One peculiarity of trait complexes is their frequent independent distribution over whole geographical areas instead of being peculiar to a single tribe. This condition necessitates a geographical classification for culture trait complexes as the initial task. From this as the point of departure, the anthropologist ap proaches the great problems of culture, viz., its origin, evolution and principles of distri bution. Here are to be found some of the most illuminating and stimulating studies of our subject; for example, the discussions of trait-complex diffusion from a single world centre in opposition to the view that such complexes were independently invented by many tribal groups. This applies particularly to the question as to whether the cultures the Spanish conquerors found in' aboriginal Mex ico and Peru were independently developed or derived directly from the Old World by mere diffusion. For these and many other enticing discussions, the reader must consult the special literature.
However, the mere question of culture dis tribution is not the whole story, for many cultures have arisen and died out, leaving be hind traces in the soil from which they can be partially reconstructed. The methods of investigating these extinct cultures constitute what is known as archeology. In fact the fundamental problem in culture as a whole is to work step by step from the existing cul tures to the earliest beginnings. The most complete data of this kind are from western Europe, where we find several great culture epochs with many subdivisions, as indicated in the accompanying tabulation: 1. Paleolithic Age (100,000-12,000?)• a. Pre-Chellean.
b. Chellean.
c. Acheulean.
d. Mousterian.
e. Aurignacian.
f. Solutrean.
g. Magdalenian.
h. Azylion.
2. Neolithic Age (?-2000 B.c.).
a. Campignian Culture (?-7,000 B.c.).
b. Swiss Lake Dweller Culture (7,000 3,000 B.c.).
c. Late Neolithic and Copper Culture (3,000-2,000 B.c.).
3. Bronze Age (2000-1000 B.c.).
4. Early Iron Age, or Hallstatt Culture (1000-500 B.C. ) • 5. Later Iron Age, or La Tine Culture (500 B.c.).
These early periods of culture in Europe have been exclusively the discoveries of an thropologists but those investigations that deal with the early fringes to the historic na tions such as Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylonia, etc., fall rather in the domain of the classical archeologist. The only other part of the world where extensive research of this kind has been attempted is North and South Amer ica, but the cultures of the New World peo ples were unknown before the voyages of Columbus. Hence we have here a closely unified problem because anthropologists can only begin with the cultures found and trace them backward by archeological methods. Somewhat less progress has been made here than in Europe, partly because the area to be covered is ever so much greater and partly because the conditions of investigation present more difficulties. Yet the chronology of the Maya of Yucatan has been established for dates 2,000 years ago; that of the Mexicans falls into three quite distinct periods, etc. Yet as compared with the sequences for Eur ope these are all recent, for there we can trace man back into the glacial period, while in the New World there is yet no good evi dence that man arrived until the close of the ice ages.
All these inquiries into the sequence of early cultures deal with geological and paleon tological questions, for if remains of man and his culture are found in association with the bones of extinct animals, we must appeal to the above sciences for aid in determining the age of such a deposit. Thus if we look back over this outline of what anthropology is we note that almost everywhere it brings to bear upon its problems data from other sciences. For this reason it may be considered a syn thetizing or co-ordinating science. See AR