Tolstoy 1952

download Tolstoy 1952

of 12

Transcript of Tolstoy 1952

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    Morgan and Soviet Anthropological Thought

    P. Tolstoy

    American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 54, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1952), pp. 8-17.

    Stable URL:

    American Anthropologistis currently published by American Anthropological Association.

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

    The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    http://www.jstor.orgFri Nov 16 01:06:36 2007
  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952



    T IHE object of th is paper is not to define Morgan 's influence on Soviet an-thropology or th e accom modation of Morgan's ideas to M arxist, Leninistor Stalinist thought, but rather to illustrate Morgan's position in Soviet an-thropology with several concrete examples drawn from pre- and post-WorldW ar I1Russian anthropological liter atu re, an d to get a glimpse of Soviet an thr o-pological theo ry in the process.* Some conclusions a s to M organ's influence onSoviet anthropology an d the n ature of the affinity between the M arxian an dM organian outlooks can und oubtedly be suggested on the basis of such a cur-sory analysis; however, such conclusions can by no means be considered asexhaustive or definitive.I n dealing with Russian anthropological sources of the p ost-Revo lutionaryperiod, it is im por tant to bear in mind th e fa ct tha t it is almost impossible todifferentiate in these sources between distinc t schools of t ho ug ht, a t least ona synchronous plane. Whereas, as will be shown, Soviet anthropological opin-ion (or perhaps, better, doctrine) has changed, and its positions on a numberof problems have shifted with time , these changes and con tradictions arelargely the expressions of a shifting climate of official opinion, rather th an theresu lts of a n empirical quest . T hu s rarely will one find two a uth ors disagreeingon an y problem of mag nitude; on the other hand, an y new theoretical sta ndis likely to be heralded or confirmed by an official edict issued from above, orto reflect some obvious change of policy in o the r realm s of Soviet th ou gh t orbehavior . Polemics, in the Am erican sense of th e word, are largely non-existentin the Soviet anthropological press; on the other hand, one may find on thepages of Soviet Ethnogra phy a t least one exam ple of the typ e of abjec t confessionwhich is kno wn , in o ther fields of Soviet activ ity, such a s literat ure , musican d biology, to be the acc epted form of intellectu al recan tation.

    W ith these points in mind, it is possible to approa ch the m att er of Morgan'sstan ding in Soviet science and t o arrive a t a few statem ents of fact and con-jecture regarding it. I n section 11,Morgan's position in Russian ethnologicalan d archeological literature durin g th e thir d decade of th e 20th cen tur y isbriefly outlined: in section 111, it is contrasted with that evidenced in thissame literature following World War 11.I1

    Th e fun da m en tal characteristics of Soviet ethnology of the pre-World* The author is most grateful to D r. A. L. Kroeber, who was kind enough to read the m anu-script and to suggest its publication.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    9OLSTOY] MORGAN A N D SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHTW ar I1 period are perhaps made m ost evident in an article by Kagarovl in aVOKS publication in the English language. These characteristics may bedefined a s (1) a prim ary interest in the "social structure of pre-class ~ o c i e t y , " ~(2 ) a n extensive use of schemes or system s of t h e typ e in vogue in pre-BoasianAm e r i c a n a n t h r ~ p o l o g y , ~nd (3) an uncompromising evolutionism. One isstruck b y th e fact th at all three of these trai ts are shared, to some extent, byM org an an d M arx. A nd, in effect, it is largely because of these c hara cteristic s,in addition to a few minor ones, th at M organ is praised b y the Soviet autho rs.Thu s, M atorin4 stat es th at Soviet ethnography is largely filiated, in itsideas, from Lewis H. Morgan's outlook; "the main framework of Morgan'stheory," he says , " remains ~ n ch a n g ed ." ~here is even a hint a t a more directconnection between M organ's tho ug ht and th at of Soviet anthrop ology th anbetween the latte r and the do ctrines of M arx an d Engels. This, however,might ha ve been some thing of a slip-up on Mato rin's p ?rt, since ano ther sourceof approximately the same p e r i ~ d , ~ealing with the historical development ofmarriage an d the family, refers to M organ unde r a heading of 36 titles togetherwith a few other bourgeois scholars such as Havelock Ellis, Bachofen andFrazer as "literature for critical reference," whereas most of the references(61 titles) consist of works by M arx, E ngels, Lenin, Stalin an d of resolutionsof the Com intern an d the C entral Comm ittee of the Com munist Pa rty. I t isalso significant that J. Sternberg is appraised in benign way as "no Marxist,bu t a follower of M organ's traditions."' I t would thus seem th at , a t this pointin th e history of Soviet anthrop ology , Morgan's main con tribution was hisschem e; deta ils of process, on th e oth er h an d, were in the dom ain of M arxis tdialectics.T he fact th a t the M organian evolutiona ry scheme was the basis of Soviethistorical reconstruction a t this t ime is am ply illustrated not only by the s tate-m ent of M atorin 's quo ted above , toge ther with num erous elaborations of thisscheme devised by Tolstov, Zolotarev, Krichevsky and Bernstam and re-v i e w e d b y K a g a r o ~ , ~u t also by ,the positions of those engaged in Sovietarcheological resea rch. B og aye vsk yg outlines a series of correlations betweenthe classical Pa leolith ic an d Neolithic stages an d Mo rgan's sub stag es of Savag e-ry and Barbarism; Efimenko'slo elaborate and monumental treatise on thePaleolithic in the US SR , a generally excellent source of inform ation, establishesthese correlations in tabular form.T h e uncom prom ising evolutionism of Soviet tho ug ht is well exemplifiedby a num ber of crit ical remarks made by K agarov abou t Russian anthropolo-gists of the old school. Th us, Ste rnb erg is briefly given his due bu t is cited forun fo rtu na tely being "influenced b y the the or y of diffusion."ll Bogoras' The

    Kagarov, 1933. Ibid., p. 88 . a Ibid., vid . pp. 89-92. * Matorin, 1933.Ibid., p. 6. Wolfson,1937. Matorin, 1933, p. 12. Kagarov, 1933.Bogayevsky, 1933, p. 27 and ff. 10 Efimenko, 1938. l1 Kagarov, 1933, p. 97 .

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    10 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [54, 1952Spreading of Culture over the World represents a stage "outgrown by theau tho r himself,"12 Bogoras himself thu s ap pa ren tly joining the r ank s of a"group of .old specialists" who are "wholeheartedly altering their views."laPsychological interpre tation s a re also considered inadmissible, an d it is St er n-berg, once again, who is criticized by Kagarov for "overestimating the roleof t he sexua l facto r." All these criticisms, it m ay be noted in passing, ar echaracteristically of co nten t rathe r tha n of m etho d. On the other han d, Aza-dovsky14 spe aks of cultu re as som ething b y which "in the individual is revealedthe general" in a man ner suggesting Kroeber's a nd W hite's superorganic; inpost-war times, however, a s will be seen, the concept of th e superorga nic issha rply criticized.Morgan's prestige is frequently increased in the Soviet literature by rep-etition of a legend which was apparently started by Engels himself. Thelegend refers to the fact that Morgan was supposedly "hushed up" by otherbourgeois scientists, because his theories undermined the moral foundationsof bo urgeois soc iety. Thi s legend is stressed in M atorin,ls an d is also used inpost-war sources.Finally, a specific point of t he M orga n scheme seems to have grea tly ap-pealed t o the Soviet school: th a t M organ '(prov ed the com munistic charac terof t he primitive com mu nity." Such is th e belief in the c om mu nistic na tur e ofprimitive society among Soviet anthropologists that N. Ya. M arr , the v i r tualdi ct ator of So viet linguistics un til 1950, when he was purged and crucified inSoviet Ethnography by no less an a uth or ity th a n Joseph Stalin himself,16 setup a scheme of linguistic evolution in which th e plural came before th e singularan d th ou gh t was "the collective aw aren ess of collective prod uction with col-lective tools"17 ('(m ind is minding").ls I n thi s connec tion, anth ropo logy is justi-fied in dealing with primitive society, since society to come will evidence, asM arx says , "the reemergence of the ar cha ic social typ e in the highest form."lg

    T he o rienta tion an d positions of Soviet anthropology hav e undergone anum ber of changes since W orld W ar 11, al though, as a prominent Americananthropologist once pu t it , "the gam e still goes on." M orga n is still highlyrevered bu t, od dly enough, sometimes for reasons which a re the very oppositeof tho se which c ontrib uted to his high position in the pre-war Soviet pan theo n.l2 Ibid., p. 98. "Matorin, 1933, p. 15. l4 Azadovsky, 1933, p. 52.l6 Matorin, 1933, p. 6. l6 Stalin, 1950a and b. 17 Meshchaninov, 1933a,p. 118.If one interpolates this definition into that of language as given by Marr and quoted byMeshchaninov 1933h, in the volume of essays published in honor of N.Ya. Marr in his heyday-

    "language is the collective manifestation of the collective consciousness, the formulation and all-inclusiveness of which is dependent on thought and techniques of world conceptionJ' p. 27)-theresult is truly startling.lo Kagarov, 1933, p. 88.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952



    Primitive social structure is still stressed, as may be seen from the carefulreview given b y K i s l y a k ~ v ~ ~f a work by M. 0 . Kosven entitled MatriarchyTh is review also shows th e extistence, in S oviet thoug ht, of a n und erlyingevolutiona ry scheme related to t h a t of M organ. Bachofen is mentioned inthis review an d, this time, he is the one to be "hushed up" b y bourgeois schol-ars. I t should not be concluded from this state m en t th at Bachofen replacesM organ a s the major ancestor-hero of Soviet anthrop ology; the review m akesthe poin t, in particular, th at the precedence of ma triarchy over patriarchywas first established by a Russian sdientist, Millar, whose works were read byMarx , and who was "in advance of M ~ L e n n a n . " ~ ~lso, one is rem ind ed of the'(marvelous statements on matriarchy made by Lenin and Stalin."How ever, the claim of p riority me ntioned abo ve for a Russian scien tist isone of th e minor man ifestatio ns of a n im po rta nt change in anth ropolog icaland other concepts, a change which has occurred in Soviet Russia followingthe last w ar: the emergence of n ationalism, an d, with it, the reintroductionof the notion of "a cultu re" as opposed to th a t of evolu tiona ry stage, th e ad -mission of diffusion as a historical process, a some what gre ater em phasis onorigins ("ethnogenesis") an d less em phasis on a function al int erp ret atio n of th estru ctur e of p rimitive society, and , last bu t not least, much sh arper and morespecific criticism of W estern anthropological w ork. Among minor corollariesto this major reorientation might be mentioned a harshly critical attitude to-ward the concept of the "superorganic," tow ard which Soviet scientists seemedmore inclined in pre-war d ays , a favorab le app raisal of Boas (b ut not of hisschool) despite a negative att i tu de toward the empirical approach w hich hasbeen expressed in no uncertain terms in both pre-war and post-war sources,an d the use of both som atological an d linguistic evidence in problem s of"ethnogenesis."De tailed citations illustrating all of these new tren ds would tak e us ou t-side our sub ject. However, most of t he new a ttit ud es of Soviet anthrop ologyhave some bearing on th e Russian reappraisal of M organ an d m ay be ex-emplified by statements in which Morgan is concerned.T he survival of evolutionism in m odern Soviet doc trine is well shown in a narticle entitled Lenin and Thisontemporary Problems in Ethnogr~phy.~~article deals mainly with Lenin's evolutionary scheme, evidently largely de-rived from Morgan and Marx, which Lenin outlined, in particular, in one ofhis letters to Gorki. One of t he features of th is scheme was th a t it equ ated th e"prime val h orde" stag e with th e biological stage of the pithecanthrop inae.This existence of an intermediary stage between ape and man, th e auth ormakes a point of emp hasizing, was already "hinted at " by M organ in the formof a st ag e which he, and E ngels afte r him, nam ed th e lower sta ge of Savagery.

    20 Kislyakov, 1949. Zbid., p. 215. za Tolstov, 1949.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    12 A MERZCA N A NTBROPOLOGZST [54, 1952Th e point m ade leaves no dou bt as to the preeminence of L enin over M orga n;in it may be seen th e persistence of evolutionism as well as the em ergence ofnationalism in post-war anthropology.

    T he exact rela tionship of evolutionism a nd nationa lism, especially in itsmore stric tly scientific asp ects , such as the notion of "a cultu re," is nowherebetter clarified th an in a n article by Kushn erZ3 ntitled The Teachings oj Stalinon the Nation and National Culture and their Meaning for Ethnology. There,w ha t in pre-war day s ha d been termed a "stage" is redefined as "culture con-tent." "Culture form" on the other han d is th a t which accounts for nationaldifferences, th e nation be ing defined as "a historically com poun ded soc iety,originating on th e basis of a common language, te rritor y, economic life andpsychic form ation, manifested in a common culture."24 Th ese "teachings ofStalin" m ay thus be seen as perm itting the use of "culture" as a term suscep-tible of tak ing th e plural, without interfering with the previously establishedevo lution istic concept of stag e.T h a t this was quickly taken ad van tage of b y Soviet anthropologists m aybe seen from th e near-absence of articles dealing with broa d sche m atic prob-lems in Soviet Ethnography from 1947 through 1950, and the publication ofsuch papers as The Problem of Somatological Continuities in the Period of theFatyanovo Culture by T . A. T r o f i m o ~ a . ~ ~his article not only speaks of t he"F aty an ov o c ulture," bu t uses th e da ta of physical anthrop ology to establishhistorical connections, a me thod of research which would hav e been consideredinadmissible in pre-war da ys, when physical type was considered the "produ ctof social environ m ent," race was denied, an d it was said th a t m an was "cre atedby labor," not biological evolu ti0n.~6T o return to Mo rgan, i t is evident from the preceding t ha t, theoretically,Morgan's position as a great evolutionist , although perhaps a l i t t le shaken,could very well be still upheld in Soviet circles, without any prejudice to the"teaching s of Stalin." Y et , if one tu rn s tow ard a con sideration of diffusionas a concept in Soviet theory, one notes that Morgan's position in the Sovietpantheon is now being upheld in quite a different way.An a rticle by Averkyeva27 published in one of the first post-war issues ofSoviet Ethnography to reach the United States is not yet entirely clear on thisreapp raisal of M organ . Leslie White, however, is comm ended, togeth er w ithMeggers, as one of th e few sensible anthrop ologists left in th e Un ited S tate san d a s a defender of M org an ; a re turn to Morgan's ideas, in this article, isseen a s the only solution from the impasse in w hich A merican anthropologyhas placed itself. White is also favorably quoted, in passing, as advocatingthe s tu dy of culture in terms of i tself, again a hint a t a favorable at t i tu de to-ward th e concept of t he supe rorgan ic, reminiscent of pre-war days , a hin t

    l3ushner, 1949. 24 Kushner, 1949, p. 6. " Trofimova, 1949. Bogayevsky, 1933, p. 23 . 21 Averkyeva, 1947.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952



    which in sub seq uen t articles not only remained unamplified, b ut was forg otten .An arti cle b y L evineZ8 n t he following issue of Sorliet Ethn ography firstclarifies the new atti tude. The point made there was that Morgan, no morethan Tylor, saw no contradiction between diffusion and evolution and "didnot ignore d i f fu ~ io n ." ~ ~ore than t h at , Western crit icism "imputes to M organthose mistakes of evolutionism to which he is much less prone th an T y 1 0 r. " ~ ~M organ's greatness, we are told, resides mainly in his "materialism" an d thefact that his periodizat ions are based on "stages of prod~ction."~~organ isthus credited for having "rediscovered" M a r x i ~ m . ~ ~f we compare this viewof M organ w ith th a t held in pre-war Soviet literatu re, we note th at , whereasbefore the w ar, M org an was revered for his evolutionistic scheme, the d ialecticsof h istory being considered b y M ato rin as more specifically Ma rxian , the newview of M organ places his scheme in th e backg round a nd sees Morg an essen-tially as a sm all replica of M arx, a nd like M arx a n au th or ity because he is"materialistic" in his understanding of process.This sa m e article con tains a r athe r am using criticism of Lowie. Lowie, itis said, "quotes extracts from Morgan's diary on his travels in Europe toshow his (Morgan's) provincialism, but in reality only illustrates his ownten dencious at ti tu d e to wa rd s M ~ r g a n . " ~ ~his criticism is not amplified inany way.Levine's article also includes a form al disapp rov al of W hite's "idealistic"concept of cultu re, in which Wh ite errs, despite his othe r good points.34Also:"W hite is sha rply negative tow ard Boas. I n this respect he is wrong."36 How-ever, his criticism of th e Boas school is qu ite acceptable.

    A somewhat la te r a r t ic le by T01stov~~akes up Morgan again, and thistime defines the new at ti tu de toward him without a ny amb iguity. "Defendersof M organ (Leslie W hite) a tte m p t to make him th e symbol of a fight toreestablish th e trad itio ns of ev olutionism. Actually, t he strength of M org anresides precisely in the fact that he is not an evolutionist, but an historicmaterialist; the undoubtedly frail evolutionistic methodological elements inhim are his weakness."37 M organ's evolutionism is th us responsible for th efallacy of some of his conclusions. Au tho rity is given this judgmen t by th efact that "the bases of evolutionism were severely condemned by Marx inhis review of B a ~ t i a n . " ~ ~Th e name of M organ frequ ently figures in the rath er thorough a nalyses28 Levine, 1947. 29 Levine, 1947, p. 237.a0 Ibid., p. 238. Ibid., p. Ibid., p. 235. ("Rediscovery" of Marx is one of the consistent patterns of Soviet anthropol-ogy. Marr is credited with this remarkable feat in an essay in his honor; Morgan is credited with

    it at least three times [Levine, 1947, p. 238; Tolstov, 1949, p. 15; Potekhin, 1949, p. 131 on the ba-sis of an original statement to that effect by Engels.)Levine, 1947, p. 236. Ibid., p. 240. Ibid., p. 236.Tolstov, 1947. I&.,p. 15. Tolstov, 1947; p. 15.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    14 AMERI C AN AN T HROPOL OGI ST [54, 1952and crit icisms of bourgeois trends in Western anthropology which, of late,hav e become m ore frequent . T he Averkyevaag r t icle mark s the f i rst manifesta-tion of increased attention being given to Western developments. Levine's40is the next in this series. The Tolstov article mentioned above in connectionwith Lenin 's evolut ionary scheme contains th e state m en t:

    One of the cen tral tactical goals of Soviet enthnographic science is a systematic,unpitying , consistent disclosure of the newer reac tionary concepts of bourgeois ethnog-raphy ("anthropology" in the Anglo-American sense).41A n ar tic le b y L ev in e, R og in sk y a n d C h e b o k ~ a r o v ~ ~qua tes the racism of H itlerto t h a t of Churchill , Coon an d Hooton. Butinovq8 analyzes the new Am ericandoc trine of "psychoracism ," stem m ing fro m Spengler (a forer unn er of Rose n-berg) a n d advoc ated b y the crim inal-psychiatric school of K ard iner (a discipleof R ~ s e n b e r g ) . ~ ~otekhinq6 in a pape r ent i t led T h e Goals of the Fight w it hCosmopolitism in Ethnography says: "Lonely does the figure of Lewis Morgansta nd in t h e history of bourgeois science."@ He re, a s in the othe r sourcesmentioned previously, Morgan is praised for coming close to a materialisticunderstanding of history. "American ethnography has executed a head-spinning salto mortale from th e elemental-m aterialistic position of M org anthrough the B oas school to th e myst icism of Kroeber a nd th e whole ethno -psychological T hi s accords with th e position of Soviet critics th a tKroeber an d Kard iner exemplify l i t t le more th an va riants of the sam e generalfallacious approac h. A quo tation fro m Kroe ber o n the sub ject of pooling worldcu ltu ra l resources in view of dealing w ith c ult ur al crises is followed by a quo-tation of Lenin, apparently considered relevant:

    The personal charac teristics of modern professors are such that one may meetamong them people of exceptional density. . . . The social position of professors is suchth at only those who sell science to the interests of cap ital are allowed to occupy it, ifthey agree to contradict the socialists and propound the most incredible nonsense, themost shameless incongruities and rubbish.At th is point a digression m ay be m ade t o present a few more passagesfrom Potek hin's article, which mark s, in some respects, the climax of a nu m berof post-wa r tre nds in Soviet science.Among some Soviet ethnographers and folklorists, the idolization of Europeanbourgeois science has not yet d ied. As yet no t all of our scientists consider it theirpatr iotic du ty to propagandize, first and foremost, the accomplishments of Russianscience; on the contrary, in some works there transp ires a certain disdain for Russianethnographers and folklorists. We will mention in this connection Prof. Prop's workaQ Averkyeva, 1947. 40 Levine, 1947. 4 1 Tolstov, 1949, p. 15.a Levine, Roginsky and Cheboksarov, 1949. Butinov, 1949.44 Butinov, 1949, p. 13. 4s Potekhin, 1949.a Zbid., p. 13. 47 Zbid., p. 15.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    TOLSTOY] MORGAN AN D SOVIET ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHT 15The Historical Roots of the Folk Tale, a deservedly severe appraisal of which has alreadybeen given by our community and our press. Both Russian and foreign researchershave written on the folk tale, and it is precisely the Russian ones who give a scientific,materialistic interpretation of the folk tale. Prof. Prop passes over in silence everythingthe revolutionary democrats did, as well as the work of Maxim Gorki, who is essentiallythe founder of Soviet folkloristics. Prof. Prop consistently refers to the intuitivist LCvy-Bruhl, to the fashistisizing ethnographer Frobenius, to the mystic Kroeber and, as aresult, gives a totally unscientific interpretation of the folk tale. Prof. Prop acts like alandless cosmopolitan, for whom the matter of Russian priority in 'science does notexist, to whom the honor of the fatherland is not dear. Prof. Prop hushes up the in-dubitable fact that Russian folklorists always stood higher than Western Europeanfolklorists, and exaggerates the merit of various European "a ~thorities."~~Following this tirade another victim, Professor Ravdonikas, is selected andis criticized for the fact th at too many references to foreign sources "clutter"his pages.

    This same article indicates why Russian scientists refuse to enter into co-operation with those of the West:

    And finally, the aim of the fight with cosmopolitanism consists in systematicallyand unpityingly unveiling all the apostles of cosmopolitanism in foreign ethnography.The propagandist of cosmopolitanism is no "fellow-scientist," but a mercenary ofreaction, of imperialist aggression. The criticism of American cosmopolitanist ethnog-raphers on the pages of Soviet Ethnography has so far consisted of a few reviews. Thiscriticism has not been sharp enough, but has been conducted in a somewhat objectiv-istic manner, frequently without the necessary political conclusions and eval~ations.~~

    As for Morgan, it is suggested th at his fame in the USSR is on the decline.Before the war, Soviet anthropology seemed to owe him most of its framework.I n the years following the war, he became merely the exponent of an approachwhich Marx and Engels and, after them, Lenin and Stalin, had carried tomuch greater heights; in addition, evolutionism had become only a part ofthe Soviet concept of culture. The latest Soviet paper to mention him alreadystates th at he only "came close" to a materialistic conception of history. I t isprobable tha t future Soviet science, if it is to pay i ts respects to him a t all,will use him only as a symbol, a mere figurehead occasionally to remind itsadepts that there was once hope for the Anglo-American science of "anthro-pology."

    It could perhaps be put forth that the retreat from Morgan as an all-pervasive influence from the stage of Soviet social science has not been withoutsalutary effects. If one compares the Soviet anthropology of the 1930s withth at of the late '40s, one is surprised to find that , in many respects, the idiomused today in ethnology, arcbeology, physical anthropology and probablylinguistics-though lit tle has come out on linguistics since the recent purge

    48 Potekhin, 1949, pp . 22-23. '8 Potekhin, 1949, p. 25.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    16 AM ERICA N ANTHROPOLOGIST j54, 1952of N. Ya. Marr-is closer to tha t of th e W estern anthropologists th an it wasa dec ade an d a half ago, if we disrega rd anti-cos mo politan ist tirades. W hereasth e older version of Soviet anthropo logy could occasionally prod uce suchvaluable works as Efimenko's Primeval Society ,6O an art icle such as Tokarev'sT o wa rd s P o s i n g t h e P ro b l em of E t h n o g en es is s l would have been impossible.Th is article is devo ted t o a careful evalu ation of t h e evidence generally usedin the recon struction of th e history of e thn ic grou ps considered as historicalunits, an d examines th e problem of eth nic origins with a rigor an d a sense ofproblem w hich m an y Am erican archeologists have n ot come close to em ulatin g.

    BIBLIOGRAPHYSE-Sovietskaya Etnografiya (Soviet Et hn og rap hy ).VOK S-Publication of th e All-Union Organization for Cu ltural Relations (in English).AVERKYEVA,u., 1947, Psikhologischeskoye Napravleniye v Sovremennoy Am erikanskoy Etn o-grafii (Psychological Orientations in Contemporary Am erican Ethn ography ). S E, 1947, no. 1,pp. 218-221.A z m o v s ~ y ,M., 1933, Th e Science of Folklore in the USSR . VOKS, Vol. 4, pp. 39-60.BOGAYEVSKY,. L., 1933, Prehistoric Archeology in the USSR. VOKS, Vol. 4, pp. 19-38.BUTINOV,N. A., 1949, Sovremennaya Amerikanskaya "Teoreticheskaya" Etnografiya (Con-temporary Am erican "Theoretical" Ethn ography ). SE, 1949, no. 1, pp. 212-219.E F ~ N K O ,. P., 1938, Pervobytnoye Obshchestvo (Primeval Socie ty). Moscow -Len ingrad .KAGAROV,., 1933, T he Eth nog rap hy of F oreign Cou ntries in Soviet Science. VOKS, Vol. 4,pp. 88-89.KISLYAKOV,., 1949, Review of M . 0. Kosven's Matriarkhat (Matriarchy). SE, 1949, no. 3, pp .214-216.KUSHNER,. I., 1949, Uchen iye Stalin a o Natzii i Natzional'noy Kul'ture, i ikh Znacheniye dlyaEtnografii (Th e Teachings of Stalin on the Nation a nd National C ulture and Their Meaningfor Ethnography). SE, 1949, no. 4, pp. 3-19.LEVINE,M. G., 1947, Istoriya , Evo lyutziay a, Diffuziya (History, Evolution, D iffusion). S E , 1947,no. 2, pp. 235-240.

    LEVINE,M . G.,YA.RO GIN SK Y, 1949, Anglo-Amerikanskiy Rasizm (Anglo-nd N. CHEBOK SAROV,Am erican Racism). S E , 1949, no. 1 , pp. 8-39.MATORIN,M., 1933, Soviet Ethnography. VOKS, Vol. 4, pp. 3-18.MESHCHANINOV,. I., 1933a, A New Theo ry of Language an d Tho ugh t. VOKS, Vol. 4, pp. 116-126.-, 1933b, Materyal'naya Kul'tura i Myshleniye (Material Culture and Thought), in IzIstorii Dokapitalisticheskikh Formatziy (From th e His tory of Pre -Capitalistic Formations).Essay s in honor of N . Ya. M ar r, pp. 23-33.POTEKHIN,. I., 1949, Zadachi Bor'by s Kosmopolitizmom v Etno grai5 (The GoaIs of the Figh twith Cosm opolitanism i n E thnog raph y). SE, 1949, no. 2, pp. 7-26.STALIN,J. V., 1950a, Otnositel'no M arxizma v Yazyk oznanii (On Marxism in Linguistics). SE,

    1950, no. 2, pp. 3-20.---, 1950b, K Nekotorym Voprosam Yazykoznaniya. Otv et Tov. E . Krashenninikovoy (On50 E h e n k o , 1938. Tokarev, 1949.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    17OLSTOY] MORGAN -4ND S O V I E T A N T H R O P O W G I C A L T H O U G H TSome Problems of Linguistics. Answer to Com rade E . Kra shen ninikov a). S E , 1950, no. 2, pp.21-25.TOKABEV, . E., 1949, K Postanovleniyu Problemy Etnogen esa (Tow ards Posing the Problem ofEthnogenesis). S E , 1949, no. 3, pp. 12-36.TO LST OV ,. P., 1947, Sovyefskaya Shkola v Etnografii ( Th e Soviet School in Ethn ogra phy) . S E ,1947, no. 4, pp. 8-28.

    -, 1949, V. I. Lenin i Aktual'nye Problemy Etnografii (Lenin and Contemporary Problemsof Ethnography). S E , 1949, no. 1, pp. 3-17.T R O F ~ O V A ,. A., 1949, K Voprosu ob Antropologicheskih Svazyakh v Ep ok hu FatyanovskoyKu l'tury (Th e Problem of Somatological Continuities in the Period of the Faty ano vo Cu lture) .S E , 1949, no. 3, pp. 37-73.WOLFSON,. YA., 1937, Semya i Brak v ikh Zstmicheskom Razvitii (The Family and M arriage intheir Historical Development). Moscow-Leningrad.

  • 8/8/2019 Tolstoy 1952


    You have printed the following article:

    Morgan and Soviet Anthropological Thought

    P. Tolstoy

    American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 54, No. 1. (Jan. - Mar., 1952), pp. 8-17.

    Stable URL:

    This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.


    42 The Determination of the Conformations of Small Molecules in Solution by Means ofParamagnetic Shift and Relaxation Perturbations of n.m.r. Spectra [and Discussion]

    B. A. Levine; R. J. P. Williams; E. W. Randall; J. Feeney

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol.345, No. 1640, A Discussion on the Determination of Structures and Conformation of Molecules inSolution. (Aug. 27, 1975), pp. 5-22.

    Stable URL:

    Bibliography SE-Sovietskaya Etnografiya (Soviet Ethnography). VOKS-Publicationof the All-Union Organization for Cultural Relations (in English).

    The Determination of the Conformations of Small Molecules in Solution by Means of

    Paramagnetic Shift and Relaxation Perturbations of n.m.r. Spectra [and Discussion]B. A. Levine; R. J. P. Williams; E. W. Randall; J. Feeney

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol.345, No. 1640, A Discussion on the Determination of Structures and Conformation of Molecules inSolution. (Aug. 27, 1975), pp. 5-22.

    Stable URL:

    LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

    NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.