{"title":"扩散:传播与接受","authors":"W. Koppers","doi":"10.1086/yearanth.0.3031144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"lution.\"1 It is hardly necessary to say that evolution, thus understood, is very differ? ent from the organic evolution of natural history and that it means evolution due to human action and to the unfolding of all that the spirit of man has devised and the power of man has created. Evolution, thus defined, belongs to the realm of history. Are historically minded ethnologists justified in claiming the same principle for their own field? In other words: are the","PeriodicalId":49351,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1955-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diffusion: Transmission and Acceptance\",\"authors\":\"W. Koppers\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/yearanth.0.3031144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"lution.\\\"1 It is hardly necessary to say that evolution, thus understood, is very differ? ent from the organic evolution of natural history and that it means evolution due to human action and to the unfolding of all that the spirit of man has devised and the power of man has created. Evolution, thus defined, belongs to the realm of history. Are historically minded ethnologists justified in claiming the same principle for their own field? In other words: are the\",\"PeriodicalId\":49351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1955-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yearbook of Physical Anthropology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/yearanth.0.3031144\",\"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.0.3031144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
lution."1 It is hardly necessary to say that evolution, thus understood, is very differ? ent from the organic evolution of natural history and that it means evolution due to human action and to the unfolding of all that the spirit of man has devised and the power of man has created. Evolution, thus defined, belongs to the realm of history. Are historically minded ethnologists justified in claiming the same principle for their own field? In other words: are the
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
