One of Alfred C. Haddon’s most no-table achievements must be his fieldwork on the Torres Strait Islands. Based on fieldwork material, he illustrated the life history of designs in his book Evolution in Arts. In this book he mentioned that the study of art should be separated from the hu-man mind and personal preference. He suggested three basic rules: first,even the history of art fol-lows the rule of evolution,all the symbols,no mat-ter simple or complex,have an original source. Sec-ond,in order to explain why different tribes or cul-tures have the same symbols,anthropologists should make their conclusions based upon detailed materi-als and scientific methods. Third, bcause we can find the origin of art and the meaning of symbols by analyzing present symbols,simpler civilizations and cultures might be a good start. From these three rules,it is quite clear that Haddon wanted to sum-marize the life history of designs from fieldwork material. However,the main idea of this article is to uncover the hidden structure of this history, apart from evolutionism. In this way, not only is the change of the symbol’s meaning mentioned,but E-mile Durkheim’s and Marcel Mauss’ famous work Primitive Classification will also be compared in the following paragraphs. Alfred C. Haddon found that the “Line” and the “Curve” were the most basic designs in Papua New Guinea. He found that the use of different de-signs have a connection with geographical location. But how were they connected? And,how did local residents understand these designs? Haddon noted that even in these primitive cultures, the meaning of the symbols were not primitive. Those lines and curves were not as simple as we thought. Haddon believed that they all derived from the portrayal of local animals and plants. For instance,the polygo-nal line came from the description of the crocodile, and curves got their image from birds. In other words, before the images of specific animals or plants had been simplified, the line or curve did not have any decorative meaning. However, after that process, tribes did not choose their main de-signs based on the aesthetic preference,but on the meaning of that design. It was in this way the de-signs were entrusted with a life. And,the life histo-ry of designs referred to,in one specific culture,the process from an objective fact to the aesthetic con-cept,that is,from the collective memory to individ-ual preference. As Alfred C. Haddon tried to separate the study of art from individual preference, Emile Durkheim also held the idea that instead of it being a personal idea,the classification of ability also had its foundation in society. The fact is that before Primitive Classification, people had no idea where did they got the ability of classify. In Durkheim and Mauss’ opinion,this ability had a close connection with the process through which humans evolved a logical cognition to this society. By analyzing primi-tive classification in Australia and Papua New Guinea,they wanted to know how those people rec-ognized this world. In this way,the classification of thinking was an important prehistory history. Durkheim and Mauss mentioned two types of primitive classification. One of them was found mainly in Australia. For the first time, people in Australia classified human and nature features into different categories. This was based on their kinship system. However, after the introduction of affinity, the system became more complex,and the concept of hierarchy emerged. The other type was based on phratry and clan. This kind of system was more complete,and the entire universe was classified in-to each clan and their branches. Obviously more categories emerged,and what should be noticed is that,unlike the first kind,in this stage the rules of classification began to be forgotten. Although peo-ple still mentioned why something should be put into a specific category, the hierarchical relation-ships between different categories were not as clear as before. Did this system work in all the cultures? Durkheim and Mauss soon raised this question,and in Papua New Guinea, this kind of classification system can be found in local social institutions. In fact,local social institutions, as soon as they exis-ted,would also influence the classification system. As we have already mentioned, the hierarchy be-tween different categories was not clear any more, nor were the primitive structure and the classifica-tion rules. However although the system still exis-ted,the structure now turned to the many individu-al groups. The most complex and extreme type of classification was found among Zuni People. They used the principle of geography to replace the prin-ciple of kinship. In the former,the concept of totem played an important role in the classification. How-ever,the relationship was no longer connected with an awareness of nature, but with a mechanistic structure. In this way,we can find that at first,fea-tures were classified based on clan and totem,and the entire universe was classified in this way. This also led to the change of the individual mode of thinking. When the hierarchy of clan began to dis-appear, the principles of classification also changed. In Durkheim and Mauss’ ideas,no matter whether the principle changed or not,they all came from the society instead of from any other con-cepts. After contrasting these two books, we now would like to summarize the relationship between primitive classification and the life history of de-sign. We start with the life history of design. Had-don believed that all designs and arts got their im-age from utilitarian objects or existing creatures. As we mentioned before, designs were entrusted with life when they have meaning. The meaning may have relationship with nature,or maybe it also has a relationship with primitive religion. However,both the human mind and the religion became more complex. The meaning of designs was no longer clear,and this led to the last stage of a design, namely as a simple decoration. Nowadays, most of the designs ( in our culture ) are in the last stage;artists and individuals have forgotten the original meaning of the designs. However,there was no spe-cific meaning to take the place of the old one. Peo-ple use different designs as they like. We have to realize that both the analysis of designs and the research of classification systems have the same process. At the beginning, designs and the classification system were regarded as both abstract and from a personal aspect. And,no regu-lar laws could be found. We have already forgotten the original way to understand this world,just as we have forgotten the original meanings of symbols and designs. Secondly, as we can find from Haddon’s fieldwork material,he believed that all the designs can be traced back to an animal or a plant. Just like most primitive classification was based on clan and kinship relations,only after the rules of classi-fication and hierarchy became unclear, did the principles of classification turn from kinship to ge-ography. And now we can find a similar structure behind the life history of designs and the principles of classification. Although Alfred C. Haddon used“evolution” in the title of his book,it is not hard to discover that the history of life is not a simple evo-lutionary process,but is a process that involved not only evolution but also regression. The meaning of designs once became clear, and finally turned to being unclear. Only in the last stage did personal preference or individualism begin to play an impor-tant role. Both society and the collective memory lead to a relative stable way to understand the world and designs. However, they cannot be fixed since the design itself also changes. Nowadays,people choose to use different meanings to express personal inter-ests and uniqueness. However,this is just a special example of the structure. Although it is special, it still follows structure. Primitive classification was not totally different from the classification system used for science. They both derived from the way people understand the world in which they lived. Of course,the primitive classification system had more connection with collective emotion,while the scien-tific classification system used individual reflection to replace emotion. But, those we have experi-enced,no matter we still remember or not,still ex-isted in our whole classification system,perhaps in the form of myth or religion, and in our mode of thinking. To summarize,this article does not want mere-ly to illustrate the similar process between the life history of design and primitive classification,but it wants to analyze how early anthropological studies focused on “how did human civilization emerge”. In other words,the article wants to find the social history behind the life history of designs. This arti-cle also does not want to prove that a general de-velopment process exists, but it wants to uncover the process which goes from collective memory to individualism. Alfred C. Haddon, Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss, all their studies show that in primitive tribes,designs did not appear from noth-ing;they came from sensory experience about na-ture. However,when new concepts and culture were inserted into the designs,people began to forget the simple association. Finally, as the designs became more abstract, so did the mode of thinking of hu-mans. The fact is,this already forgotten process still exists in and acts upon our minds.