BOOK REVIEWS 157

more problems than it attempts to solve. In accordance with her thesis she expects “new instruments of navigation” to develop out of this period of criticism and doubt. In support of her expectation the reviewer presents the trends of modern anthropology, particularly those in the fields of the analysis of culture and cultural change.

FRED ECGAN UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

A Hundred Years of Anthropology. T. K. PENNIMAN. (400 pp. $4.50. New York: Macmillan Co., 1936.)

Mr Penniman divides the history of anthropological thought into four periods. The first, or Formulary, period begins with Herodotus and ends in 1835. The sec- ond, the Convergent, begins in 1835 and ends with the appearance of Origin of Species. There seems to be little justification for the dividing line 1835 except that the book was to be called A Hundred Years of Anthropology. The Constructive period begins with Darwin’s great work and ends in 1900, “when Mendel’s earlier dis- coveries first became generally recognized.” The Critical period takes us up to 1935.

In the reviewer’s opinion, by far the best part of this history is that portion which deals with anthropological thought prior to 1880, or thereabout. In an inter- esting and effective manner, the author shows how various streams of thought, flowing from travel and from geological, paleontological, biological, sociological, and philosophic studies grew and gradually merged, forming the science of anthro- pology, the “master science” which synthesizes and integrates all of the scientific studies of Man. The account of modern anthropology, say from 1870 or 1880 on, while broad in scope and rich in facts, seems to be lacking in grasp of the basic problems and main currents of anthropological development. A great deal of this history consists of a recitation of names of men and their books, arranged under logical headings rather than a critical exposition of what different groups of an- thropologists have been doing and are now trying to do. Although acknowledging the “tremendous importance” of “those who collected the evidence,” the author has very little indeed to say of those who did the work, what they have done, and the methods by which they have accomplished it. His emphasis has been rather upon “the use made of the evidence.” As a consequence, the work bears the stamp of the library; the flavor of the field worker is virtually absent.

I t seems quite plain that Darwin is the real “hero” of Mr Penniman’s story. I t was Darwin “who provided the evolutionist view of nature which . . . integrated all these studies, and thus made possible the Science of Man as a unified subject.” “With Darwin, the history of Anthropology as a single, though many-sided science, begins.” And “for the next forty years, the great pioneers in the study of Anthro- pology in all its branches followed Darwinian principles.” And today, anthropology is about to get “a fresh start from Darwin’s principles.” In the reviewer’s judg- ment, the author has greatly exaggerated the role played by Darwin, especially in cultural anthropology, but this point cannot be argued here.

158 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGlST [N. S., 39, 1937

It is no doubt easy for one to overestimate the importance of scientists of one’s own country and, correspondingly, to underestimate those of other lands. But the reviewer believes that many non-American anthropologists will feel, as he does, that Mr Penniman has failed, on the whole, to give American anthropology and anthropologists the attention and credit to which they are entitled. Morgan ex- cepted, there are only passing references to American anthropologists prior to 1900. Franz Boas is disposed of in three sentences, plus a short passage written by him to characterize the work of another. HrdliEka gets three sentences; Goldenweiser, Dixon, and Gregory one each. Bandelier, Holmes, C. Thomas, and J. W. Fewkes get two sentences in all; N. C. Nelson shares one sentence with two others, There is mention of Sapir’s Time Perspective, but not a word of his linguistic studies. Hooton, Kidder, and Cushing are listed in the bibliography a t the end of the book but are not mentioned in the text. There is no mention whatsoever of Kroeber, Lowie, G . A. Dorsey, Goddard, Gatschet, MacCurdy, Mooney, Starr, A. F. Chamberlain, Tozzer, Spinden, Morley, Spier, Parsons, Cole, Speck, Michelson, Laufer, Linton, Putnam, Guthe, Strong, I;. H. H. Roberts, Pilling, Todd, J. P. and M. R. Harring- ton, A. C. Parker, Swanton, Hodge, Gifford, Waterman, el al. Neither is there men- tion of the studies of primitive music carried on in America by Densmore, Helen H. Roberts, Herzog, and others; nor of the fruitful researches in ethnobotany, dendro- chronology, and ceramic analysis.

A number of errors unfortunately mar this work: A. B. Lewis for A. B. Ellis (p. 240); Caspian for Capsian (p. 333); E. L. Hewitt is listed as author of Orenda and a Definition of Religion and also of Ancient Lije in the American South-West (p. 379); J. N. B. Hewitt is the author of the first, E. L. Hewett author of the second.

The appendix contains “A chronological list of men and events in the history of anthropology” (which, incidentally, includes Uncle Tom’s Cabin but not The LPugire o j the Iroquois, which Powell called “the first scientific account of an Indian tribe ever given to the world”), a list of “anthropological museums, societies, and periodi- cals in various countries of the world,” and a twenty-one page bibliography,

It is not difficult, of course, to find fault with a work as comprehensive as this, which, after all, was written for the layman rather than the specialist. Encyclopedic knowledge, fine balance and judgment, and keen insight are all required to an ex- ceptional degree. With the exception of Haddon’s little book of a quarter of a cen- tury ago, this is the only history of anthropology that we have in English. Mr Penniman is to be congratulated for having undertaken so formidable a task. As for achievement, let him who can do better begin a t once.

LESLIE A. WHITE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Materials j rom the Archives o j Lewis H . Morgan. I. VINNIKOV (ed.). (Academy of Sciences, USSR. Moscow, 1935.) This volume contains thirty-four letters written by various persons to Morgan.

There are five from Bachofen, four from Lorimer Fison, two short ones from Darwin, two from Maine, two from Powell, and one each from Henry Adams, Bandelier,