History and Science in Anthropology

TLDR: The authors examined the positions of a number of different anthropologists vis-a-vis these issues and concluded that any theory of history must include a definition of the concept "history" and that history is determined by the laws that govern the inner life of society.

Abstract: The basic issues which this paper will be concerned wvith are: how has history been defined, what has been asked about lhistory, aind wvhat sort of answers have been found. These questions may also be stated as: what is the nature of historical theory (since \"theory\" here will inean any set of definitions, assumptions, and operating hypotheses) and how do different theories affect what m-ay \"be done\" with history. In order to gain perspective on these questions, we wil first examine the positions of a number of different anthropologists vis-a-vis these issues. The theorists included here have been chosen because their positions represent the basic stands that have been taken in anthropology on these problems. Frank Boas has long been cited as the prime example of the \"antitheoretical\" view in alnthropology. This tag has been so much used that it has led some to accept the naive position Boas himself held, namely that an \"anti\" or \"non\" theoretical position is in fact possible, even that \"pure fact\" can be collected without the least interference from theory. That Boas held this position is understandable since he viewed theory as being made up of deduction which was a matter of \"unbridled imaglnation and wild conjecture.\" He was reacting to the unilinear evolutionists and the extreme diffusionists. When he said that deduction (as applied to social evolutionists) was for \"armchair philosophers\" he was striking a blow for a more empirical anthropology. Unhappily, all the consequences of his position were not so salubrious, for he anathemized all explicit theory for many of his followers and theory still holds a somewhat dubious aura for some in the field. This is despite the fact that Boas himself was the fountainhead of an elaborate, albeit implicit, theory. Since this theory is greatly concerned with history, we will examine it. Any theory of history must include a definition of the concept \"history.\" Since Boas nevel made his theory explicit, his definition has to be gleaned from a num:ber of his writings, but I think the following makes his position rather clear. \"In order to understand history it is necessary to know not only how things are, buit how they came to be.\"12 \"If we try to understand what the people are at the present time, we have to inquire into their descent. We must consider the climactic and geogaphic changes that have occurred. All these have no relation to the laws that may govern the inner life of society. They are accidents. Culture can be understood only as an historical growvth. It is determined to a