Bluelinking 2 books for verifiability.) #IABot (v2.1alpha2
|
Bluelink 1 book for verifiability.) #IABot (v2.0) (GreenC bot
|
||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
==== The Diffusion Controversy ==== |
==== The Diffusion Controversy ==== |
||
* [[Alexander Goldenweiser (anthropologist)|Alexander Goldenweiser]] in ''Culture: The Diffusion Controversy''<ref name="Goldenweiser=Notes">{{cite book|last=Goldenweiser|first=Alexander|title=Culture: The Diffusion Controversy|year=1927|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.|location=New York|oclc=1499530|pages=99–106}}</ref> stated that there are reasons for believing that culture is independent to other cultures that occur simultaneously. In addition, Goldenweiser insists that behavior is primitive and that similar cultures occur together due to the adaptive traits needed to survive. Goldenweiser disagrees with the theory of hyperdiffusionism, stating "culture is not contagious" (Goldenweiser 1927, 104) and the data for the theory fails to support it (Goldenweiser 1927. 100-106). |
* [[Alexander Goldenweiser (anthropologist)|Alexander Goldenweiser]] in ''Culture: The Diffusion Controversy''<ref name="Goldenweiser=Notes">{{cite book|last=Goldenweiser|first=Alexander|title=Culture: The Diffusion Controversy|url=https://archive.org/details/culturediffusion00smitrich|url-access=registration|year=1927|publisher=W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.|location=New York|oclc=1499530|pages=[https://archive.org/details/culturediffusion00smitrich/page/99 99–106]}}</ref> stated that there are reasons for believing that culture is independent to other cultures that occur simultaneously. In addition, Goldenweiser insists that behavior is primitive and that similar cultures occur together due to the adaptive traits needed to survive. Goldenweiser disagrees with the theory of hyperdiffusionism, stating "culture is not contagious" (Goldenweiser 1927, 104) and the data for the theory fails to support it (Goldenweiser 1927. 100-106). |
||
==Methods== |
==Methods== |
Hyperdiffusionism refers to hypotheses suggesting that certain historical technologies or ideas originated with a single people or civilization before their adoption by other cultures. Thus, all great civilizations that share similar cultural practices, such as construction of pyramids, derived them from a single common progenitor.[1] According to its proponents, examples of hyperdiffusion can be found in religious practices, cultural technologies, megalithic monuments, and lost ancient civilizations.
The idea of hyperdiffusionism differs in several ways from trans-cultural diffusion, one being that hyperdiffusionism is usually not testable due to its pseudo-scientific nature (Williams 1991, 255-156). Additionally, unlike trans-cultural diffusion, hyperdiffusionism does not use trading and cultural networks to explain the expansion of a society within a single culture; instead, hyperdiffusionists claim that all major cultural innovations and societies derive from one (usually lost) ancient civilization (Williams 1991, 224-232). Ergo, the Tucson artifacts derive from Ancient Rome, carried by the "Romans who came across the Atlantic and then overland to Arizona;" this is believed because the artifacts resembled known ancient Roman artifacts (Williams 1991, 246).
These three authors describe hyperdiffusionism as the driving force behind the apparent cultural similarities and population distribution among all civilizations. Hapgood's hypothesis states that one specific civilization is responsible for similar cultural practices in all other civilizations. Smith says that religions are proof of hyperdiffusionism, as similar worship ceremonies and symbols recur in geographically separated societies. Also, Smith believes that the Earth's population is made up of six types of humans, who diffused across the Earth's continents by virtue of their skin color (Smith 1931, 47-48). Finally, Fell asserts that ancient mariners, such as Druids and Phoenicians, traveled from Europe and comprised the early population of ancient America.
Carl Whiting Bishop in the 1930s and the 1940s produced a series of articles arguing hyperdiffusionism in explaining the expansion of technology into China. Among the scholars influenced by Bishop were Owen Lattimore, who was intrigued by Bishop's emphasis on geography as a shaping factor in Chinese civilization and his emphasis on field work rather than library research.[6]