If you see something, say something from Tuesday, October25th of the year We live and we learn. Let me tell you a story. I find doing press sometimes really frustrating.
See Article History Alternative Titles: Delineated at the turn of the 20th century, it remains one of the most widely used frameworks for the description and analysis of cultures.
Australia, home of the Australian Aboriginesis often treated as a single culture area despite its considerable cultural and geographic diversity.
Origins in taxonomy and typology The ancestry of the culture area approach can be traced to the classification of living things proposed by Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus in Systema Naturae and further developed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and others.
These taxonomists used the underlying morphologyor physical structures of organisms such as flowers, shells, and bonesto illuminate the relatedness of groups of living things. To denote information about the relations their data suggested, they created a biological nomenclature that ultimately consisted of the categories kingdom, phylum, classorder, familygenus, and species.
In a painstaking study of the bracteatea type of ancient pendant found in northern Europehe charted a variety of morphological categories, such as insignia and size.
By combining the typologies thus created, he showed that these Nordic ornaments had developed from earlier Roman coins.
Thomsen later used similar techniques with a much larger body of data and eventually developed the basic chronology for Old World antiquities: Vadstena Bracteate Courtesy of Kungl.
Vitterhets Historie Och Antikvitets Akademien, Stockholm Ideas and expressive culture also proved susceptible to taxonomic analysis. The American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan gathered data from a large number of Native American tribes Thesis about pauls case created a typology based on their kinship terminologywhich he presented in Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family In this work he suggested that all cultures went through a clearly defined series of evolutionary stages: This was the case whether the colonial effort took place domestically, as in the United States and Canada, or abroad, as it did for the countries of Europe.
This was often undertaken as part of a frank pursuit of the knowledge needed to achieve social and political control over a region, whether in domestic or in overseas contexts. Thus, many early ethnographies and cultural geographies were written by civil servants, military personnel, or missionaries.
This appeared to support the evolutionary frameworks promulgated by Morgan and others, but a clear explanation of the cause of cultural differences was yet to be found. Soon there was consensus that cultural evolution occurred through one of two means: Because they could observe diffusion firsthand—a wide array of products guns, livestockideas Christianityand peoples European had certainly spread rapidly throughout the colonies—the vast majority of academics supported the diffusionist hypothesis.
They often conflated cultural complexity and biological evolution in ways that upheld the insidious racism of the era. Those who were skeptical of diffusionist claims offered an alternative theory that became known as independent innovation: Such claims presented an inherent challenge to racist views and to the morality of colonial conquest.
Although the political implications of the innovation-diffusion debate were profound, they were generally of less interest to scholars than was its resolution—not least because it created the interesting methodological problem of how one might scientifically determine the primacy of either process.
Mason, curator of ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution —suggested one such method in an article published in Science: His suggestion did not imply an ignorance of the role that such contexts played in shaping each other; Friedrich RatzelPaul Vidal de la Bacheand other scholars had published widely on human geography, and Mason himself had used the term culture area to gloss such confluences a few years earlier.
However, he held that the study of traits within such broad contexts would do little to advance an understanding of the laws that governed cultural evolution. A taxonomic approach was more appropriate to that pursuit: A series of such studies, analyzing a multitude of traits, would eventually result in a preponderance of evidence supporting either innovation or diffusion, thus resolving the question of causation in cultural evolution.
Shortly thereafter, Science published a letter challenging Mason; its author was Franz Boasa German-born ethnologist at the time, Boas was employed by the journal as an editor, but his letter represented only his own point of view, not that of Science.
Bureau of Ethnology, the branch of the Smithsonian that employed Mason exchanged a combative series of notes in the journal.
Boas insisted that the description of vanishing cultures, rather than the elucidation of cultural evolution, was the most appropriate role for the social scientist; that cultures should be treated as holisticindivisible products of historically particular events; and that, in ranking cultures as higher or lower according to their traits, the comparative method Mason espoused was intrinsically biased and, therefore, ascientific.
Boas also held that museum exhibits—which at the time were organized by object type, having, for example, halls of armour, dress, and so on—would be better organized by tribe. They felt that it was obvious that history was different from place to place, for instance, but that, because local events had little or no effect on broad evolutionary trends, they were not of scientific concern.
This perspective became known as cultural relativism. Merging relativism and cross-cultural comparison In Boas became curator of ethnology at the American Museum of Natural Historyand in he took a concurrent faculty position at Columbia University.
Wissler remained at the museum until his retirement in ; for much of this period, he held a concurrent position in anthropology at Yale University — Like Mason and Powell, he sought to expose the laws of culture and felt that this could not be accomplished except through comparative analyses.
Rather than submit to or perpetuate a scholarly agenda of which he disapproved, Wissler sought a method that would be widely acceptable to particularists while also reinserting cross-cultural analysis and its production of lawlike statements into anthropology.
He used 13 categories to organize his analysis of living cultures and related, but somewhat different, categories for ancient cultures: Wissler described and mapped the variation he found in each category.
The food areas map, for instance, indicated the boundaries within which a particular staple food dominated; he mapped regions, from the Arctic to Tierra del Fuego, in which caribou, salmon, bison, corn maizecassava maniocand guanaco each prevailed in turn.
Although it had been generally recognized that some traits generally co-occurred for instance, Native American bison hunters lived in the grasslands and commonly rode horses, wore leather clothes, eschewed ceramics, and so forthWissler was the first to recognize that patterns of coexisting traits were crucial to an understanding of innovation and diffusion.
Whereas Ratzel had described cultural variation over space and Mason and others had focused on the minutiae and comparison of individual traits, Wissler demonstrated the close relationship that particular cultural complexes shared with the boundaries of broad environmental zones such as temperate forests, grasslands, and deserts.
He combined the cultural and geographic patterns, defining 15 culture areas in North, Central, and South America. More important, Wissler then posited mechanisms for the diffusion and conservation of culture traits.Below is a list of online courses, hybrid courses, in-person courses, and distance learning courses offered by Online and Professional Studies organized by discipline.
miket June 13, I have often wondered about the inexplicably sudden spread of Christianity in the first century. It’s predominant initial purveyor is a Roman citizen (Saul of Tarsus) who suddenly converts from oppressor to militant enthusiast and proselytizer.
Saint James the Just (יעקב "Holder of the heel; supplanter"; Standard Hebrew Yaʿaqov, Tiberian Hebrew Yaʿăqōḇ, Greek Iάκωβος), also called James Adelphotheos, James, 1st Bishop of Jerusalem, or James, the Brother of the Lord and sometimes identified with James the Less, (died 62 C.E.) was an important figure in Early Christianity.
The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or Jesus ahistoricity theory) is "the view that the person known as Jesus of Nazareth had no historical existence." Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman as per his criticism of mythicism, "the historical Jesus did not exist.
Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity.".
From a general summary to chapter summaries to explanations of famous quotes, the SparkNotes Paul’s Case: A Study in Temperament Study Guide has everything you need to ace quizzes, tests, and essays. PAUL'S CASE A STUDY IN TEMPERAMENT BY They agreed with the faculty and with his father that Paul's was a bad case.
II. The east-bound train was plowing through a January snow-storm; the dull dawn was beginning to show gray, when the engine whistled a mile out of Newark.
Paul started up from the seat where he had lain curled in uneasy.