Abstract
This paper revisits a disagreement between two celebrated anthropologists concerning the ways native American groups established their territorial boundaries. A.L. Kroeber suggested that native peoples had fluid limits, with one group’s space blending into neighbouring territories. R.F. Heizer argued differently: that native peoples had clear borders around their territories, lines that unambiguously marked ownership and separated lands. The two different models of marking territory do not fit with what is known about the personalities of Kroeber and Heizer. In his academic and administrative affairs, Kroeber had a highly developed sense of property, propriety, and what constituted ‘crossing the line’. Heizer, on the other hand, was more flexible and liberal. This paper proposes a solution to the puzzle of why the two men adopted theoretical positions against character.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.