Anthropology 

is the scientific study of humanity, concerned with human behavior, human biology,

and societies, in both the present and past, including past human species.[1][2][3] Social
anthropology studies patterns of behaviour, while cultural anthropology[1][2][3] studies cultural meaning,
including norms and values. Linguistic anthropology studies how language influences social
life. Biological or physical anthropology[1][2][3] studies the biological development of humans. Visual
anthropology, which is usually considered to be a part of social anthropology, can mean
both ethnographic film (where photography, film, and new media are used for study) as well as the
study of "visuals", including art, visual images, cinema etc. Oxford Bibliographies describes visual
anthropology as "the anthropological study of the visual and the visual study of the anthropological".
[4]

Archaeology, which studies human activity through investigation of physical evidence, is considered
a branch of anthropology in the United States and Canada, while in Europe it is viewed as a
discipline in its own right or grouped under other related disciplines, such as history. A key
distinguishing factor between archeology and anthropology is the focus on analyzing material
remains in archaeology.[5]

Contents

 1Origin and development of the term

o 1.1Through the 19th century
o 1.220th and 21st centuries
 2Fields
o 2.1Sociocultural
o 2.2Biological
o 2.3Archaeological
o 2.4Linguistic
 3Key topics by field: sociocultural
o 3.1Art, media, music, dance and film
 3.1.1Art
 3.1.2Media
 3.1.3Music
 3.1.4Visual
o 3.2Economic, political economic, applied and development
 3.2.1Economic
 3.2.2Political economy
 3.2.3Applied
 3.2.4Development
o 3.3Kinship, feminism, gender and sexuality
 3.3.1Kinship
 3.3.2Feminist
o 3.4Medical, nutritional, psychological, cognitive and transpersonal
 3.4.1Medical
 3.4.2Nutritional
 3.4.3Psychological
 3.4.4Cognitive
 3.4.5Transpersonal
o 3.5Political and legal
 3.5.1Political
  3.5.2Legal
 3.5.3Public
o 3.6Nature, science, and technology
 3.6.1Cyborg
 3.6.2Digital
 3.6.3Ecological
o 3.7Historical
o 3.8Religion
o 3.9Urban
 4Key topics by field: archaeological and biological
o 4.1Anthrozoology
o 4.2Biocultural
o 4.3Evolutionary
o 4.4Forensic
o 4.5Palaeoanthropology
 5Organizations
o 5.1List of major organizations
 6Ethics
o 6.1Cultural relativism
o 6.2Military involvement
 7Post–World War II developments
o 7.1Basic trends
o 7.2Commonalities between fields
 8See also
 9Notes
 10References
 11Further reading
o 11.1Dictionaries and encyclopedias
o 11.2Fieldnotes and memoirs
o 11.3Histories
o 11.4Textbooks and key theoretical works
 12External links

Origin and development of the term[edit]

Bernardino de Sahagún is considered to be the founder of modern anthropology.[6]

Main article: History of anthropology

The abstract noun anthropology is first attested in reference to history.[7][n 1] Its present use first
appeared in Renaissance Germany in the works of Magnus Hundt and Otto Casmann.[8] Their New
Latin anthropologia derived from the combining forms of the Greek words ánthrōpos (ἄνθρωπος,
"human") and lógos (λόγος, "study").[7] (Its adjectival form appeared in the works of Aristotle.)[7] It
began to be used in English, possibly via French Anthropologie, by the early 18th century.[7][n 2]

Through the 19th century[edit]

In 1647, the Bartholins, founders of the University of Copenhagen, defined l'anthropologie as follows:
[9]

Anthropology, that is to say the science that treats of man, is divided ordinarily and with reason into
Anatomy, which considers the body and the parts, and Psychology, which speaks of the soul.[n 3]
Sporadic use of the term for some of the subject matter occurred subsequently, such as the use
by Étienne Serres in 1839 to describe the natural history, or paleontology, of man, based on
comparative anatomy, and the creation of a chair in anthropology and ethnography in 1850 at
the French National Museum of Natural History by Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Bréau.
Various short-lived organizations of anthropologists had already been formed. The Société
Ethnologique de Paris, the first to use Ethnology, was formed in 1839. Its members were primarily
anti-slavery activists. When slavery was abolished in France in 1848 the Société was abandoned.
Meanwhile, the Ethnological Society of New York, currently the American Ethnological Society, was
founded on its model in 1842, as well as the Ethnological Society of London in 1843, a break-away
group of the Aborigines' Protection Society.[10] These anthropologists of the times were liberal, anti-
slavery, and pro-human-rights activists. They maintained international connections.
Anthropology and many other current fields are the intellectual results of the comparative methods
developed in the earlier 19th century. Theorists in such diverse fields as anatomy, linguistics,
and Ethnology, making feature-by-feature comparisons of their subject matters, were beginning to
suspect that similarities between animals, languages, and folkways were the result of processes or
laws unknown to them then.[11] For them, the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of
Species was the epiphany of everything they had begun to suspect. Anthropologists generally
regard Herodotus, a Greek historian who lived in the 400s bc, as the first thinker to write widely on
concepts that would later become central to anthropology.
Darwin and Wallace unveiled evolution in the late 1850s. There was an immediate rush to bring it
into the social sciences. Paul Broca in Paris was in the process of breaking away from the Société
de biologie to form the first of the explicitly anthropological societies, the Société d'Anthropologie de
Paris, meeting for the first time in Paris in 1859.[12][n 4] When he read Darwin, he became an immediate
convert to Transformisme, as the French called evolutionism.[13] His definition now became "the study
of the human group, considered as a whole, in its details, and in relation to the rest of nature".[14]
Broca, being what today would be called a neurosurgeon, had taken an interest in the pathology of
speech. He wanted to localize the difference between man and the other animals, which appeared to
reside in speech. He discovered the speech center of the human brain, today called Broca's
area after him. His interest was mainly in Biological anthropology, but a German philosopher
specializing in psychology, Theodor Waitz, took up the theme of general and social anthropology in
his six-volume work, entitled Die Anthropologie der Naturvölker, 1859–1864. The title was soon
translated as "The Anthropology of Primitive Peoples". The last two volumes were published
posthumously.
Waitz defined anthropology as "the science of the nature of man". Following Broca's lead, Waitz
points out that anthropology is a new field, which would gather material from other fields, but would
differ from them in the use of comparative anatomy, physiology, and psychology to differentiate man
from "the animals nearest to him". He stresses that the data of comparison must be empirical,
gathered by experimentation.[15] The history of civilization, as well as ethnology, are to be brought into
the comparison. It is to be presumed fundamentally that the species, man, is a unity, and that "the
same laws of thought are applicable to all men".[16]
Waitz was influential among the British ethnologists. In 1863 the explorer Richard Francis
Burton and the speech therapist James Hunt broke away from the Ethnological Society of London to
form the Anthropological Society of London, which henceforward would follow the path of the new
anthropology rather than just ethnology. It was the 2nd society dedicated to general anthropology in
existence. Representatives from the French Société were present, though not Broca. In his keynote
address, printed in the first volume of its new publication, The Anthropological Review, Hunt
stressed the work of Waitz, adopting his definitions as a standard.[17][n 5] Among the first associates
were the young Edward Burnett Tylor, inventor of cultural anthropology, and his brother Alfred Tylor,
a geologist. Previously Edward had referred to himself as an ethnologist; subsequently, an
anthropologist.
Similar organizations in other countries followed: The Anthropological Society of Madrid (1865),
the American Anthropological Association in 1902, the Anthropological Society of Vienna (1870), the
Italian Society of Anthropology and Ethnology (1871), and many others subsequently. The majority
of these were evolutionist. One notable exception was the Berlin Society for Anthropology,
Ethnology, and Prehistory (1869) founded by Rudolph Virchow, known for his vituperative attacks on
the evolutionists. Not religious himself, he insisted that Darwin's conclusions lacked empirical
foundation.
During the last three decades of the 19th century, a proliferation of anthropological societies and
associations occurred, most independent, most publishing their own journals, and all international in
membership and association. The major theorists belonged to these organizations. They supported
the gradual osmosis of anthropology curricula into the major institutions of higher learning. By 1898,
48 educational institutions in 13 countries had some curriculum in anthropology. None of the 75
faculty members were under a department named anthropology.[18]
20th and 21st centuries[edit]
This meager statistic expanded in the 20th century to comprise anthropology departments in the
majority of the world's higher educational institutions, many thousands in number. Anthropology has
diversified from a few major subdivisions to dozens more. Practical anthropology, the use of
anthropological knowledge and technique to solve specific problems, has arrived; for example, the
presence of buried victims might stimulate the use of a forensic archaeologist to recreate the final
scene. The organization has reached global level. For example, the World Council of
Anthropological Associations (WCAA), "a network of national, regional and international associations
that aims to promote worldwide communication and cooperation in anthropology", currently contains
members from about three dozen nations.[19]
Since the work of Franz Boas and Bronisław Malinowski in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, social anthropology in Great Britain and cultural anthropology in the US have been
distinguished from other social sciences by their emphasis on cross-cultural comparisons, long-term
in-depth examination of context, and the importance they place on participant-observation or
experiential immersion in the area of research. Cultural anthropology, in particular, has
emphasized cultural relativism, holism, and the use of findings to frame cultural critiques.[20] This has
been particularly prominent in the United States, from Boas' arguments against 19th-century
racial ideology, through Margaret Mead's advocacy for gender equality and sexual liberation, to
current criticisms of post-colonial oppression and promotion of multiculturalism. Ethnography is one
of its primary research designs as well as the text that is generated from anthropological fieldwork.[21]
[22][23]

In Great Britain and the Commonwealth countries, the British tradition of social anthropology tends
to dominate. In the United States, anthropology has traditionally been divided into the four field
approach developed by Franz Boas in the early 20th
century: biological or physical anthropology; social, cultural, or sociocultural anthropology;
and archaeology; plus anthropological linguistics. These fields frequently overlap but tend to use
different methodologies and techniques.
European countries with overseas colonies tended to practice more ethnology (a term coined and
defined by Adam F. Kollár in 1783). It is sometimes referred to as sociocultural anthropology in the
parts of the world that were influenced by the European tradition.[24]

Fields[edit]
Further information: American anthropology
Anthropology is a global discipline involving humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.
Anthropology builds upon knowledge from natural sciences, including the discoveries about the
origin and evolution of Homo sapiens, human physical traits, human behavior, the variations among
different groups of humans, how the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens has influenced its social
organization and culture, and from social sciences, including the organization of human social and
cultural relations, institutions, social conflicts, etc.[25][26] Early anthropology originated in Classical
Greece and Persia and studied and tried to understand observable cultural diversity, such as by Al-
Biruni of the Islamic Golden Age.[27][28] As such, anthropology has been central in the development of
several new (late 20th century) interdisciplinary fields such as cognitive science,[29] global studies,
and various ethnic studies.
According to Clifford Geertz,
"anthropology is perhaps the last of the great nineteenth-century conglomerate disciplines still for the
most part organizationally intact. Long after natural history, moral philosophy, philology, and political
economy have dissolved into their specialized successors, it has remained a diffuse assemblage of
ethnology, human biology, comparative linguistics, and prehistory, held together mainly by the
vested interests, sunk costs, and administrative habits of academia, and by a romantic image of
comprehensive scholarship."[30]
Sociocultural anthropology has been heavily influenced by structuralist and postmodern theories, as
well as a shift toward the analysis of modern societies. During the 1970s and 1990s, there was
an epistemological shift away from the positivist traditions that had largely informed the discipline.[31]
[page  needed]
 During this shift, enduring questions about the nature and production of knowledge came to
occupy a central place in cultural and social anthropology. In contrast, archaeology and biological
anthropology remained largely positivist. Due to this difference in epistemology, the four sub-fields of
anthropology have lacked cohesion over the last several decades.

Sociocultural[edit]
Main articles: Cultural anthropology, Social anthropology, and Sociocultural anthropology
Sociocultural anthropology draws together the principle axes of cultural anthropology and social
anthropology. Cultural anthropology is the comparative study of the manifold ways in which
people make sense of the world around them, while social anthropology is the study of
the relationships among individuals and groups.[32] Cultural anthropology is more related
to philosophy, literature and the arts (how one's culture affects the experience for self and group,
contributing to a more complete understanding of the people's knowledge, customs, and institutions),
while social anthropology is more related to sociology and history.[32] In that, it helps develop an
understanding of social structures, typically of others and other populations (such as minorities,
subgroups, dissidents, etc.). There is no hard-and-fast distinction between them, and these
categories overlap to a considerable degree.
Inquiry in sociocultural anthropology is guided in part by cultural relativism, the attempt to
understand other societies in terms of their own cultural symbols and values.[21] Accepting other
cultures in their own terms moderates reductionism in cross-cultural comparison.[33] This project is
often accommodated in the field of ethnography. Ethnography can refer to both a methodology and
the product of ethnographic research, i.e. an ethnographic monograph. As a methodology,
ethnography is based upon long-term fieldwork within a community or other research
site. Participant observation is one of the foundational methods of social and cultural anthropology.
[34]
 Ethnology involves the systematic comparison of different cultures. The process of participant-
observation can be especially helpful to understanding a culture from an emic (conceptual, vs. etic,
or technical) point of view.
The study of kinship and social organization is a central focus of sociocultural anthropology, as
kinship is a human universal. Sociocultural anthropology also covers economic and political
organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, material culture,
technology, infrastructure, gender relations, ethnicity, childrearing and socialization, religion, myth,
symbols, values, etiquette, worldview, sports, music, nutrition, recreation, games, food, festivals, and
language (which is also the object of study in linguistic anthropology).
Comparison across cultures is a key element of method in sociocultural anthropology, including the
industrialized (and de-industrialized) West. The Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) includes
186 such cultures.[35]

Biological[edit]
Main article: Biological anthropology
Forensic anthropologists can help identify skeletonized human remains, such as these found lying in scrub in
Western Australia, c. 1900–1910.

Biological anthropology and physical anthropology are synonymous terms to describe

anthropological research focused on the study of humans and non-human primates in their
biological, evolutionary, and demographic dimensions. It examines the biological and social factors
that have affected the evolution of humans and other primates, and that generate, maintain or
change contemporary genetic and physiological variation.[36]

Archaeological[edit]
Main article: Archaeology
Archaeology is the study of the human past through its material remains. Artifacts, faunal remains,
and human altered landscapes are evidence of the cultural and material lives of past societies.
Archaeologists examine material remains in order to deduce patterns of past human behavior and
cultural practices. Ethnoarchaeology is a type of archaeology that studies the practices and material
remains of living human groups in order to gain a better understanding of the evidence left behind by
past human groups, who are presumed to have lived in similar ways.[37]

The Rosetta Stone was an example of ancient communication.

Linguistic[edit]
Main article: Linguistic anthropology
Linguistic anthropology (not to be confused with anthropological linguistics) seeks to understand the
processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation in language across time and
space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture.[38] It is the
branch of anthropology that brings linguistic methods to bear on anthropological problems, linking
the analysis of linguistic forms and processes to the interpretation of sociocultural processes.
Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields
including sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis,
and narrative analysis.[39]

Key topics by field: sociocultural[edit]

Art, media, music, dance and film[edit]
Part of a series on the

Anthropology of art,
media, music, dance
and film

Basic concepts[show]

Case studies[show]

Museums[show]

Related articles[show]

Major theorists[show]

Social and cultural anthropology

 v
 t
 e

Art[edit]
Main article: Anthropology of art
One of the central problems in the anthropology of art concerns the universality of 'art' as a cultural
phenomenon. Several anthropologists have noted that the Western categories of 'painting',
'sculpture', or 'literature', conceived as independent artistic activities, do not exist, or exist in a
significantly different form, in most non-Western contexts.[40] To surmount this difficulty,
anthropologists of art have focused on formal features in objects which, without exclusively being
'artistic', have certain evident 'aesthetic' qualities. Boas' Primitive Art, Claude Lévi-Strauss' The Way
of the Masks (1982) or Geertz's 'Art as Cultural System' (1983) are some examples in this trend to
transform the anthropology of 'art' into an anthropology of culturally specific 'aesthetics'.