Page:American Anthropologist NS vol. 22.djvu/84

Owing to the present capriciousness of trans-Atlantic transportation, the predecessors of the above-cited concluding instalment of a longer article remain inaccessible to the reviewer. Since, however, it constitutes an independent unit and embodies theoretical views of considerable importance, it seems permissible to furnish a brief indication of its contents.

Father Koppers, as his subtitle indicates, is concerned mainly with an historical summary of past opinions, together with a critical appreciation of past achievements. He has taken enormous trouble to represent with accuracy the views of many writers whose activities fall beyond the sphere of ethnology proper, such as geographers, historians, and economists; and it is impossible not to accord the highest praise to the manner in which he has acquitted himself of his arduous task. If any criticism is to be offered as to the form of his presentation, the reviewer would suggest somewhat greater compactness. Inasmuch as Father Koppers is not, after all, offering a psychology of scholarly investigation, much space might have been saved by a purely topical discussion instead of the inevitably lumbering method of considering each thinker individually.

The author's general point of view is that of Graebner, especially as later adopted by Father Schmidt. The latter, it appears, has developed a comprehensive scheme of cultural history, interrupted in publication by the war but largely drawn upon by Koppers. Indeed, the exposition of Schmidt's conceptions and the critique of Hahn (979 seq., 1056 seq.) will prove of greatest interest to the readers of this journal.

As for Hahn's conceptions, Koppers accepts his critique of the time-honored three-stage theory, but repudiates the notion that pastoral life represents a secondary development from an agricultural mode of subsistence and the hypothesis that all domestication is based on that of the ox. Further the author rejects as superfluous and inherently improb-