INTRODUCTION<br >What do we mean when we talk about "primitive art" ? I am not aware of<br >my other term in anthropology or art history that has come under such<br >tisglmntled attack by people who feel that they should dissociate them-<br >;elves from it but still on some level wish to believe in its legitimacy. The<br >:esult has been a large number of definitions encumbered by extended<br >tisdaimers. C. A. Burland， for example， aware of arguments that had been<br >nade in the post-World War II years against the label "primitive，" stuck<br >~y it nonetheless， proclaiming that it "is wooly and inaccurate， but by<br >:onstant usage it has come to mean something which is widely understood"<br >Hooper and Burland 1953: 19). One scholarly discussion of the term<br >~pened with the remark， "We all feel qualms， I suppose， when we read or<br >lear about primitive art " (Claerhout et al. 1965: 432)， and a substantia<br >mmber of commentators seem to share the feeling of disappointment<br >~xpressed by Rent Huyghe of the Acad6mie franqaise， who noted that the<br >etm， although "partly justified . . . is no longer fashionable" (1973: 67).<br >:~ven in the late 1980s， many writers simply cannot get themselves to<br >tbandon either the term itself or the evolutionist connotations that perme-<br >tte it. H. W. Janson s widely used History of Art， newly revised in 1986，<br >s typical:<br > "Primitive" is a somewhat unfortunate word Still， no other<br > single term wi serve us better Let us continue， then， to use primitive<br > as a convenient label for a way of life that has passed through the<br > Neolithic Revolution but shows no signs of evolving in the direction of<br > "historic" civilizations. [ 1986: 35]<br >hegin by presenting two sets of definitions of "primitive art." The first<br >epresents fnrmulations with authenticated provenances; the second is a<br >