JANUARY 12, 1912] 
eral acceptance, and although the theories 
may even bear upon their face their 
own refutation, still they may serve a use- 
ful purpose. On the one hand they may 
exemplify the dangers to which the fol- 
lowers of the historical method are ex- 
posed, and on the other they may often 
direct attention to a group of facts whose 
significance has been overlooked. 
Such an over-enthusiastic application of 
the historical method as regards the ques- 
tion of the independence of the culture of 
the American Indian is exemplified to my 
mind in the theory recently advanced of 
the real and fundamental relationship of 
American and Melanesian cultures; I 
refer to that put forward by Dr. Graebner 
in his ‘‘Die melanesischen Bogenkultur 
und Verwandtes.’’ The conclusions 
reached by the author of this most strik- 
ing and painstaking study are, it seems to 
me, of value in demonstrating both the 
strength and the weakness of the method. 
For the ethnology of Melanesia, Polynesia, 
Micronesia, Indonesia and Australia, to- 
gether with the adjacent parts of south- 
eastern Asia, Dr. Graebner’s work is, I 
believe, in large measure valuable. It is 
where, abandoning the comparatively 
firm ground of Oceanic ethnology in 
which he is at home, he looks further 
afield, and finds in America (as indeed 
also in Asia, Africa and Europe) the evi- 
dences of a specific Melanesian culture, 
that I believe we must hesitate to follow 
him, and subject his facts and conclusions 
to careful scrutiny. General principles 
may often best be illustrated by conerete 
examples, and it is therefore with the idea 
of exemplifying some of the principles 
previously laid down, and not in any spirit 
of unfriendly criticism, that I propose to 
analyze and examine that portion of the 
theory of the Melanesian bow-culture 
which relates to America. 
in most detail. 
SCIENCE 49 
The theory in general may be summed 
up as follows. By a detailed analysis of 
the rather bewildering culture com- 
plexes of the closely interrelated peoples 
of Oceania, the conclusion is reached that 
a number of distinct cultures may be rec- 
ognized, each marked by a coherent group 
of characteristic implements, usages, forms 
of social organization and beliefs; that 
these several cultures have spread succes- 
sively over the region in question, and by 
their varied intermixture and superposi- 
tion have produced the great complexity 
we find to-day. The various elements 
which go to make up the different cultures 
are regarded as so intimately interrelated 
and combined as to be practically insep- 
arable, and as a particular combination to 
have had a definite origin in time and 
space. The occurrence of any considerable 
number of the separate elements of such a 
eroup among any given tribe or people is 
considered as sufficient evidence of the ex- 
istence of the whole culture complex as an 
integral and historical feature in its de- 
velopment. 
Of the various cultures so outlined and 
traced throughout Oceania, that of the so- 
called Melanesian bow-culture is taken up 
The distinguishing char- 
acteristics of this culture are described as 
the self-bow of fiat cross-section, arrows 
with fore-shafts, pile-dwellings, coiled pot- 
tery, twilled basketry, spoons, the ham- 
mock, paddles with handles at right angles 
to the shaft, bamboo combs, suspension 
bridges, the use of betel and tobacco and 
the pipe, hour-glass drums, communal 
dwellings, head-hunting and associated 
skull-cults, and the use of the squatting hu- 
man figure and the spiral in art and design. 
Associated always closely with this cul- 
ture is the two-class matriarchal cul- 
ture, whose distinguishing features are in 
part the rectangular house with gable-roof, 
