{"title":"人类学中的“原始”与“本土”概念","authors":"E. Dozier","doi":"10.1086/yearanth.0.3031146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"thropological theory, because such views and the development of theory bear im? portant relations to one another. A sketch on field methods and techniques has also been included, again because the approach to field work appears largely to be the result of the specific concepts and attitudes that anthropologists have toward nonliter? ate societies. Finally, the terms \"primitive,\" \"native,\" and the like, are analyzed for their validity as descriptive and taxonomic designations and with reference to their reception by the public-at-large and the peoples so designated. The problem of terminological designa? tions for nonliterate societies is an espe? cially serious one. The fact that \"primitive,\" \"native,\" and similar terms are often placed within quotation marks indicates the shaky and unsure ground upon which they rest as designations for the societies which an? thropologists study. That these terms are not used in a definitive and precise fashion reflects the growing and changing science of anthropology and also a changing world situation. As a science grows and matures it revises and regulates its terminology. More appropriate terms, both in a descrip? tive and taxonomic sense, replace the older and less appropriate designations. Among anthropologists there is an increasing awareness that these terms are unsatisfac-","PeriodicalId":49351,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology","volume":"42 1","pages":"187 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1955-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Concepts of \\\"Primitive\\\" and \\\"Native\\\" in Anthropology\",\"authors\":\"E. Dozier\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/yearanth.0.3031146\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"thropological theory, because such views and the development of theory bear im? portant relations to one another. A sketch on field methods and techniques has also been included, again because the approach to field work appears largely to be the result of the specific concepts and attitudes that anthropologists have toward nonliter? ate societies. Finally, the terms \\\"primitive,\\\" \\\"native,\\\" and the like, are analyzed for their validity as descriptive and taxonomic designations and with reference to their reception by the public-at-large and the peoples so designated. The problem of terminological designa? tions for nonliterate societies is an espe? cially serious one. The fact that \\\"primitive,\\\" \\\"native,\\\" and similar terms are often placed within quotation marks indicates the shaky and unsure ground upon which they rest as designations for the societies which an? thropologists study. That these terms are not used in a definitive and precise fashion reflects the growing and changing science of anthropology and also a changing world situation. As a science grows and matures it revises and regulates its terminology. More appropriate terms, both in a descrip? tive and taxonomic sense, replace the older and less appropriate designations. Among anthropologists there is an increasing awareness that these terms are unsatisfac-\",\"PeriodicalId\":49351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"187 - 202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1955-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/yearanth.0.3031146\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/yearanth.0.3031146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Concepts of "Primitive" and "Native" in Anthropology
thropological theory, because such views and the development of theory bear im? portant relations to one another. A sketch on field methods and techniques has also been included, again because the approach to field work appears largely to be the result of the specific concepts and attitudes that anthropologists have toward nonliter? ate societies. Finally, the terms "primitive," "native," and the like, are analyzed for their validity as descriptive and taxonomic designations and with reference to their reception by the public-at-large and the peoples so designated. The problem of terminological designa? tions for nonliterate societies is an espe? cially serious one. The fact that "primitive," "native," and similar terms are often placed within quotation marks indicates the shaky and unsure ground upon which they rest as designations for the societies which an? thropologists study. That these terms are not used in a definitive and precise fashion reflects the growing and changing science of anthropology and also a changing world situation. As a science grows and matures it revises and regulates its terminology. More appropriate terms, both in a descrip? tive and taxonomic sense, replace the older and less appropriate designations. Among anthropologists there is an increasing awareness that these terms are unsatisfac-