848 A merican A nthropologist [63, 19611

sis. I think this must be done in future comparative ethnohistorical treatments much more comprchensive and exhaustive than any so far attempted. Certainly he has pre- sented us, in this volume and in his other published work, an ordering of much valuable information which should be used as part of one’s orientation for the study of social change and interaction in the Southwest.

Ingalik Mental Culture. CORNELIUS OSGOOD. (Yale University Publications in Anthro- pology No. 56.) New Haven: Department of Anthropology, Yale University, 1959. 195 pp., appendices, 10 figures. $2.50.

Reviewed by EDMUND CARPENTER, Northridge, Califorizia

This third and final volume of Osgood’s reconstruction of the life of the Anvik- Shaeluk deals with the “mental culture” of this branch of the Athabaskan-speaking Ingalik. The earlier volumes described “material culture” and “social culture,” respec- tively. This three-fold division is not the traditional economy-society-religion one, but rather a very precise effort to clarify the nature of such data by correctly categorizing them. Thus, each volume is both an ethnographic report and a theoretical adventure.

Data often get overlaid by habit, becoming buried under the weight of familiar concepts and tradition. Sometimes an entirely fresh context is needed before their message shines clearly. The analytical method Osgood has chosen is not new, but he has applied it with unparalleled rigor. Material products, he notes, can be collected and behavior can be observed, but an informant’s memories about them are “mental cul- ture,” even though it is hoped his reconstruction is accurate. Moreover, Osgood argues, an informant’s ideas about objects and behavior should be distinguished from these objects and practices; the expression of ideas is perceptible, but the ideas themselves are not, e.g., the sound of speech can be perceived but not the ideational meanings or con- cepts it labels; and finally, ‘‘a clear distinction between non-empirical ideas about things and empirical ideas of things is essential,” e.g., the idea of the salmon and the idea “that salmon will run in larger numbers because the first to be caught is ceremonially treated.”

These and other distinctions bring his Ingalik data into sharp focus. Osgood has a superb command of words; he is a t all times clear, direct, and coldly analytical. His writings leave one with the impression of absolute accuracy. Yet, if I hesitate a t all in my praise of this very impressive study, it is because the reader never learns what it is to be human, to behave human, as an Ingalik. Precise, accurate details are preserved, but Ingalik patterns are ignored.

The problem of how to present ethnological data is one every ethnologist has to solve for himself. Osgood writes, “I . . . reserve the highest respect for those who review their basic assumptions most carefully.” The basic assumptions of his analytical approach derive, I believe, directly from book-culture, and have little relevance in a world shaped by electronic media, and little appeal to a generation whose mentors are Joyce, Klee, and Pound, not Darwin, Marx and Freud-a generation interested in pattern, not atomized detail, and seeking relevant approaches to deal with existing data, not more data.

However, this criticism is irrelevant to the question of whether Osgood accomplished what he set out to do. In terms of the goal he chose, the Ingalik studies are brilliant successes and will be regarded as monumental studies by those who favor such a goal.