-20. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture,1940. 1892a The Bilqula. Physical Characteristics of the Tribes of the North Pacific Coast. Seventh Report of the Committee on North-Western Tribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Sci­ence, 1892. 1892b Vocabulary of the Kwakiutl Language. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 31: 34-82. 1894a Notes on the Eskimo of Port Clarence. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 7; 205-208. 1894b The Indians of the Lower Fraser River. Ninth Report of the Committee on North-Western Tribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1894, pp. 454-63. 1894 c Chinook Texts. Bulletin 20, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 1894dEskimo Talesand Songs.JournalofAmericanFolk-Lore, 7: 4.5-50. 1895 a The Indians of British Columbia: Physical Characteristics of the Tribes of the North Pacific Coast. Tenth Report of the Committee on North-Western Tribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Ad­vancement of Science, 1895, pp. 523—592. 1895b Salishan Texts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 34: 31-48. 1896 a Traditions of the Tsetsant. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 9: 257-68; 10: 3.5-48. 1896b The Indians of British Columbia. Eleventh Report of the Committee on North-Western Tribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1896, pp. 569-591. 1896 c The Indians of British Columbia. Bulletin of the American GeographicalSociety, 28: 229-243. 1896 d Songs of the Kwakiutl Indians. Internationales Archiv fur Ethnographic,9; 1-9. 1896e The Growth of Indian Mythologies. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 9; 1-11. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1896f The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology. Science, 4: 901-908. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1896g Anthropometrical Observations on the Mission Indians of California. 69 Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for 1895. Salem, 1896. 1897aEskimoTalesandSongs.JournalofAmericanFolk-Lore, 10; 109-115. 1897b The Social Organization and Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians. Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1895.Washington, D.C. 1897 c The Jesup Expedition to the North Pacific Coast. Science, n.s., 6: 535-38. 1898a The Mythology of the Bella Coola Indians. Publications of the Jesnp North Pacific Expedition, 1: 25-127. 1898b Operations of the [Jesup North Pacific] Expedition in 1897. Publications oftheJesupNorthPacificExpedition, 1:1-12. 1898cIntroductionto JamesTeit,TraditionsoftheThompsonIndiansofBritish Columbia. Memoirs of the American Folk-Lore Society, 6: 1-18. Re­printed in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1898 d Traditions of the Tillamook Indians. Journal of the American Folk-Lore, 11: 23-38, 13,3-150. 1899 Various reports, including a summary of the work of the Committee. Twelfth andFinalReportoftheCommittee ontheNorth-WesternTribes of Canada, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1899, pp. 628-688. 1900 Religious Beliefs of the Central Eskimo. Popular Science Monthly, 57: 624-31. 1901 a The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 15, Pt. 1, 370 pp.; for Pt. 2, see Boas,1907. 1901b Kathlamet Texts. Bulletin 26, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washing­ton, D.C. 1902 Tsimshian Texts. Bulletin 27, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washing­ton, D.C. 1904 The Folk-lore of the Eskimo. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 17: 1-13. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1905 a The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. International Congress of Ameri­canists, Thirteenth Session, New York, 1902: 91-100. 1905b Kwakiutl Texts. Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 3: 5-532. 1906 a Kwakiutl Texts (second series). Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 10: 1-269. 1906b The Tribes of the North Pacific Coast. Annual Archaeological Report for 1905; Appendix to the Report of the Minister of Education, Ontario. 1907 Second Report on the Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. Bulletin,American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 15, Pt. 2: 371-570; for Pt. 1 see Boas, 1901a. 1908 Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition. Science, 28: 176-78. 1909 a The Relationships of the Eskimos of East Greenland. Science, 30: 535­ 36. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 70 1909b The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, 5, part 2: 301-522. 1910 Kwakiutl Tales. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, 2: 1-495. 1912 a Notes on Mexican Folk-Lore. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 25; 204­ 260. 1912b Tsimshian Texts (new series). Publications of the American EthnologicalSociety, 3: 65-284. 1914 Mythology and Folk-Tales of the North American Indians. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 27: 374-410. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture. 1916 Tsimshian Mythology. Thirty-first Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 1917 Grammatical Notes on the Language of the Tlingit Indians. Universityof Pennsylvania, University Museum Anthropological Papers, Vol. VIII,No. 1, 179 pp. (texts, pp. 168-179). 1918 Kutenai Tales. Bulletin 59, Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 1920 a With E. C. Parsons. Spanish Tales from Laguna and Zuni. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 33: 47-72. 1920b The Social Organization of the Kwakiutl. American Anthropologist, 22: 111-126. Reprinted inRace, Language and Culture, 1940. 1921 a Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of AmericanEthnology,Pts. 1and2.Washington,D.C. 1921b Der Seelenglaube der Vandau. Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologic, 52-53 heft 1: 1-5. Reprinted in English translation in Race, Language and Culture,1940. 1922 a Tales and Proverbs of the Vandau of Portuguese, South Africa. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 35 No. 136: 151-204. 1922b Der Verwandtschaftssystem der Vandau. Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologic, 54: 41-51. Reprinted in English translation in Race, Language and Culture,1940. 1922 c The Avunculate among the Vandau. American Anthropologist, 24: 9.5-97. 1922 d Tales of Spanish Provenience from Znhi. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 35: 62-98. 1924 The Social Organization of the Tribes of the North Pacific Coast. Ameri­can Anthropologist, 26: 323-32. Reprinted in Race, Language and Cul­ture, 1940. 1925 a Keresan Texts. Publications of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. VIII,Pt.II(texts),pp. 1-344.ForPt.I,seeBoas, 1928a. 1925b Contributions to the Ethnology of the Kwakiutl. Columbia UniversityContributions to Anthropology, 3: 1-357. 1926 With H. K. Haeberlin. Ten Folktales in Modern Nahuatl. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 37[1924]: 345—370. 71 1928a Keresan Texts. Publications of the American Ethnological Society, Vol. VIII,Pt.I(translations),pp.1-300.ForPt.11,seeBoas, 1925a. 1928b Bella Bella Texts. Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, 5: 1-291. 1930 a The Religion of the Kwakintl Indians. Columbia University Contribu­tionstoAnthropology,Vol.X,Pts. 1and 2. 1930b Preface to James A. Teit, The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus,edited by F. Boas. Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 1932 a Bella Bella Tales. Memoirs of the American Folk-Lore Society, 25, 178 pp.;containsatextintheKwakiutldialect,pp. 143-155. 1932b The Aims of Anthropological Research. Science, 76: 605-613. ReprintedinRace, Language and Culture, 1940. 1935 Kwakiutl Tales (new series). Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 26, Pt. 1 (translations); for texts, see Boas, 1943. 1936 History and Science in Anthropology: a Reply. American Anthropologist, 38; 137-141. Reprinted in Race, Language and Culture, 1940. 1938 TheMindofPrimitiveMan.Revisededition,NewYork. 1940 Race, Language and Culture. (An anthology) New York. 1941 With Ella Deloria. Dakota Grammar. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, 23 second memoir. Washington, D.C. 1943 Kwakiutl Tales (new series). Columbia University Contributions to An­thropology, Vol. 26, Pt. 2 (texts); for translations, see Boas, 1935. Brinton, Daniel G. 1882 American Hero-Myths. Philadelphia.1896 The Aims of Anthropology. Proceedings of the 44th meeting of the Ameri­ can Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 1-17. Salem. Buettner-Janusch, John 1957 Boas and Mason: Particularism versus Generalization. American Anthro­pologist, 59: 318-324. Bunzel, Ruth L. 1938 The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples In General Anthology, Franz Boas, ed.,pp. 327-408. 1960 Franz Boas: 1958-1942. In The Golden Age of American Anthropology,Margaret Mead and Ruth L. Bunzel, eds. New York. Codere, Helen 1955 Review of Edwin M. Lemert, Alcohol and the Northwest Coast Indians. American Anthropologist, 57: 1303-1305. 1956 The Amiable Side of Kwakiutl Life: the Potlatch and the Play Potlach. American Anthropologist, 58: 334-351. 1957 Kwakiutl Society; Rank without Class. American Anthropologist, 59: 473-86. 1959 The Understanding of the Kwakiutl. In The Anthropology of Franz Boas,Walter Goldschmidt, ed. Memoir 89, American Anthropological Associa­tion, pp. 61-75. 72 1961 Kwakiutl. In Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change, edited byEdward H. Spicer, pp. 431-516. Chicago. DeLaguxa, Frederica 1960 The Development of Anthropology. In Selected Papers from the Ameri­canAnthropologist, 1888-1920,pp.91-104.Evanston,Illinois. Drucker, Philip 1955 Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York. Eggax, Fred 1960 Lewis H. Morgan in Kinship Perspective. In Essays in the Science of Culture, Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro, eds. New York. Fewkes, J. W. 1925 Report of the Chief. Fortieth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1918-1919. Washington, D.C. Goldenweiser, Alexander 1914 The Social Organization of the Indians of North America. Journal of American Folk-Lore, 27: 411-36. 1916 Review of W. H. R. Rivers, The History of Melanesian Society. Science, 44: 824-28. 1931 Evolution, Social. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 5: 656-62. 1933 History, Psychology and Culture (an Anthology). New York. 1941 Recent Trends in American Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 43: 151-163. Goldfraxk, Esther S. 1927 The Social and Ceremonial Organization of Cochiti. Memoir 33, Ameri­can Anthropological Association. Goldman, Irving 1937 The Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island. In Cooperation and Compe­titionamong Primitive Peoples, Margaret Mead, ed. New York. Herskovits, Melville J.1952 Economic Anthropology. New York. 1953 FranzBoas:TheScienceofManintheMaking.NewYork. 1957 Some Further Notes on Franz Boas’ Arctic Expedition. American Anthro­ pologist, 59: 112-116. Hodge, F. W. 1916 Report of the Ethnologist in Charge. Thirty-first Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1909-1910. Washington, D.C. 1923 Report of the Ethnologist in Charge. Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1915-1916. Washington, D.C. Hoebel, E. Adamson 1958 Man in the Primitive World. Second edition, New York. Holmes, W. H. 1916 Report of the Chief. Twenty-ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri­can Ethnology for 1907-1908. Washington, D.C. 73 Jacobs, Melville 1959 Folklore. In The Anthropology of Franz Boas, Walter Goldschmidt, ed. Memoir 89, American Anthropological Association. Kluckhohn, Clyde and Olaf Prefer 1959 Influences during Formative Years. In The Anthropology of Franz Boas, Walter Goldschmidt, ed. Memoir 89, American Anthropological Associa­tion, pp. 4-28. Kroeber, A. L. 1935 History and Science in Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 37: 539­ 569. 1943 Franz Boas: the Man. In Franz Boas, 1858-1942, A. L. Kroeber et al. Memoir61,AmericanAnthropological Association,pp. .5-26. 1946 History and Evolution. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 2:1-15. 1952 The History and Present Orientation of Cultural Anthropology. In A. L. Kroeber, The Nature of Culture. Chicago.1956 The Place of Boas in Anthropology. American Anthropologist, 58: 151— 159. Kroeber, A. L. et al. 1943 Franz Boas: 1858-1942. Memoir 61, American Anthropological Associa­tion. Kroeber, A. L., and T. T. Waterman 1920, 1931 Source Book in Anthropology. University of California Press, 1920; Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1931. Lemert, Edwin M. 1956 On Alcoholism among the Northwest Coast Indians. American Anthro­ pologist, 58: 561. Lips, JuliusE. 1938 Government. In General Anthropology, Franz Boas, ed., pp. 487-534. Lowie, Robert H. 1915 Review of W. H. R. Rivers, The History of Melanesian Society. American Anthropologist, 17: 588-91. 1917 ObituaryofE.B. Tylor.AmericanAnthropologist,19:262-268. 1920 Primitive Society. New York. 1937 The History of Ethnological Theory. New York. 1940 Review of Boas, Race, Language and Culture. Science, 91: 598-99. 1944 a Franz Boas (1858-1942). Journal of American Folk-Lore, 57: 59-64. 1944b American Contributions to Anthropology. Science, 100: 321-327. 1947 Franz Boas, 1858-1942. Biographical Memoir, National Academy of Sciences, 24: 303-322. 1948 Social Organization. New York. Mauss, M. 1913 Review of F. Boas, The Kwakiutl of Vancouver Island. L’Annee Socio­logique, 12; 857-58. Mead, Margaret1959 a Apprenticeship under Boas. In The Anthropology of Franz Boas, Walter 74 Goldschmidt, ed. Memoir 89, American Anthropological Association, pp.29-45. 1959b AnAnthropologistatWork:WritingsofRuthBenedict. Boston Michelsox, Truman 1929 Daniel Garrison Brinton. Dictionary of American Biography, 3: 50-51. Muller, Werner 1955 Weltbild und Kult der Kwakiutl-Indianer. Wiesbaden. Murdock, George P. 1949 Social Structure. New York. Parsons, Elsie Clews 1936 Early Relations between Hopi and Keres. American Anthropologist, 38: 554-560. Powell, j. W. 1897 Report of the Director. Seventeenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1894-1895, Washington, D.C. 1903 Report of the Director. Twentieth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ameri­canEthnologyfor 1898-1899.Washington,D.C. 1904 Report of the Director. Twenty-third Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1901-1902. Washington, D.C. Radix. Paul 1923 The Winnebago Tribe. Thirty-seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, D.C. 1933 The Method and Theory of Ethnology. New York. Ray, Verne F. 1955 Review of Melville J. Herskovits, Franz Boas: The Science of Man in the Making. American Anthropologist, 57: 138-140. Reichard, Gladys A. 1938 Social Life. In General Anthropology, Franz Boas, ed. Boston. 1943 Franz Boas and Folklore. In Franz Boas: 1858-1942, by A. L. Kroeber et ah Sapir. Edward 1912 Review of Boas, Kwakiutl Tales. Current Anthropological Literature, Vol I, pp. 193-198. Spier, Leslie 1943 Franz Boas and some of his Views. Acta Americana, 1: 108-127 1959 Some Central Elements in the Legacy. In The Anthropology of Franz Boas, Walter Goldschmidt, ed. Memoir 89, American AnthropologicalAssociation, pp. 146-155. Swanton, John R. 1904 The Development of the Clan System and of Secret Societies among the Northwestern Tribes. American Anthropologist, 6: 477-85. Reprinted in Selected Papers from the American Anthropologist, 1888-1920, Frederica De Laguna, ed., 1960. 1905 The Social Organization of American Tribes. American Anthropologist, 7: 66.3-73. 75 1907 Review of Boas, Kwakintl Texts. American Anthropologist, 9: 743-44. Tylor, Edward B. 1929 Primitive Culture, Vols. 1 and II [lB7l], Fourth edition, 1929 printing,London. White, Leslie A. 1945 Diffusion vs. Evolution: an Anti-evolutionist Fallacy. American Anthro­pologist, 47: 339-56. 1957 Review of Julian H. Steward, Theory of Culture Change. American An­thropologist, 59: 540-42. 1959a The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. New York. 1959b The Concept of Evolution in Cultural Anthropology. In Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Anthropological Society ofWash­ington, D.C., pp. 106-125. 1962 The Pueblo of Sia, New Mexico. Bulletin 184 of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington. D.C. OJO 7 Yampolsky, Helene Boas 1958 Excerpts from the Letter Diary of Franz Boas on his first field trip to the Northwest Coast. International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 24, pp. 312-320. 76