) stimulate reflections on cultural and social anthropology. In the present, wholly uncontroversial article I shall first define the aims of cultural anthropology as I understand them and shall then inquire into the relations of that discipline with social anthropology as defined by British scholars.
IWhatever differences may divide cultural from social anthropologists, they are hardly greater than those which divide self-styled cultural anthropologists. Indeed, I should say that many of us feel incomparably closer to the English anthropologists referred to above than, say, to Goldenweiser in his later phases.A concrete example will illustrate the issue. In one of his books (Goldenweiser 1922) this writer devotes a chapter to the Baganda, relying as he was bound to do on Roscoe's well-known work. He tells us that ('maize is perhaps the principal staple food, but plantain trdes are also cultivated on a large scale." Now the primary source (Roscoe 1911: 5,432) states in unmistakable terms that plantains '(furnish their staple food," whereas maize "was never grown in any quantity . . . ; no one called the two or three cobs which he ate a meal." Of course, anyone is liable to factual inaccuracies, but what is involved here is something deeper. Goldenweiser writes about these matters as might any layman-not as a student of culture. He does not explain to his reader that maize is a species introduced into Uganda in recent times. He shows no inkling of the problems connected with the occurrence and distribution of East African plantains, indigenous and otherwise. Yet in his several publications there is no end of references to culture-to "psychology and culture," to "culture and environment," to "the theoretical categories and cultural reality," and so forth. It would be convenient to have an English term designating the kind of cultural anthropology of which some of us-say, Kroeber and myself-are votaries, a term corresponding to Klemm's "allgemeine Culturwissenschajt." For the purpose intended, "cultural history" will not do since it one-sidedly circumscribes the discipline; and notwithstanding the analogy of "sociology," many of us recoil from deliberately perpetrating a twin monstrosity such as '(culturology." However, Professor RadclifFe-Brown informs us that since 1909 British colleagues have used "ethnography" to denote "descriptive accounts of 527