October 13, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



533 



tiou of a difference. Prom the point of view 

 of ethnological technique the two principles 

 can not be treated in an identical way, for 

 whereas diffusion can be demonstrated, inde- 

 pendent development does not, in the nature 

 of the case, permit of rigorous proof. The 

 assertion of independent development always 

 involves the negation of diffusion, a nega- 

 tion based on negative evidence, absence of 

 proof of diffusion. Thus, it could always be 

 claimed that at. some time somehow diffusion 

 has occurred. Such a claim would be unan- 

 swerable. At the same time it is obvious that 

 the above constitutes a methodologically im- 

 possible procedure. A relatively small num- 

 ber of cultural similarities — speaking in par- 

 ticular of primitive cultures — can be referred 

 to diffusion by internal evidence. Such is 

 the case when the similarities brought into 

 juxtaposition are so complex and minute that 

 the probability of their independent recur- 

 rence approaches or equals zero. But let us 

 repeat, the number of such instances is small, 

 far smaller than generally alleged, far smaller 

 than one might wish. Outside of these cases 

 there lies the tremendous array of cultural 

 similarities which may have arisen through 

 diffusion or by independent development. In 

 all such cases independent development must 

 be assumed until diffusion is proved or, at 

 least, made overwhelmingly probable. 



We need not here enter into a discussion of 

 the highly complicated technique demanded 

 of such demonstrations. Professor Smith 

 voices the conviction that the high pre- 

 Columbian civilization in America " was de- 

 rived from the late New Empire Egyptian 

 civilization, modified by Ethiopian, Mediter- 

 ranean, West Asiatic, Indian, Indonesian, 

 East Asiatic and Polynesian influences." 

 Professor Smith does not furnish the proof of 

 his contention; it would therefore be pre- 

 mature to pass judgment upon it. But the 

 author forestalls the character of his proof. 

 We read: 



The proof of the reality of this great migration 

 of culture is provided not merely by the identical 

 geographical distribution of a very extensive 

 series of curiously distinctive, and often utterly 



bizarre, customs and beliefs, the precise dates and 

 circumstances of the origin of which are known 

 in their parent countries; but the fact that these 

 strange ingredients are compounded in a definite 

 and highly complex manner to form an artificial 

 cultural structure, which no theory of independent 

 evolution can possibly explain, because chance 

 played so large a part in building it up in its 

 original home. 



It seems from this highly significant and 

 interesting passage that Professor Elliot 

 Smith will base his proof largely on quanti- 

 tative and qualitative evidence derived from 

 the constitution of the cultural complex itself. 

 The publication of Professor Smith's work, 

 notice of which is given in a footnote, will 

 be awaited with the greatest interest and im- 

 patience by his American colleagues; and if 

 his proof withstands the test of their open- 

 minded examination, the critical ethnologist 

 will be the last one to want to lift a stone for 

 the destruction of what would then constitute 

 an invaluable addition to our knowledge of the 

 ancient civilizations of the world. 



a. a. goldenweiser 



Columbia University 



some objections to mr. elliot smith's 



THEORY 



To the Editor of Science : In your issue 

 for August 11, 1916, there appeared a very 

 interesting theory as to the origins of the pre- 

 Columbian American civilizations. It is the 

 belief of the writer of that article, Mr. G. 

 Elliot Smith, that the distinguishing char- 

 acteristics of American cultures (such as 

 pyramidal structures, the use of irrigation 

 canals, the custom of mummifying the dead, 

 etc.) are derived, by means of a "great cul- 

 tural wave," from the ancient civilization of 

 Egypt. The " cultural wave " is said to have 

 passed from the valley of the Nile into Assyria, 

 thence to India, Korea, Siberia, the Pacific 

 islands and America. The wave is said to 

 have started about B.C. 900. 



This theory is important. But there are 

 several serious objections to it : 



1. If Mr. Elliot Smith is right in thinking 

 that the American aborigines in Mexico, 

 Peru, etc., used pyramidal structures, numer- 



