Cd LASSIFICATIONS are basic in our teaching of geography. They are more or less logical simplifications to facilitate our understanding of the range and diversity of physical and human phenomena, and among the more common classifications to appear in our textbooks are those of rocks, strata, landforms, streams, climates, soils, vegetation, races, cultures, settlements, economies, and modes of life. Some classifications are spatial, some are divisions of time and some are both, but none are comprehensive. Thus, only a few elements may be used in a classification of climates, only a few factors of pedogenesis in a classification of soils, and in a classification of towns it is almost impossible to consider all the relevant features or factors in their evolution. Similarly, the migrations of pastoral nomads have been classified according to distances covered, periodicity, duration of departure, location, and type of livestock, as well as by combinations of these aspects. Which is the most satisfactory? Obviously classifications are intrinsically arbitrary. It is evident, moreover, that classifications of mankind are inevitably less satisfactory than those of factors in the physical environment because man is so dynamic. His mobility, adaptability, reasoning, and procreative powers have meant constant changes in his numbers, distribution, and social, economic, and political activities; and consequently human classifications, distributional or historical, have none of the apparent rigidity of those of the environment. Sometimes, therefore, it is not fully realized that a division of primitive economies into a few broad types, such as hunting and collecting, pastoral nomadism, and sedentary cultivation, masks many intermediate stages. Many modes of life do not fall into any of these categories because they involve varied activities. Some reflect a transition between two types, although one should be beware of the idea of a hierarchy of economic evolution, each step being necessary to all groups.
Read full abstract