new culture is spreading to other peoples, it will be seen that the old culture does not become lost without trace in the life of the people just because new elements find their way in and old customs die out.
Is it then quite incorrect to say that culture complexes as such can be spread? To assert this would be impossible. Certain elements are often so closely connected with each other that their existence is mutually dependent upon each other, and in such cases they will undoubtedly spread in company. As far as the Eskimos are concerned, we need merely think of whaling and the appurtenant skin-boats, harpoons and taboo rules, or, further south in North America, all the elements connected with the horse in the plains culture. But however true this is, just as truly does Father Schmidt shoot over the mark by asserting that the chain once made between the elements of a culture become perpetual, "weil eben kein Teil weggelassen werden konnte, ohne ein wesentliches Bedürfniss zu schädigen; sie hielt deshalb auch überall dort an, wohin der Kulturkreis auf seinen Wanderungen gelangte und sich dann niederliess".[1]
How incorrect this is may best be seen in prehistorical archæology. In our Bronze Age, Denmark went through a period of cultural prosperity in comparison with the surrounding countries such as it perhaps never experienced before or since, but which, for the greater part of the elements, was built upon the culture round the eastern Mediterranean. Nevertheless we have neither Egyptian nor Minoan culture in this country, and any attempt to transfer classic culture classifications to it leads to pure nonsense. Still more striking are the excavations of settlements during the past few years, which have shown that during the whole of the Bronze Age, with its nobly formed bronze objects and refined art, the working of flint for implements of daily use continued; this is also true of Switzerland and even more so as regards Norway.
Thus speak the archæological facts and, in reality, the reasons are not difficult to understand. It must be remembered that that which Father Schmidt calls an essential requirement is only essential under very definite, geographical circumstances. What is necessary to life on the shores of the Mediterranean is not necessary by the Baltic, where on the other hand there are other requirements. For this reason a culture can never, quite unaltered, go beyond a natural, geographical boundary.[2] If we do not take this into consideration, we arrive at results similar to Father Schmidt's, who groups together such culturally heterogeneous peoples as certain Australians, Fiji Islanders,
