かならず よんでください

エドワード・バーネット・タイラー

Edward Burnett Tylor, 1832-1917

エドワード・バーネット・タイラー

解説：池田光穂

Classification and criticisms
 The word evolution is forever associated in the popular mind with Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, which professes, among other things, that man as a species developed diachronically from some ancestor among the Primates who was also ancestor to the Great Apes, as they are popularly termed, and yet this term was not a neologism of Darwin’s. He took it from the cultural milieu, where it meant etymologically "unfolding" of something heterogeneous and complex from something simpler and more homogeneous. Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin, applied the term to the universe, including philosophy and what Tylor would later call culture.[12] This view of the universe was generally termed evolutionism, while its exponents were evolutionists.[13]

In 1871 Tylor published Primitive Culture, becoming the originator of cultural anthropology.[14] His methods were comparative and historical ethnography. He believed that a "uniformity" was manifest in culture, which was the result of "uniform action of uniform causes." He regarded his instances of parallel ethnographic concepts and practices as indicative of "laws of human thought and action." He was an evolutionist. The task of cultural anthropology therefore is to discover "stages of development or evolution."

Evolutionism was distinguished from another creed, diffusionism, postulating the spread of items of culture from regions of innovation. A given apparent parallelism thus had at least two explanations: the instances descend from an evolutionary ancestor, or they are alike because one diffused into the culture from elsewhere.[15] These two views are exactly parallel to the tree model and wave model of historical linguistics, which are instances of evolutionism and diffusionism, language features being instances of culture.

Two other classifications were proposed in 1993 by Upadhyay and Pandey,[16] Classical Evolutionary School and Neo Evolutionary School, the Classical to be divided into British, American, and German. The Classical British Evolutionary School, primarily at Oxford University, divided society into two evolutionary stages, savagery and civilization, based on the archaeology of John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury. Upadhyay and Pandey list its adherents as Robert Ranulph Marett, Henry James Sumner Maine, John Ferguson McLennan, and James George Frazer, as well as Tylor.[17] Marett was the last man standing, dying in 1943. By the time of his death, Lubbock's archaeology had been updated. The American School, beginning with Lewis Henry Morgan,[18] was likewise superseded, both being replaced by the Neoevolutionist School, beginning with V. Gordon Childe. It brought the archaeology up-to-date and tended to omit the intervening society names, such as savagery; for example, Neolithic is both a tool tradition and a form of society.

There are some other classifications. Theorists of each classification each have their own criticisms of the Classical/Neo Evolutionary lines, which despite them remains the dominant view. Some criticisms are in brief as follows.[19] There is really no universality; that is, the apparent parallels are accidental, on which the theorist has imposed a model that does not really fit. There is no uniform causality, but different causes might produce similar results. All cultural groups do not have the same stages of development. The theorists are arm-chair anthropologists; their data is insufficient to form realistic abstractions. They overlooked cultural diffusion. They overlooked cultural innovation. None of the critics claim definitive proof that their criticisms are less subjective or interpretive than the models they criticise.
Culture
 Tylor's notion is best described in his most famous work, the two-volume Primitive Culture. The first volume, The Origins of Culture, deals with ethnography including social evolution, linguistics, and myth. The second volume, Religion in Primitive Culture, deals mainly with his interpretation of animism.

On the first page of Primitive Culture, Tylor provides a definition which is one of his most widely recognised contributions to anthropology and the study of religion:[20]

Culture or Civilization, taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.

— Tylor[21]
Also, the first chapter of the work gives an outline of a new discipline, science of culture, later known as culturology.[22]
Universals
 Unlike many of his predecessors and contemporaries, Tylor asserts that the human mind and its capabilities are the same globally, despite a particular society's stage in social evolution.[23] This means that a hunter-gatherer society would possess the same amount of intelligence as an advanced industrial society. The difference, Tylor asserts, is education, which he considers the cumulative knowledge and methodology that takes thousands of years to acquire. Tylor often likens primitive cultures to "children", and sees culture and the mind of humans as progressive. His work was a refutation of the theory of social degeneration, which was popular at the time.[7] At the end of Primitive Culture, Tylor writes, "The science of culture is essentially a reformers' science."[24]
Tylor's evolutionism
 In 1881 Tylor published a work he called Anthropology, one of the first under that name. In the first chapter he uttered what would become a sort of constitutional statement for the new field, which he could not know and did not intend at the time:

"History, so far as it reaches back, shows arts, sciences, and political institutions beginning in ruder states, and becoming in the course of ages, more intelligent, more systematic, more perfectly arranged or organized, to answer their purposes."

— Tylor 1881, p. 15
The view was a restatement of ideas first innovated in the early 1860s. The theorist perhaps most influential on Tylor was John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury, innovator of the terminology, "Paleolithic" and "Neolithic." A prominent banker and British liberal Parliamentarian, he was imbued with a passion for archaeology. The initial concepts of prehistory were his. Lubbock's works featured prominently in Tylor's lectures and in the Pitt Rivers Museum subsequently.
Survivals
 A term ascribed to Tylor was his theory of "survivals". His definition of survivals is

processes, customs, and opinions, and so forth, which have been carried on by force of habit into a new state of society different from that in which they had their original home, and they thus remain as proofs and examples of an older condition of culture out of which a newer has been evolved.

— Tylor[25]
"Survivals" can include outdated practices, such as the European practice of bloodletting, which lasted long after the medical theories on which it was based had faded from use and been replaced by more modern techniques.[26] Critics argued that he identified the term but provided an insufficient reason as to why survivals continue. Tylor's meme-like concept of survivals explains the characteristics of a culture that are linked to earlier stages of human culture.[27]

Studying survivals assists ethnographers in reconstructing earlier cultural characteristics and possibly reconstructing the evolution of culture.[28]
Evolution of religion
 Tylor argued that people had used religion to explain things that occurred in the world.[29] He saw that it was important for religions to have the ability to explain why and for what reason things occurred in the world.[30] For example, God (or the divine) gave us sun to keep us warm and give us light. Tylor argued that animism is the true natural religion that is the essence of religion; it answers the questions of which religion came first and which religion is essentially the most basic and foundation of all religions.[30] For him, animism was the best answer to these questions, so it must be the true foundation of all religions. Animism is described as the belief in spirits inhabiting and animating beings, or souls existing in things.[30] To Tylor, the fact that modern religious practitioners continued to believe in spirits showed that these people were no more advanced than primitive societies.[31] For him, this implied that modern religious practitioners do not understand the ways of the universe and how life truly works because they have excluded science from their understanding of the world.[31] By excluding scientific explanation in their understanding of why and how things occur, he asserts modern religious practitioners are rudimentary. Tylor perceived the modern religious belief in God as a "survival" of primitive ignorance.[31] However, Tylor did not believe that atheism was the logical end of cultural and religious development, but instead a highly minimalist form of monotheist deism. Tylor thus posited an anthropological description of "the gradual elimination of paganism" and disenchantment, but not secularization.[32]
宗教の進化
 タイラーは、人々は世界で起こったことを説明するために宗教を利用して きたと主張した。彼は、宗教には、世界で起こる物事がなぜ、何のために起こるのかを説明する能力があることが重要であると考えた。例えば、神が太陽を与え てくれたのは、私たちを暖かくし、光を与えてくれるためである。タイラーは、アニミズムこそが宗教の本質である真の自然宗教であり、どの宗教が最初に来た のか、どの宗教が本質的にすべての宗教の最も基本的で基礎的なものであるのかという疑問に答えるものであると主張した。彼にとってアニミズムは、これらの 問いに対する最良の答えであり、だからこそ、すべての宗教の真の基礎であることは真実にちがいない。アニミズムとは、存在に魂が宿り、生きているという信 仰、あるいは物に魂が存在するという信仰と説明される。タイラーは、現代の宗教家たちが霊を信じ続けていることは、彼らが原始社会よりも進歩していないこ とを示していると考えた。このことは、現代の宗教家は科学を排除しているために、宇宙の仕組みや生命の本質を理解していないことを意味する。物事がなぜ、 どのように起こるのかを理解する上で科学的な説明を排除することにより、現代の宗教家は初歩的な存在であると主張している。タイラーは、現代の宗教的な神 への信仰は、原始的な無知の「生き残り」であると認識していた。しかし、タイラーは、無神論が文化的・宗教的発展の論理的な終着点であるとは考えず、一神 教的な神道の高度にミニマムな形態であると考えていた。このように、タイラーは「異教の漸進的排除」と関心の衰退という人類学的記述を提起したが、だがそ れらは世俗化ではない。
アニミズム
 人類学におけるアニミズム （animism）は、 一九世紀の文化進化主義人類学者エドワード・B・タイラーが名付けたものが標準となっている。しかし彼の著書『未開文化（Primitive Culture）』においては、その語源は一七世紀のフロギストン派の化学者ゲオルグ・シュタールの生気論に由来すると述べている（Tylor 1903:425-426）。生気論は唯物論に対立する考え方で、あらゆる生命体はたんなる物質から成り立っているのではなく生命の「気（アニマ）」—— 魂とも訳されるが物理的な気体というよりも物質的な根拠をもたない生気のような概念である——が不可欠だとする思想である。アリストテレスの古典『霊魂 論』のラテン語のタイトルは「デ・アニマ（De anima, アニマ＝魂について）」という。さてタイラーは、スピリチュアリズムがその代表だとしているが、アニミズムは——彼の言い方によると、いわゆるより古くか らの「低級の人類」から文明人のあいだにも見られる——普遍的な人間的特質と考えているようだ。タイラーによると、宗教はこのようなアニミズムみられる自 然崇拝から死者崇拝や呪物崇拝（フェティシズム）を経て多神教になり、そして最後に一神教へ進化したのではないかと考えた。ここでのポイントは、アニミズ ムは原始的な心性であるが、現代人にも共有するものだとしたことである。と言ってもタイラーが経験したのは一九世紀終わりから二〇世紀初頭が現代にほかな らないので、彼がいう現代人は、現在の我々が知るICTのテクノロジーからおよそほど遠い今から百年前の人びとであり、アニミニズムは彼らの心性であるこ とを押さえておこう。
マナ
 マナは、もともと1891年にコドリントン（Robert Henry Codrington, 1830-1922）により紹介されたメラネシアの宗 教概念を理解するための用語。コドリントンによると、死霊（＝死人の幽霊）や死んだ人のたましい（魂）には、多くのマナが含まれる。その ために（物理的な力以外で）生きている人を苦しめたり、場合によっては助けたりする。なぜなら、死霊や魂はちから、つまりマナをもっているからなのだと 説明される。
マナイズム
 コドリントンよりも後進のマレット（Robert Ranulph Marett, 1866-1943）は、アニミズム理論（animatist theory）の特殊なものをマナイズム（マナ信仰，“Manaism”）と名づけようと提唱しました。なぜなら世界中の「原始的あるいは未開（ともに primitive）」な人たちは、生きている＝活力のあるようにみえるもの、あるいはそうでないものの全ての事物がもつ、個人を超えた（非人格的な）力 つまり物体化されていない超自然的な力を信じているからだと彼（＝マレット）は考えました。それらの力は、結局のところ、物理的な力で表現される（例：モ ノが壊れる、天災がおこる、飢饉になる、人が傷病する）のですが、それを起こすちから（力）は、物理的なものを超えている（＝「超自然, supernatural」の言葉の本来の意味）と「未開人」は考えているのではないか。マレットは、そのようにマナイズムの説明をするのに仮説をたてま した。
トー テミズム
 ある社会がいくつかの集団に分かれ、各々の集団とひとつないしは複数の 動物や植物、ときには人工的なものや動 物の一部などと特別な関連があるとする宗教形態がみられる時、それをトーテミズム（totemism）と呼ぶ。トーテミズムはフランス語の発音では濁 らずトーテミスムと呼ばれることがありますが、ともに同じものである。したがってトーテミズムは特定の宗教やイデオロギーをさすのではなく、あるパターン をもつ宗教形態をさす分析 概念である。トーテミズムはスコットランドの法学者マクレナン（John Ferguson McLennan, 1827-1881）が19世紀の中ごろに、進化主 義の立場から結婚の原理を人類学的に説明するための概念として、はじめて定式化しました（→「法の人類学入門 」）。
Sir James George Frazer, 1854-1941

 ジェームズ・ジョージ・フレーザー；
Andrew Lang, 1844-1912

 アンドルー・ラング; Andrew Lang FBA (31 March 1844 – 20 July 1912) was a Scottish poet, novelist, literary critic, and contributor to the field of anthropology. He is best known as a collector of folk and fairy tales. The Andrew Lang lectures at the University of St Andrews are named after him.
Robert Henry Codrington, 1830-1922



 Robert Henry Codrington (15 September 1830, Wroughton, Wiltshire – 11 September 1922)[1] was an Anglican priest and anthropologist who made the first study of Melanesian society and culture. His work is still held as a classic of ethnography. Codrington wrote, "One of the first duties of a missionary is to try to understand the people among whom he works,"[2] and he himself reflected a deep commitment to this value. Codrington worked as headmaster of the Melanesian Mission school on Norfolk Island from 1867 to 1887.[1] Over his many years with the Melanesian people, he gained a deep knowledge of their society, languages, and customs through a close association with them. He also intensively studied "Melanesian languages", including the Mota language.[1]
Robert Ranulph Marett, 1866-1943

 Robert Ranulph Marett (13 June 1866 – 18 February 1943) was a British ethnologist and a proponent of the British Evolutionary School of cultural anthropology. Founded by Marett's older colleague, Edward Burnett Tylor, it asserted that modern primitive societies provide evidence for phases in the evolution of culture, which it attempted to recapture via comparative and historical methods. Marett focused primarily on the anthropology of religion. Studying the evolutionary origin of religions, he modified Tylor's animistic theory to include the concept of mana. Marett's anthropological teaching and writing career at Oxford University spanned the early 20th century before World War Two. He trained many notable anthropologists. He was a colleague of John Myres, and through him, studied Aegean archaeology.
William Robertson Smith, 1846-1894

タイラーの文化概念の継承をしたのは、英国においては『人類学におけるノートと質問（Notes and Queries on anthropology）』という 人類学調査ハンドブック（タイラーじしんも執筆者の一人です）や、アメリカ合州国のジョージ・ペーター・マードックと、彼に関連する一連の学派のプロジェ クト（HRAF, Human Relations Area Files:フラーフと呼ばれます）などです。

英国の機能主義の伝統においては、マリ ノフスキー（1922）は『人類学のノートと質問』に対しては懐疑的かつ批判的であったのに対して、ラドクリフ＝ブラウンや彼がアメリカ合州国で教鞭（1931-37）をとってい たシカゴ大学社会学部では、その枚挙的な文化項目の情報の蓄積に関心をもつことを、学生に勧めており、この方法論が（どちらかというと）重視されていまし た。

Copyleft, CC, Mitzub'ixi Quq Chi'j, 1996-2099

池田蛙　　授業蛙　　電脳蛙　　医人蛙　　子供蛙