No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

HE problem of discontinuous distributions is one that has plagued an-T thropologists for many years. Several explanations have been made for geographically remote occurrences of culture traits and complexes. These explanations can be grouped under two main headings: diffusion' and independent invention. Perhaps the simplest of the two is that of diffusion. In view of the known eclecticism of cultures, the problems inherent in a theory of diffusion are mainly the mechanical ones of time, space, and means of transport of materials or ideas. It is recognized that the nature of the traits and the attitudes of the donor and recipient groups also enter importantly into the successful transmission of culture elements (Linton 1936: 344-346). The other means of producing cultural similarity, independent invention, seemingly presents a more complicated problem, or a t least one which is less well understood. Similarities here are usually attributed to parallelism (the parallel development of a temporally spaced group of traits in distinct areas) or convergence (increasing identity of traits having diverse origins). The full implications of these concepts, however, have been little explored.The problem of diffusion versus independent invention relates closely to a process which is often treated as a separate field of inquiry-cultural elaboration through patterning. We wish to emphasize this, for the traditional treatment of patterning has tended to be static and descriptive-synchronic rather than diachronic. Here we hope to reexamine certain concepts that relate to patterning and discontinuous distributions. The terms pattern elaboration and complex demand have been selected for this purpose. They represent extensions of long-held ideas but are believed to focus more sharply on certain aspects of culture growth. A third term, complex nuclew, is used to refer to the pattern prior to its elaboration. It compares, in part, with Linton's "basic invention" (1936: 316).No one approach to the problems of how patterns elaborate similarly in distinct areas will be sufficient. Part of the explanation must relate to certain very generalized attributes which derive from human psychology and societal needs. These are normally thought of as "generic" categories, and anthropologists would not consider them valid evidence for diffusion. If in two separate areas, however, certain of these categories are the same-and their sociopsychological "naturalness" enhances the chance of this-then the multitude of the more detailed traits that usually develop from them in the two areas may have a higher than average chance for similarity. 274