2 
MUSEUM BULLETIN NO. 16. 
which they consisted . 1 Most of these investigators seem, how- 
ever, to have been quite oblivious of the implications necessarily 
entailed by the recognition that in primitive mythology we are 
often dealing with literature in the true sense of the word . 2 
For, the moment such an admission is made, we are justified 
in applying to this primitive literature, the same methods of 
analysis and criticism that we apply to our own — paying due 
regard to the personality of the author, or, if you will, the author- 
raconteur ; to his literary peculiarity ; to the stylistic peculiarity 
of the area, etc. 
A preliminary step in such studies would have to be what 
Prof. Boas has long proposed — the detailed characterization of 
the different mythological areas. For the correct understanding 
of the role of the author-raconteur, however, something else is 
needed, something which, unfortunately, is most frequently 
neglected, namely, a fairly extensive collection of variants of the 
same tale. Only then will we really be in a position to determine 
how great has been the play of imagination among different 
author-raconteurs ; whether certain versions have originated in a 
certain area or not, or whether they have been severally borrowed ; 
and, finally, what is considered by the raconteur-authors to be 
the difference between “folklore-mythology ” 3 and literature. 
Variants also serve one other useful purpose, that of actually 
demonstrating the existence of literary units. 
With the exception of Boas, Lowie, and a few others, most 
discussions, as noted above, have concerned themselves primarily 
with problems suggested by regarding myths as the expressions 
of primitive philosophy. But more important than this assump- 
tion, which is apparently a heritage from the students of classical 
mythology, is the attitude taken toward the myth-complex 
itself. Almost all mythologists are aware of the different ele- 
ments that go to form the myth-complex and of the fluctuations 
between different versions of the same myth; yet in their dis- 
1 Cf. especially Dixon's paper mentioned before and T. T. Waterman, "The explanatory 
element in the Folk-lore of the North American Indians," Journ. Amer. Folk-lore, Vol. XXVII, 
pp. 1-54. 
1 This has, however, been frequently recognized by Prof. Boa3 in his lectures. 
* I use this compound "folklore-mythology" advisedly. The specific meaning I attach to 
It will be discussed later. 
