ABSTRACT
Graebner and his followers attribute all close resemblances between culture traits to diffusion. But this is allotting too much weight to that factor; in addition to borrowing there is invention, and assimilation, as we have seen, involves modification. Probably in all cultures new traits arise, and there are many instances of the independent origins of similar traits. The facility of diffusion is determined by the state of preparedness of the cultures which lie within the areas of contact, and the preparedness which makes borrowing easy also makes independent origins more probable. Yet, while independent origins might account for the presence of a widely distributed trait in a few of the areas in which it is found, it could not explain its presence in all of them, nor explain the continuity in geographical distribution which usually is found when diffusion is known or is inferred as the explanation of the distribution of the trait. The marvel would be that the same trait should arise independently in numerous contiguous areas. Consequently, “the theory of independent origin of almost identical phenomena in contiguous areas can no longer be maintained and has been given up by all serious students.” 1 When, however, similar traits are found in distant tribes which apparently have had no contacts, and similar traits do not bridge the intervening cultures, there is sometimes reason to suspect independent origins. Discontinuous distributions, then, may imply independent origins, though the degree of discontinuity which justifies the inference is a matter of uncertainty and varies with circumstances. Some similarities not attributed to diffusion have been explained as independent survivals. Thus, certain customs of our group which resemble those of some primitive tribes, such as elopements, or keeping secret the destination of a wedding trip, are interpreted as survivals from the time when the bride was captured and flight was necessary. Or the similarities may be explained as the result of the attainment of similar stages in culture development. This view presupposes that culture development sometimes proceeds along similar lines; that the cultures which have similar features have reached, at least in those phases, similar stages; and that the types of culture development are limited. In Australian and North American tribes, for example, there are similar methods of securing food, because the respective cultures are in the hunting and fishing stage. Thus the similarity may be the result of similar motives operating under similar circumscribing conditions; the result of similar culture environment, intentions, opportunities, and limitations. If an Australian desires fish for his noon meal, has a net, and decides to use it to catch fish, and if an Iroquois Indian wants fish for his mid-day meal, has a net, and decides to use it to secure fish, the similar needs plus similar means for satisfying them under similar limitations stimulate similar behavior in the two areas, though, to be sure, it does not follow that the two areas independently invented the net. Nevertheless, similar intentions and similar means for carrying them out account for much of the similarity of behavior. It is to some extent true that, “the same senses, the same organs, the spectacle of the same universe, have everywhere given men the same ideas, as the same needs and the same disposition have everywhere taught them the same arts,” 1 and if “similar” is substituted for “same” there is more truth in the statement. There is, indeed, some basis for Hawthorne's complaint that “men are so much alike in their nature, that they grow intolerable unless varied by their circumstances.” 2
