498 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 175 



of the universe" based upon (supposedly) different types of data and 

 considerations. For example, where the Middle Ages formulated 

 their conception of hmnan nature in terms of a theological imagery 

 whose dream sources were deliberately denied, the Mohave developed 

 a theological imagery consciously correlated with dream experiences. 

 In addition the Mohave also used "models" derived from the physical 

 universe. Thus, as suggested elsewhere (pt. 2, pp. 72-76), their idea 

 of the damming up of the libido, which then suddenly floods the or- 

 ganism, producing hysterical convulsions (atcoo:r hanyienk) may 

 well have been inspired by the economically highly important (and 

 therefore noteworthy) yearly floods of the Colorado River (Dev- 

 ereux, 1958 b). 



The preceding considerations show that the substantive meaning 

 which the Mohave professed to find in abnormal behavior was essen- 

 tially a psychological one, inspired by, and derived from, their cul- 

 turally determined preoccupation with dreams. This explains the 

 existence of many segmental congruences between Mohave and mod- 

 ern psychiatric theories, but fails to account for the overall incongru- 

 ity of Mohave psychopathological thought with modern psychiatric 

 theory. This problem can best be tackled by recalling that, despite 

 their interest in the abstruse and their tendency to speculate about 

 it, the Mohave never evolved an explicit general theory of 

 psychopathology. 



The tneihodological frame of reference of Mohave psychiatry. — 

 Broadly speaking, it is possible to view any phenomenon whatso- 

 ever — and this specifically includes both irrational behavior and 

 alleged "spiritualistic phenomena" (Devereux, 1953 a) — either 

 scientifically (naturalistically) or else nonscientifically (super- 

 naturalistically). For example, such "natural" phenomena as smi- 

 rise and sunset, etc., were, once upon a time, placed into a methodo- 

 logically supernaturalistic frame of reference and were thought to be 

 actuated by divine will. By contrast, allegedly "spiritualistic phe- 

 nomena" can — perhaps substantively wrongly, but methodologically 

 correctly — be viewed not as "supernatural," but as natural manifes- 

 tations of hitherto (supposedly) ignored "natural" human abilities. 

 It should also be stressed that many scientifically valuable data and 

 formulations were produced by supernaturalistically oriented individ- 

 uals. Thus, Dodds (1951) rightly insists that, despite his great 

 mathematical discoveries, Pythagoras was not primarily a scientist 

 but a shaman, presumably because he made these discoveries in order 

 to pursue more effectively certain mystical objectives and, further- 

 more, assigned a supernaturalistic meaning to his own discoveries. 



Somewhat anticipating our conclusions, it is suggested that the 

 inability of the Mohave to evolve a general theory of psychopathology 

 and the extensive lack of congruence between their implicit "system" 



