CULTURE CHANGE THEORY IMPLICIT IN THE WRITINGS OF A. L. KROEBER

R. Clyde McCone

California State College at Long Beach

American anthropology has been characterized, at least since Boas, by
a minimal development of theory. However, no disciplined understanding of

any body of phenomena is without some systemization of thought. Inherent in
the selection of a class of phenomena, in the choice of apploach, in the con-
ceptual'ization of substance and processes, and in the resulting understanding
of events is a more or less consistent theory. In a time when anthropologists
are consciously attempting to expand the expliclt theoretical framework of

their discipline, it may be well to review the potential which is implicit in
the outstanding developments of the past. Such a review is limited in this
paper to the phenomena of change and is focused on the works of the late
Dean of American Anthropologlsts0

Approach

Sociological approaches are concerned with normative and structural

changes taking place within and between systems of social relations. Psycho-
logical approaches are occup!.ed with the psychological dynamics of change or

change on the personality level. A third approach concerns itself exclusive-
ly with the cultural level. Social relations, psychological dynamics, and
the situaltional aspects of action are taken as universal givens. In this

third type, which characterizes Kroeber's work, fhe conceptualization of the
processes of change and the theory of change is wholly within the frame of
reference of culture. A fourth type may be found in the works of Geertz

(1957) and others, which treat culture as a normative system and social re-
lations as a functional system,, both of which c0-exist in empirical reality.
The incongruity developing between these two systems prov'ldes the dynamics
of change.

Within a strictly cultural frame of reference there is found a polar

distinction in approaches. First., there are those whose explanations seek to
"account for" and in a sense predict the course or direction of change. The

evolutionary approaches of White and Steward are examples. Second, there are
those who seek rather to "take account of" change and are more descriptive

rather than predictive. Concern is more with change that has taken place or

is taking place both in the description of the process and in the reconstruc-
tion of the course as in the case of prehistory. It is in this second group
that Kroeber's approach to change must be considered. Through most of his
career he was a consciously committed determinist, (contrast 1952:116 with

1952:9) yet he consistently rejected determinism on the diachronic dimension
of history (1948:632). In the conclusion to Confgurations of Culture Growth
(1944h761) he states ". . . . I see no evidence of      ue lawTinthe phe-
nomena dealt with; nothing cycl ical , regularly repetitive, or necessary.1"

Kroeber calls his approach natural history, distinguishing it both from the

structural-functional approach of science and from the history of the histo-
rians. He regards it as the meaningful integration of diachronic phenomena

(1948:63); "the interpretation . . . which binds meaningless facts or events

of human history into a meaninqful pattern or design" (1948:99); as an histor-
ical reconstruction whether datable documents are available or not (1948:65).

106

The closest Kroeber comes to treating the direction of change is in his con-
cept of progress. Yet, even here the perspective primarily focuses on the
past and cannot be thought of in a predictive sense.

Approaches to change may also be considered according to the scale of
their time perspective. This criteria gives us two types: macro and micro.

Macro theories concern themselves with change over the broad stretches of his-
tory. Micro theories, on the other hand, tend more to encompass the immedi-
ately observable processes. Kroeber's conceptualization of change in terms
of invention, diffusion, and acculturation may be used in either micro or
macro theories. However, the theoretical implications of his works are

chiefly macro in scope such as his styles and configurations in civilizations.

Many other distinctions in approaches could be observed such as pure
and applied. Kroeber has a concern with knowledge as an end rather than as

an application to the problems of change. A formal table comparing the iden-
tifying emphasis of Kroeber with that of other theorists may be constructed
as follows:

Sociological

Psychological
Cultural

Plural Frjines
of Refe:<c.

A few generalizations may be hypothesized f rom this framework:

1. Applied approaches tend to be micro in perspective and are psycholog-

ical, sociological, or plural in their frame of reference.

2. Those cultural approaches attempting to deal with changes in micro

perspective usually do so on the psychological level.

3. The descriptive integrative approach to change from a micro perspec-

tive does not easily yield to generalization and therefore tends to
be considered in the framework of history.

4. The sociology of knowledge may be considered as theories of descrip-

tive integration, perhaps on both the macro and micro time scale.
These are usually cultural and/or sociological.

5. Macro-descriptive integration theories are usually not applied theo-

ries, If they are, the meaning of applied is modified (cf. Kroeber
1963 :39ff).

Pred  i ctive           Descriptive Integrative
Micro            M4acro         Micro          Macro

Loomiso 1960                     Firthgl9'9      Becker:i952
Hallowell:155  |                Barnett l953

White 199

l__________i__ Steward: 9                       | Kroeber *1957
cieertz l957

107

This system of types is arbitrary and is in no wise to be regarded as
exhaustive. For example, micro and macro may be used with reference to the
unit of social structure or culture involved as well as time perspective.
These, however, serve to make a meaningful comparative identification of
A. L. Kroeber's approach.

It is not held that every theory or theorist of social change, in-

cluding the ones here mentioned, can be limited to a single category of this
formal system. Their emphasis, however, may be thus validly inddicated.

Marx's grandiose theory of history may be an outstanding exception.  It rests
on the psychological dynamics of the alienation of labor and of class con-

sciousness. Yet the element of class relation and class struggle is sociolog-
ical.  It takes in a macro time perspective and yet is also explanatory of

phenomena on a micro time perspective. Further, it is without doubt the most
applied theory of change in the world today.

Conceptual ization

Kroeber observes two kinds of culture processes, i.e.:   change and

persistence (1948344h-384). Culture habits, involvement in the total culture
pattern, unconscious learning, and conscious teaching are all conceived as
processes of persistence. Processes of change are classified in terms of
(1) factors operating from wlthin the culture, (2) factors operating from

without the culture, and (3) a combination of internal and external factors.

Change prodiuced from within a culture is viewed as a process of inven-
tion, wh'ich is defined as a new combination of existing culture traits. An
invention ray be technological, intellectual, or institutional9  Thus far it
is very similar to Barnett's (1953) concept of innovation,  A fundamental

difference is maintained, however, when Kroeber insists on the "superorganic"

character of invention.  "We may lay it down as a definition that anthropolog-
ically, sociologically, and historically, an invention is not an invention

until it is accepted in a culture. Until then it exists merely indi'vidually
or mechanically. . la ." (1948:362).

Minor consideration is given to another internal culture process

called "culture loss" which is in some sense the reverse of invention. Most
culture loss is conceived as the displacement resulting from new inventions,
However, environmental changes in supply of materials or population changes

due to catastrophic events may also result in the loss of certain skills and
practices.

Somewhat connected with the idea of culture loss is that of the death
of cultures. Kroeber observes that apart from the extinction of man the ex-
tinction of culture is not conceivable. Specific cultures may lose some of
their traits.  The only sense, however, in which a culture can be conceived
as dying is in such cases as the discontinuance of a "particular, character-
ized over-all configuration of pattern grouping" (Kroeber 1948:383). On the
other hand, the society wh'ich lives under the culture continues on and also
much of the content of the culture survives in cultures which succeed it.

Three levels of internal change (1948:383) are conceived, First,

there are those which are "alterations in the subsistence-economic-technolog-

108

ical level such as the Neolitnic Revolution [and the] Industrial Revolution."
The second level of internal changes involves what Kroeber calls "biological

play impulse in its cultural expression." Included on this level are fashion
changes and the manifestation of affect in the form of restlessness, fatigue,
etc. The third level or class of changes is labeled growth changes and a
most extreme example, revolutions

Changes that are dependent on external factors are conceptualized

under the terms "diffusion" and "acculturation."  Diffusion considers change
purely from the perspective of the movement of culture traits or complexes
from one culture to another. In acculturation the perspective is from the
standpoint of the total cultures involved in contact. "Acculturation com-

prises those changes produced in a culture by the influence of another cul-

ture which result in an increased similarity of the two" (Kroeber 1948:425).

Diffusion Is, of course, always operative in acculturation0  Interest-
ingly enough sociological criteria are used to distingu'ish two types of accul-
turation. They are (1) acculturation with dominance, and "2) acculturation

without dominance (Kroeber 1948:428-432). Hence, the power factor of the set
of social relationships is used to differentiate between dominant and permis-
sive acculturation.

-Invention by stimulus diffusion conceptualizes change irnvolving in a
unique manner both internal and external factors. It has been observed in

most instances the form of a cultare trait may be taken over but a diflferent
meaning given to it.  In contrast to this, stimulus d&.ffusion is essentially
idea diffusion which results in a cultural invention. An outstanding example
of stimulus diffusion as observed by Kroeber is the invention of the Cherokee
alphabet by Sequoya. The idea of writing and some of the symbols were from
English but the resulting syllabic alphabet was distinctly a Cherokee inven-

tion.

Kroeberts conceptualization of change may be visualized iri the follow-
ing formal framework:

Locus of Wynamic

Within Culture      Between Cultures

Change
Culture Processes

Pers'istence

1 ) Invent'lon     1 ) Diffous ion

2 ) Culture loss    2 ) Acculturat ion
3 ) Culture death      Dominant

Permi ss ive
St imulus D'iffus ion|

1) Culture habit
2) Unconscious

learning
3) Conscious

learning

4) Total Culture

pattern

109

These formal categories seem to suggest that Kroeber gave at best a
mi nimum attention to the processes of persistence in culture contact. That
such processes must exist is attested to by the fact that large numbers of
primitive tribes had some contacts among themselves prior to their contact
with western civilization. Evidence is also observed in such sub-culture

groups as the Amish and the Hutterites. The dynamic in each of these exam-
ples would appear to be strong "ingroup versus outgroup9 attitudes in their
systems of social relations. Perhaps Kroeber's choice of a purely cultural
frame of reference as opposed to the sociological may account for his not

conceptualizing any processes of persistence in the contact situation. He

did take into account nativistic movements (1948:437-441), but these are re-
actions against change that has taken place. He also recognizes the phenom-

enon of resistance to diffusion as being similar to resistance to the accept-
ance of invention and being possibly linked to some perception of economic or
ideological threat (1948:416). It seems that it should be possible to devel-

op a cultural conceptualization of the processes of persistence. In the exam-
ples given above the "ingroup versus outgroup' attitudes rest upon beliefs

which are the legitimatizing foundations for meaningful existence in each of
the groups. Perhaps on this basis it would be possible to develop a concept
of culture "inertia" that could encompass the phenomena of persistence as it
might be found in all types of cultures in their contacts with each other.

Theory

Kroeber's goal was never that of a development of an abstract level

of theory. He says of himself, t'I am still such a natural historian of cul-
ture.  The intellectual process is one of widening generalization and under-
standing, not of hypotheses which are then tested out as in a laboratory.
I am not a formal theoretician" (1952:3), Only a few generalizations are

made in terms of the concepts of the processes of culture change. In modify-
ing the popular maxlm that "necessity is the mother of invention," he holds
that need is at best a spur which can in no wise determine the nature of the
invention (Kroeber 1948:352).  Further, invention is as much the mother of
need, so that together they become a mutually supporting dynamic of change
not governed by any prior notion of practical utility. Every invention

springs from a culture base of antecedents and, at least on the technological
level, these antecedents are cumulative so that with every increase in the
base the potential for invention increases.

Diffusion becomes a useful concept for Kroeber in the reconstruction
of culture history by archeologically tracing the movement of traits,  As to
the diffusion of traits, he observes that the form has less resistance to

spread than the meaning. In fact, the meaning of the trait is often reshaped
by the pattern of the receiving culture. Thus, as gun powder spread from
China to Europe, its meaning and use changed considerably. In China it

wasn't "gun" powder. Another characteristic of diffusion is that traits tend
to move out from centers toward the more marginal areas during periods of

growth. They may, however, move centripetally during decline (Kroeber 1944:
815).

The process of diffusion is not fundamentally different from that of

invention, or for that matter, the transmission of culture traits to succeed-
ing generations, for all require social acceptances. However, the conditions

110

of social acceptance are different in each case. Kroeber observes (1948:412)
that "I. . . intra society transmission of culture in time must normally tend
toward persistence, but intersocietal transmission in space tends toward
change."

These few generalizations by no means exhaust those made by Kroeber.

Perhaps more should be brought together to discover the theoretical potential
which they may contain.

The major part of Kroeber's theory is not built around his conceptual-
ization of the processes of change but rather in the character of culture

wholes and in conceptual distinctions which he makes in culture itself. His
descriptive integrative theory of change rests on structural distinctions
which he labels:, "reality culture," "fvalue culture," and "social culture"
(1952:152-166). Of these, reality culture and value culture play the most

important role, White and many other anthrcpologists make the threefold dis-
tinctions in culture subsystems of technological, sociological, and ideologi-
cal. Kroeber's distinction may be conceived as di'viding the area covered by
the technological and the ideological in a somewhat different fashion.   (See
Figs:l and 2.)

Ideological                                Soc i-o logical

|~~]                 S    ocilogial 1Reality  T                        Value

j~~oica.~~4        Culture     ecogaoia                         Culture
Technological

Figure 1: 'White                         Figure 2: Kroeber

Substantive divisions of culture are then conceived as ranging on a

continuum between the reality pole and the value pole in the following manner:

'Reality                                                  Value

Technology--Science--Philosophy--Religion--Art

The closer an activity is toward the reality pole the more it is

characterized by reality culture and vice versa. Technology is thus con-

ceived as being most purely reality culture and art is most purely value cul-
ture.  Within this kind of a framework Kroeber (1952:165) makes the following
theoretical generalizations:

1. Reality culture is largely diffusional and accumulative.
2. Value culture tends to be re-creative.

3. Societal culture tends to be neither specifically accumulative nor

spec if ically creative .

It is the recognition of the peculiar character of value culture that
lays the foundation for most of Kroeber's theoretical treatment of change.
This foundation was laid early in the essay "The Superorganic," which is

really the fountainhead of all his later work (1952:22ff). One of the many
fundamental points of this essay is that the clustering of genius and of si-

multaneous inventions is to be regarded as cultural rather than as biological
phenomena. The ratio of "gene pool" of genius in a population is assumed to

1ll

remain relatively constant over time; therefore neriods of florescence in

art, philosophy, and science must be regarded as cultural phenomena. Since
all of these--even science--to some extent partake of value culture, they

each flourish until the creative potential of its pattern is fulfilled. For
some time then no great genius comes to the attention of society, that is,

until a new pattern begins to take shape and flourish. In science the value
aspect centers chiefly around basic premises and the scientific problems

toward which they direct the interest of the scientist. In this perspective
the incidence of genius is seen as the product of cultural processes rather
than being a matter of unequal genetic endowment at different periods of

time. In an introductory section to Configurations of Culture Growth (1944L:
15) Kroeber writes:

0 . . Culture florescences . . . reveal themselves as tending strongly
to come in pattern waves. Hence the inference is justified that it is
something in a wavelike character of culture growths which is at the
bottom of the otherwise unexplainable clusterings of genius.

Kroeber goes on in this book to view the development of philosophy, science,
philology, sculpture, painting, drama, literature, music, and the growth of
nations within several civilizations in terms of this descriptive theory of
change.

Kroeber stands here in a dual contrast with Leslie White. White sees
in technology, whilch is the purest aspect of Kroeber's reality culture, the
dynamics by which he can "account for" change throughout the whole culture
system. Or, in other words, evolution and growth of technology result in

changes in the sociological system and eventually in the ideological system
of values. Kroeber, on the other hand, finds in value culture the chief

characteristic by which he "takes account" of the macro process and course
of change.

The value based theory of change finds further development in a more
recent work, Style and Civilizations. In this work Kroeber (1957:151) makes
a very concise statement of his theory as it was developed under the concept
of style:

The historical behavior of movements in philosophy, scholarship,

mathematics, and pure or fundamental science is quite similar to that
of the fine art styles. I mean by this that the time profile curve

of value of product, or rating of talent of the producers, is generi-
cally the same in the several activiti'es. In other words, intellec-
tual creativity and aesthetic creativity behave alike historically,
presumably because they operate in equivalent ways:  they both pro-

duce intrinsic values. . . . In general, pure styles have a limited
life, presumably because they exhaust their creative possibilities
and have to begin over with an enlarged or otherwise new base.

To the extent that science consists of reality culture it may escape some of
thi's "florescence" phenomena. However, after observing the development of

science from the time of Egypt and Mesopotamia to modern times, Kroeber (1944:
204) concludes that, "science does not differ essentially from other creative
activities of human culture and is produced in irregular pulses, cycles, or

intensive bursts of growths." It is the products of science that are observed
to be accumulative; the Drocess of production, "runs a course like a fever.

112

. . . its activity is cyclic; substantially as cyclic as that of the non-
accumulative supposedly untrammeled arts" (loc. cit.).

Style theory receives a specialized extension when applied to women's
dress. It is observed that there is a "basic ideal pattern of Western

women's dress, mediaeval and modern, [that] has gone through a thousand years
of constant remodeling without any fundamental change" (Kroeber 1957:20).

This basic pattern is "an ideal implicit in the style itself, a half-conscious
value sought for by the style" (ibid.:19). Ordinarily fashion changes are
minor "superstructural changes" carried out in conformity to the basic pat-
tern. On the other hand, in times of social and political stress, "fashion
style then works against its basic pattern" (ibid.:27). In the correlation
between an aspect of the culture pattern and the condition of social rela-
tions some important theoretical connections might be expected but here
Kroeber is ve ry caut'ious:

We need not doubt the generic finding that the uinsettlement of the

times is communicated to fashions--that they are influenced and also
become unsettled. But the how of the unsettlement of dress is not

dictated by the socio-political conditions; that must be due to some-
thing in the set of fashions themselves--something within the struc-
ture of fashion, so to speak, at the time when the unsettling larger
influences impinge on them (ibid.:,19).

The intervening factor between the sociopolitical conditions and the corre-
lating pattern fluctuations is the cultural basic dress pattern.  Kroeber

extends his caution, refusing to generalize from this correlation observed
in American history to cultures of a different basi-C dress pattern. His

position Is that it would not "be sound to assert that we have here an invar-
iable law of history. . . . Each historic case has to be analyzed in its own.
terms--Its own modes of war and reviolutions, Its own manners or basic struc-
ture of fashion"  ibid.*23)ai

The value based theory of change finds expression also in a social-
psychological work. In an article written in 1940 (Kroeber 1952:310ff),

"Psychosis or Social Sanction," Kroeber concerns himself with the fundamental
differences between "these primitives and ourselves."  One way that this dif-
ference may be expressed is in terms of reality. While the primitive is able
to distinguish the phenomena of his dreams from those observed by his five
senses while awake, that seen in his dreams has a super-reality. With "us"
the unreal or subjective existence of the content of dreams is recognized.
Xroeber observes that this difference may be approached in terms of social
acceptance rather than purely in terms of the definition of reality. That

is, in modern American society, one who hears the dead speak is regarded as
at least abnormal and possibly so unbalanced as to be dangerous. Among the
Mohave and others this was a personality of "enhanced powers" that may be

used for good or evil. A theory of change based on these variables is partic-
ularly applicable to the contact situation of Western and primitive cultures.
Does enlightenment (diffusion of reality culture) cause the society to "with-
draw prestige value from the vision?" Then as visions decrease they become
"dubious assets" and finally are stigmatized by the society?  Kroeber sug-

gests that the opposite is more likely the case. That is, with the develop-
ment technologically, in size, etc., society may attach less prestige values

113

to these dreams without first changing the definition of reality involved.

Eventually this may continue until the social utility of them is lost. They
then may come to be regarded as dangerous and eventually as abnormal. While
Kroeber does not explicitly call attention here to his threefold classifica-
tion of culture, the implicitly hypothetical explanation given is that the

social culture nrovides the dynamic medium by which changes in the value cul-
ture effect changes in the reality culture.   In this social psychological
essay Kroeber has necessarily taken a more "micro" look at his phenomena.

Though technological development and population growth due to.contact may re-
sult in a change of values, it is the change of values that psychologically
and culturally precedes fundamental changes in the reality culture.

The prior role of value culture is suggested again in a "macro" cul-

tural level. The hypothesis is seriously entertained that the development of
art tends to precede the development of other aspects of the culture.   It is

true that Kroeber utilizes this in more of a retrospecti1-ve f.rare of reference
than in one t-at is predictive for he says, "In sho-rt, the hypothesis based
upon a precedent in the Old World, is that culture with a flourishing art

would still be in the ascendent phase; one with a decaying or dead art, at
its peak or in the descendent" (1944h:226).

Change is held to be determined in tnat it is unidirectional and that
it follows in the wave pattern of development as a culture moves toward the

climax of its integration or configurational potential. These principles are

observed b-y Kroeber on several levels of cultural analysis, i.e. total civili-
zations, national subdiv isions olf Xvizat.,onz , an d spec ialized subsets of
culture such as philosophTy or scene regarded in terr-s of eilther civiliza-

tions or nations. However. i't atEJa:S    atct eter n`srn o,f wave pattern is ob-
served primaril` with reference to civIl;zatlons and never of the primitive
culture--this, even though the culminations of culture growth among primi-

tives is held, to be the same as civilizations (Kroeber 1944:4, 5). The direc-
tional determinism of anr part-ic-uilar culture is a unique characteristic of

that particular culture as :Lourd in itS style and perhaps, therefore, could

only be ascertained after its development, hence not of predictive use to the
anthropologist. Whether any such inherent differences in style potential
could "take account of" the difference in the growth of civilizations and
primitive culture is never made explicit. Neither is the value centered

style concept used to give any description of the development of civilization
from nriritive cultures.

The theoretical position which the dynamics of value culture hold in
the course of change may well be pertinent to Redfield's position that in

primitive cultures the technological order is bound by the moral order while
in civilizations it has burst these bonds. It must be remembered, however,
that Kroeber followed Boas in a strong rejection of cultural evolution. On

the other hand, he does compare primi'tive culture and civilization in a frame-
work of four criter'ia of progress (1948:298-303). The first of these is in
terms of reality but limited to the assumptions about reality, i.e. "In pro-
portion as a culture disengages itself from reliance on these [magic and
superstition] it may be said to have registered advance" (1948:298). The

second centers around the value of human life which transcends "the obtrusion
of physiological or anatomical considerations into social situations."   The
third concerns the superiority of the accumulative products of the reality

114

culture as in science and technology, While these are presented as universal
criteria of progress, they cannot but be construed as being a part of the
culture of Western man in greatest contrast to most primitive cultures.

Since Kroeber holds that the assumptions which underlie the approach
to reality account for science developing in waves like all other value con-

figurations or styles, we may see in these first two criteria of progress the

fundamental value culture which precedes the third, the accumulations of real-
ity culture. Kroeber, of course, made no such point. Yet, it would be within
the theoretical framework that seems to run implicitly through his writings.

Style theory finds its development exclusively in terms of civiliza-
tions which are conceived largely as "a collection of styles" (Kroeber 1963:
40). Each style has a "wave pattern" of development and together they tend
toward a consistency among themselves. The central role that values play in
Kroeber's theory is explicitly stated: 'Styles are the very incarnation of
the dynamic process of history.  They are the most sensitive expression ex-
tant of culture change--its most delicate galvanometer" (1963:41). A ques-
tion of theoretical concern remains:  Why is this theory not developed with
respect to the primitives' cultures?  The hypothetical reasons that are sug-
gested to the reader are that the assumptions which underlie the approach to
reality and the basic values have the quality of the ultimate and therefore

are not the basis for growth and development. Also, since the world v.iew of
the primitive is very much of one piece in a rmjthical framework there is no

room nor need for development toward consistency. And finally, the integral-
tion of the primitive culture does not have a peak from which it then tends
to decline.

This brief summary of K.roeber's ideas about culture change suggest
the rich potential which may yet be mined for the further development of
theoryr

NOTE

A grant from the California State College, Long Beach Research

Foundation,provided the means for the preparation of this article for publi-
cation.

REFERENCES

BARNETT, H. G.

1953   Innovation:  the basis of cultural change. New York, McGraw-

Hill.

BECKER, H.

1952   Social thought from lore to science. Washington, Harren Press.

FIRTH, R.

1959   Social change in Tikopia. London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
GEERTZ, C.

1957   Ritual and social change: a Javanese example. American Anthro-

pologist 59:32-54.

115

lIALLOWELL, A. I.

1955   Culture and experience. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania

Press.

KROEBER, A. L.

1944   Configurations of culture growth. Berkeley, University of Cali-

fornia Press.

191X8 Anthropology. New York, Harcourt Brace & Co.

1952   The nature of culture. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

1953   "Concluding review" in An Appraisal of Anthropology Today, S.

Tax, L. C. Eiseley, T. Rouse, C. F. Voegelin, eds. Chicago, The
University of Chicago Press, pp. 357-376.

1956   History of anthropological thought in Current Anthropology, W. L.

Thomas, Jr., ed. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp.
293-311.

1957   Style and civilizations.  Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

1959   The history of the personality of anthropology. American Anthro-

pologist 61:398-40X.

1960   Evolution, history and cult.ure in The Evoolution of N4an, S. Tax,

ed. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-16.

1962   A roster of civilizations and culture. New York, Wenner-Gren

Foundation for Anthropological Research, Inc.

1963   An anthropologist looks at history. Berkeley, University of

California Press.

LOOMIS, C. P.

1960   Social systems:  essays on their persistence and change.

Princeton, D. Van Nostrand.

REDFIELD, R.

1957   The primitive world and its transformations. Ithaca, Cornell

University Press. First published 1953.

STEWARD, J.

1955   Theory of culture change. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.