Anthropology 480
Dr. Erickson
11/05/17
Take Home Test 3
1. The 19th century was a very crucial time period for the development of anthropology. It
was an era of many discoveries due to colonialism and the desire to discover past human life.
Various rulers in Europe began to conquer lands that had been occupied for hundreds and
sometimes thousands of years by past societies (Erickson 2016a).
Linguistical anthropology was being shaped in this time period with the discoveries of
the Rosetta Stone in Egypt and translation of cuneiform with the excavations of Nineveh, Iraq,
Iran, Babylonia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia (Erickson 2016a).
Archaeology was also expanded with Christian Thomsen’s developments in dating
methods. He explored stratigraphy, relative dating, and seriation in his studies. It was common in
these days to use a three-stage (Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age) system of dating, when
studying past societies. One would identify the artifact and the material it was made from, then
place it into one of these three categories. However, this method is flawed because all societies
develop in different stages. Thomsen decided that one should instead look at the context of the
artifact to more accurately date it. He believed that different kinds of objects were distinct to
certain time periods. Seriation was also used, which is a method that involves studying very
small details in the patterns of artifacts. By doing this, archaeologists can find trends within
cultures and even identify trade of goods and tools between societies (Erickson 2016a).
The discovery of Neanderthal fossils was another dramatic shift within anthropology.
Biological anthropologists studying these bones had numerous ideas as to who these “people”
were. Scientists would study the specific features of the skull to identify the similarities and
differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. For instance, when the bones were first
found, some believed they were just different looking modern humans and others thought they
were closer to apes. In 1855 Professor Richard Owen claimed however, that humans and apes
could not possibly be related due to the difference in level of protrusion within the supraorbital
ridge. Rudolph Virchow would additionally claim in 1872 that after his study of the physical
characteristics of Neanderthals, they were simply just pathological, deformed humans. Overtime,
dozens of more finds would prove these scholars wrong by uniformly exemplifying typical traits
(Erickson 2016a).
The 19th century was not only a defining period for the development of anthropology, but
a humbling time for many scholars, who would be proved wrong, through the many discoveries
made.
2. The Enlightenment period discoveries were crucial for advancing the theory of evolution
and would ultimately make way for thinkers of numerous fields to begin accepting the idea, even
with the continuous push-back from Christianity, often into the opposite direction (Erickson
2016a).
Herbert Spencer was a 19th century sociologist that is well known for coining the term,
“survival of the fittest.” He felt that society was progressing because of the industrial revolution.
He developed a theory of society that defended the status quo, imperialism, racism, and so on.
He believed that competition was a positive combatant to overpopulation within society. He
claimed that stronger people would survive as the weak die off due to natural law. Due to this
progression of societal evolution, the world would have stronger generations of humans in the
1
, future. Humanitarianism was considered a negative practice because inferior people should not
be assisted or even encouraged to reproduce. Spencer’s Organic Analogy theory was based on
societies being analogous to complex organisms. He believed that as a society progresses, the
different functions of the “organism” would work together with a hierarchy of classes (Erickson
2016b).
The first professor to truly teach anthropology was Edward Burnett Tylor. He was
educated in Britain at a time when universities accommodated only the rich and elite, and his
teachings would reflect the interests of his own previous professors. These men had an
unfortunate bias towards geography and history, rather than true ethnographic field work. Tylor
taught that culture was something all people had, to some degree, yet, some had more than
others. Therefore, culture was something to be acquired, and consisted of many components such
as religion, language, beliefs, and so on. Tylor differed from Spencer due to his humanitarian
views. He believed that all humans had the same potential and general goals, which would lead
to the progression of society as a whole. Tylor was an advocate for classifying and studying
components of societies, rather than conducting ethnographic fieldwork (Erickson 2016b).
Lewis Henry Morgan was an American anthropologist in the 19th century who focused
much on the ethnology and Native American affairs, specifically the Iroquois. He worked on
preserving Indian traditions as well as protecting them from the ever-present, land-hungry
government. Morgan believed in a theory called Unilinear evolution. He claimed that to
understand societies, one must study their techno-economic systems. Each system differed from
society to society, but all were made up of the technology, economy, and social construction
within a culture, that would all gradually progress in unison. Each society would progress along
the same path and ultimately, in theory, reach the same goal. Morgan thought that Europe and
the United States were regions that had arrived at this peak in the evolution he spoke of. By the
same token, non-European and non-American cultures characterized societies that were still in
the earlier stages of progression. They, additionally, could provide insight into past societies, as
they were considered, “living social fossils.” The three main stages of this progression were
savagery, barbarism, and civilization (Erickson 2016b).
The theories presented by these three men, on societal evolution, all differed in certain
ways, but were comparable in the perspective of the progression of societies. The 19th century
was certainly a time that encouraged these types of theories and promoted ideas of progression
that were thought to be necessary for societies to experience.
3. The field of anthropology in France during the 19th century placed a much higher focus
on sociology and philosophy, than ethnography and therefore, many French scholars would be
influenced by these concentrations (Erickson 2016c).
Emile Durkheim was a French scholar in this time period who was heavily swayed by
philosophers such as Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, and Auguste Comte. Durkheim was particularly interested in the components
that kept a society together. He supposed these components to be social solidarity, collective
conscience, and collective representations. He claimed that society must be studied through its
social facts, which were varieties of phenomena composed of behavioral rules, outside of the
individual (Erickson 2016c).
Durkheim was exposed to many influences, some of which he agreed with and some of
which he did not. He approved of Rousseau’s idea that humans have a general will and are
socially compliant. A social contract was necessary for society to maintain their community
2
Dr. Erickson
11/05/17
Take Home Test 3
1. The 19th century was a very crucial time period for the development of anthropology. It
was an era of many discoveries due to colonialism and the desire to discover past human life.
Various rulers in Europe began to conquer lands that had been occupied for hundreds and
sometimes thousands of years by past societies (Erickson 2016a).
Linguistical anthropology was being shaped in this time period with the discoveries of
the Rosetta Stone in Egypt and translation of cuneiform with the excavations of Nineveh, Iraq,
Iran, Babylonia, Assyria, and Mesopotamia (Erickson 2016a).
Archaeology was also expanded with Christian Thomsen’s developments in dating
methods. He explored stratigraphy, relative dating, and seriation in his studies. It was common in
these days to use a three-stage (Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age) system of dating, when
studying past societies. One would identify the artifact and the material it was made from, then
place it into one of these three categories. However, this method is flawed because all societies
develop in different stages. Thomsen decided that one should instead look at the context of the
artifact to more accurately date it. He believed that different kinds of objects were distinct to
certain time periods. Seriation was also used, which is a method that involves studying very
small details in the patterns of artifacts. By doing this, archaeologists can find trends within
cultures and even identify trade of goods and tools between societies (Erickson 2016a).
The discovery of Neanderthal fossils was another dramatic shift within anthropology.
Biological anthropologists studying these bones had numerous ideas as to who these “people”
were. Scientists would study the specific features of the skull to identify the similarities and
differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. For instance, when the bones were first
found, some believed they were just different looking modern humans and others thought they
were closer to apes. In 1855 Professor Richard Owen claimed however, that humans and apes
could not possibly be related due to the difference in level of protrusion within the supraorbital
ridge. Rudolph Virchow would additionally claim in 1872 that after his study of the physical
characteristics of Neanderthals, they were simply just pathological, deformed humans. Overtime,
dozens of more finds would prove these scholars wrong by uniformly exemplifying typical traits
(Erickson 2016a).
The 19th century was not only a defining period for the development of anthropology, but
a humbling time for many scholars, who would be proved wrong, through the many discoveries
made.
2. The Enlightenment period discoveries were crucial for advancing the theory of evolution
and would ultimately make way for thinkers of numerous fields to begin accepting the idea, even
with the continuous push-back from Christianity, often into the opposite direction (Erickson
2016a).
Herbert Spencer was a 19th century sociologist that is well known for coining the term,
“survival of the fittest.” He felt that society was progressing because of the industrial revolution.
He developed a theory of society that defended the status quo, imperialism, racism, and so on.
He believed that competition was a positive combatant to overpopulation within society. He
claimed that stronger people would survive as the weak die off due to natural law. Due to this
progression of societal evolution, the world would have stronger generations of humans in the
1
, future. Humanitarianism was considered a negative practice because inferior people should not
be assisted or even encouraged to reproduce. Spencer’s Organic Analogy theory was based on
societies being analogous to complex organisms. He believed that as a society progresses, the
different functions of the “organism” would work together with a hierarchy of classes (Erickson
2016b).
The first professor to truly teach anthropology was Edward Burnett Tylor. He was
educated in Britain at a time when universities accommodated only the rich and elite, and his
teachings would reflect the interests of his own previous professors. These men had an
unfortunate bias towards geography and history, rather than true ethnographic field work. Tylor
taught that culture was something all people had, to some degree, yet, some had more than
others. Therefore, culture was something to be acquired, and consisted of many components such
as religion, language, beliefs, and so on. Tylor differed from Spencer due to his humanitarian
views. He believed that all humans had the same potential and general goals, which would lead
to the progression of society as a whole. Tylor was an advocate for classifying and studying
components of societies, rather than conducting ethnographic fieldwork (Erickson 2016b).
Lewis Henry Morgan was an American anthropologist in the 19th century who focused
much on the ethnology and Native American affairs, specifically the Iroquois. He worked on
preserving Indian traditions as well as protecting them from the ever-present, land-hungry
government. Morgan believed in a theory called Unilinear evolution. He claimed that to
understand societies, one must study their techno-economic systems. Each system differed from
society to society, but all were made up of the technology, economy, and social construction
within a culture, that would all gradually progress in unison. Each society would progress along
the same path and ultimately, in theory, reach the same goal. Morgan thought that Europe and
the United States were regions that had arrived at this peak in the evolution he spoke of. By the
same token, non-European and non-American cultures characterized societies that were still in
the earlier stages of progression. They, additionally, could provide insight into past societies, as
they were considered, “living social fossils.” The three main stages of this progression were
savagery, barbarism, and civilization (Erickson 2016b).
The theories presented by these three men, on societal evolution, all differed in certain
ways, but were comparable in the perspective of the progression of societies. The 19th century
was certainly a time that encouraged these types of theories and promoted ideas of progression
that were thought to be necessary for societies to experience.
3. The field of anthropology in France during the 19th century placed a much higher focus
on sociology and philosophy, than ethnography and therefore, many French scholars would be
influenced by these concentrations (Erickson 2016c).
Emile Durkheim was a French scholar in this time period who was heavily swayed by
philosophers such as Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, and Auguste Comte. Durkheim was particularly interested in the components
that kept a society together. He supposed these components to be social solidarity, collective
conscience, and collective representations. He claimed that society must be studied through its
social facts, which were varieties of phenomena composed of behavioral rules, outside of the
individual (Erickson 2016c).
Durkheim was exposed to many influences, some of which he agreed with and some of
which he did not. He approved of Rousseau’s idea that humans have a general will and are
socially compliant. A social contract was necessary for society to maintain their community
2
