History of Anthropology in Historical Perspective: Further

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
Ann. Rev. Anthropol 1977. 6:399-417
Copyright © 1977 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY +9600
IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1977.6:399-417. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Northeastern University on 01/26/15. For personal use only.
Regna Darnell
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
INTRODUCTION
History of anthropology has a long-established history within the discipline. Virtu

ally every major graduate program requires of its students a course in the history,
sometimes combined with the theory, of anthropology. It is not obvious, however,
that this has caused history of anthropology to fill a significant or integral role in
the teaching and practice of the discipline. Indeed, the opposite has traditionally
been true. The required course is frequently taught by the eldest member of the
department, who is presumably qualified to teach the history because he has lived
through more of it than anyone else. At best such a course provides the fledgling
anthropologist with a collection of anecdotes, later to prove useful in socializing his
own students within the profession. At worst such a course convinces the student
that there is no intelligent reason to consider research done more than a decade
previously.
All along, however, there have been a few anthropologists who have insisted that
the history of the discipline is of relevance to its current practice. As a result of such
convictions, coupled with the increasing interest of historians and historians of
science in anthropology, the legitimacy of this subfield has been relatively clearly
established. The starting point for what one might call the professionalization of
history of anthropology is perhaps the 1962 confl!rence sponsored by the Social
Science Research Council. As Hymes (32) suggests, the importance of this confer
ence is that it was held, the particular papers and topics being of less concern. It
is notable primarily that most of the authors and participants were anthropologists,
with a smattering of historians. Hymes (32) suggests further that a parable describes
the ambiguous situation in which anthropological historians of their discipline '
found themselves at that time. Anthropologists, the members of a professional tribe,
were simultaneously flattered by the attention of historians of science and disturbed
by differences between their presumably objective accounts and the oral history of
anthropology handed down by the elders of the discipline. The dilemma, and it is
one which persists in the history of anthropology, is who shall write the history,
anthropologists or historians?
399
400 DARNELL
The literature since 1962 reflects the dichotomy. Professionalization of the history
of anthropology has largely involved the imposition of historical standards on
scholarship considered to be a contribution to the disciplinary history. The first issue
of the Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences in 1965 posed the issue
clearly with reference to anthropology. Stocking [reprinted in (71)] drew a di
chotomy between historicism as understood by historians and presentism, the use
of history to justify or rationalize present-day concerns. His own credentials as a
historian gave him the dubious honor of becoming the methodological mentor of
the emerging subfield of history of anthropology. Although Stocking himself was
concerned to point out that interests other than those of history per se permeated
the existing literature on anthropological history written by practitioners of the

discipline, and not necessarily to argue that such works did not contribute to
anthropology in the large sense, anthropologists adapted the critique to invalidate
quasi-historical scholarship which attempted to find roots in the past for current
theoretical and methodological questions. As a result of editorially clarifying the
issues, Stocking found himself in the potentially awkward position of appearing to
have criticized the historical efforts of a variety of anthropologists. His own substan
tive scholarship simply practices what he preaches and avoids the polemics common
in the historical writings of anthropologists themselves. Interestingly enough, the
audience for Stocking's work has been an anthropological one, and his own focus
has become increasingly anthropological.
Hallowell (24) wrote in the same 1964 volume of JHBS about the history of
anthropology as an anthropological problem. There he argued that anthropologists
writing their disciplinary history legitimately used the same standards of scholarship
which they applied to their fieldwork among "primitive" people. In his view, the
dichotomy between the methods of anthropologists and historians was an artificial
one, and anthropologists had always known how to write history, including disci
plinary history. His contention was that anthropologists who mixed current and
historical concerns were doing bad anthropology as well as bad history.
By this point the alternatives had been clearly posed. A small but vocal group of
anthropologists, with some support from historians, were arguing that the history
of the discipline was not appropriately a haphazard matter, but an integral part of
the ongoing practice of anthropology. This constituted a self-conscious recognition
of the need for a new status for history of anthropology within the discipline as a
whole. The working out of these dichotomies is still an ongoing process. The
significant questions are not so much those of content of the history of anthropology
but of how it should be written. Indeed, it would be virtually impossible to define
the history of anthropology as a coherent subfield on the basis of substance or
content. There is, of course, a historical dimension to any topic within the broadly
defined discipline of anthropology. And it is unquestionable that the scope of an
thropology is difficult to unify. To collect a bibliography of peripherally historical
articles and books would, therefore, be an impossible task.
There are thus clear biases in the organization of this review. These biases are,
however, a result of the emphases within the anthropological literature and the way
in which history of anthropology has become a legitimate subfield of the discipline
ANTHROPOLOGY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 401
as a whole. The stress is on developments in the North American tradition, because

this is where the concern with the methodological and theoretical bases of disciplin
ary history have arisen. Cultural anthropology, perhaps because it has been most
explicitly concerned with the theoretical bases of the study of man in all his tempo
ral and spatial diversity, has been the major focus of history of anthropology
scholarship. And, finally, the focus will remain on literature which addresses the
scope of history of anthropology within the discipline and/or the manner in which
such history should be written.
The review will proceed in the following manner: First, the traditional literature
of history of anthropology will be briefly noted, largely to provide a context for the
more recent trends in the subfield. Then recent efforts to provide a general treatment
of the history of the discipline will be discussed in light of the kinds of issues
presented above. We will then turn to source materials for the general history of
anthropology, their proliferation in recent years indicating the increasing concern
of anthropologists with their own past. The problem of diverse development of
national traditions within anthropology will be dealt with briefly, using the British
and Canadian traditions as examples. Finally, historical work within the subdisci
plines of archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics will be discussed cur
sively. The conclusion will summarize major trends in the historically constituted
emergence of the history of anthropology within the discipline.
NOT-SO-RECENT LITERATURE
The first crop of histories of anthropology appeared in the 1930s. This timing is
significant since it effectively delineates the closing of the period of professionaliza
tion of the discipline both in North America and elsewhere. Darnell ( 10, 11) has
argued that the process of professionalization, producing what we label today as
Boasian anthropology, was essentially complete in North America by 1920. As the
discipline grew in size and diversity of focus, it became imperative to demonstrate
its unity in historical perspective. The first effort at synthesis was a history of
American anthropology by an Indian student of Wissler, himself a significant figure
in the Boasian tradition; Mitra (51) was naively uncritical of the individuals and
events he described, and his volume is interesting largely for the limited factual data
it presents. Mitra's work was received without enthusiasm at the time, and indeed
was published in India. In this context, his dedicated devotion to Boas-inspired
truths cannot be taken as typical of Boasians in that period; it is notable that Mitra
was an outsider.
The next Boasian effort was prepared by a member of the core group of American
anthropologists. Lowie (43) discussed the intellectual roots of the discipline from
his own point of view, with an unsurprising stress on early German sources. His
treatment ended with the Boasian school and some effort at prognosis for the future.
The book is informative but unexciting, in spite of Lowie's participation in the
tradition he describes.
Penniman's 1935 review of the previous century (60) is a catalog of facts. British
anthropologist Haddon's 1934 effort (22) also stresses facts (the first edition ap-
402 DARNELL
peared in 1910). But it follows the continental terminology and definition of the
scope of anthropology, and is consequently somewhat more informative to North
American readers.
Several works appeared in the 1960s which provided additional materials for the
history of anthropology. Mead & Bunze1 (SO) edited a collection of papers in a series
about the "golden age of X" which reviewed many of the contributions of the
Boasian tradition. Commentaries were minimal. Kardiner & Preble (37) produced
a collection of essays on major anthropologists; the historical contribution is bio
graphical rather than analytical. Slotkin's (67) major collection of readings in the
intellectual background of anthropology appeared in 1965. The editor was an an
thropologist whose commentaries on his own wide reading in history, philosophy,

and classics helped many anthropologists to expand their notions of the scope of the
history of the discipline. Moreover, Slotkin provided a certain amount of basic
commentary which at least began the task of tying together the immense range of
material covered. Brew (5) edited a collection of papers designed to chronicle the
past century of anthropological history, but which were in fact much more limited
in their scope. Virtually all of the papers define their topics quite narrowly and evade
larger interpretation.
These materials, taken in sum, made it quite possible for anthropologists to teach
the history of their discipline and to require basic facts about its development to be
known by all students as a rite of passage. History of anthropology in the more
theoretical sense, however, had not yet emerged. The year 1968 provides a water
shed: in that year, two volumes were published which provided models for the polar
extremes of anthropological historical writing and research styles (25, 71).
Stocking'S book, republishing a number of previous essays and presenting con
siderable new material as well, deals with three concepts-race, evolution, and cul
ture-as they changed through time. He begins with Tylor, although most of the
papers deal with aspects of the American Boasian tradition. The emphasis is on the
context of ideas at the time they were propounded. Stocking'S concerns are those
of a historian, and he expresses considerable ambivalence about the relation of his
work to the anthropological task of self-examination in the context of which readers
had received the original essays. Several of the essays, and many of the introductory
comments, deal specifically with problems of methodology in writing the history of
anthropology. This book remains the model for those anthropologists who espouse
standards of historical scholarship in the pursuit of disciplinary history. In contrast
to much of the historical writing of anthropologists, Stocking's papers are organized
around clearly isolated problems of intellectual history; archival documentation
replaces published and easily available sources as central to the analysis; individual
anthropologists are placed within a general social context as well as that of their
discipline itself; judgments of merit are subordinated to clarifying the nature of
changes in ideas and their form of embodiment through time; generalizations are
not made unless supported by evidence, and the nature of that evidence is clearly
stated.
Also in 1968, Harris's discussion of anthropological theory appeared. This book
is quite different, primarily in that it attempts to deal with the full scope of the
history of anthropology from the Enlightenment to what Harris calls "techno

environmental determinism," described as the culmination of anthropological the
ory. There is no denying that Harris's book was, and is, important. Its very scope
made it the most obvious textbook for courses in history of anthropology; those
courses which combined history and theory received the additional benefit that
current theory was clearly present, this being particularly welcome to those who
subscribed to Harris's brand of theory.
Simultaneously with the publication of Harris's book, Current Anthropology
presented a group book review (26) based on prepUblication copies and a brief
summary of the theoretical argument by Harris. The reviewers' comments ranged
from eulogy to depreciation. The correlation with theoretical persuasion of respon

dent was notable, with those who favored nomothetic theory, techno-environmental
determinism, and dialectical materialism being most enthusiastic. Others, particu
larly those interested in cognitive or ideational anthropology and those who pre
ferred to think of theory as problematical rather than deterministic, objected
strongly to what they considered subordination of historical presentation to polemi
cal argument.
Given the enormous scope of the volume, a remarkable amount of attention is
devoted to a critique of Boasian anthropology, described as buried in a morass of
"historical particularism." Boas and his major students are dissected, not in terms
of their own reasons for propounding the arguments they did, but in terms of
holding back the progress of the theory as understood by Harris. In the process, a
great deal of fascinating information about the Boasians is presented. But the reader
who wishes to separate Harris from his subject matter must constantly evaluate the
basis of generalizations made. Partially because of its commitment to a current and
popular anthropological theory, Harris's book has attained a circulation unequaled
in the literature of history of anthropology. Unfortunately, many of those who
extolled its virtues were, by their own admission, not interested in the history of
anthropology. The surface paradox is one which precisely delineates the dichotomy
still present in the history of anthropology. Harris's book is an explicit model for
much of the current literature, and the majority of that takes exception either to his
intermingling of history and current theory or to the particular current theory to
which Harris subscribes. Many of the critiques are along lines advocated by Stock
ing, and most are presented by anthropologists with a clear commitment to the need
for a currently relevant and historically valid history of the discipline. There are
clearly issues which at least a substantial number of anthropologists feel need to be
resolved, resulting in a considerable upsurge in the amount of interest shown in the
history of anthropology. With these general concerns, we may suggest that the
subfie1d is coming, or perhaps even has come, of age.
RECENT EFFORTS AT SYNTHESIS
Expansion of interest in the history of anthropology has given rise to a feeling of

self-conscious identity among the small group of anthropological historians, which
to a certain extent transcends their variable disciplinary roots. Increasingly there are
404 DARNELL
historians among them. There are at least two journals that specifically seek articles
in the history of anthropology, ISIS and the Journal a/the History a/the Behavioral
Sciences. It is, however, questionable how frequently these journals are read by
anthropologists,indicating that while historians of the discipline may feel they have
attained some professional maturity,other anthropologists may be little affected by
their conviction.
Moreover, there is now a History of Anthropology Newsletter, published twice a
year and now collecting material for Volume 4. The general editor is George
Stocking, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. Subscribers and
contributors represent a fair cross-section of anthropologists and some historians.
There is a substantial group of young scholars who are defining history of an
thropology as their major area of specialization. There is also a notable group of
senior anthropologists who see history of anthropology as crucial to the practice of
the discipline as they understand it. History of Anthropology Newsletter presents
bibliography,notes on work in progress,brief articles,obscure items of interest,and
reports of thesis work of relevance.
A number of dissertations have appeared in the last few years which are specifi
cally concerned with topics in the history of anthropology: Late nineteenth century
anthropology in Washington,D.C.,centered in the Bureau of American Ethnology,
is the focus of Hinsley (29a) and Noelke (56), as well as a partial concern of Darnell
(10). Tax (74) deals with nineteenth century American archaeology and Quade (61)
with American physical anthropology. Thoresen (75) combines history and theoreti
cal analysis of Kroeber's early work. And Bieder (2) explores the influence of the
American Indian on the development of American anthropology. Considerable
additional work is in progress.
There is no definitive bibliography of the history of anthropology, perhaps be
cause the scope and content of the subfield are still in question to many of the
contributors. At least four individuals,however,have collected extensive bibliogra
phies,with varying degrees of annotation,which can be obtained from the collators
by interested parties. These are D. Fowler, D. H. Hymes, R. V. Kemper, and W.
Sturtevant.
In addition to these indications of burgeoning interest in the history of an
thropology,there are now available a substantial number of potential textbooks,all
differing somewhat in focus and purpose.
In 1973 a collection of readings (4) and a treatment of major thinkers and their
ideas (27) posed a contrast in styles of approaching the history of anthropology ( 13).
The Bohannan & Glazer reader (4) precedes primary sources with biographical and
career information about the authors. Considerable anecdotal or personalized mate
rial is included,providing some sense of the oral history of the discipline. The editors
argue that history of anthropology should be concerned with current theoretical
interests but not committed to particular theories. Interest in the history is justified
by the continuous need for disciplinary self-examination. Professional anthropology
up to 1960 is presented through the major ideas dominating the discipline-evolu
tion, culture, and structure. In spite of the brevity of the commentaries, there are
a number of interesting historical connections suggested, e.g. a comparison between
Durkheim's collective consciousness and Kroeber's superorganic, and a number of
myths from the oral history of anthropology are exploded, e.g. Radcliffe-Brown's
presumed objection to history in any form. The volume is therefore useful both for
the primary sources it makes easily available and for its matter-of-fact,informative
approach to the notion of anthropological history.
Hatch (27) proceeds in quite a different manner,being concerned with the theories
of ten significant anthropologists. Tylor alone represents the nineteenth century.
Boas is placed in antithesis to Tylor, being anti-intellectual, idealist, relativist,
subjectivist, deductive, ethnographically particularist (shades of Harris), and mod
ern; Tylor is presented as intellectualist, positivist, rationalist, reductionist (culture
to· individual), utilitarian, inductive, comparative, and premodern. Hatch does not
discuss the nineteenth century basis of Boas's ideas.

Benedict, Kroeber, Steward, and White are discussed as students of Boas. Little
attention is given to relative chronology and to connections among the individuals.
Hatch's concern with the connections of a logical nature between the theories of
Kroeber and Steward, for example, leads him to ignore the chronological interven
tion of psychological anthropology as represented by Benedict between the theories
of Kroeber and his pupil. Further, to consider White a Boasian is somewhat inaccu
rate at best.
Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, Evans-Pritchard, and Malinowski represent B ntish
and continental anthropology. The same kinds of criticisms apply here. Hatch
appears unaware of scholarship in history of science which might be considered
relevant to his analysis. The book was written for a course in history and theory,
and the two are not clearly distinguished. Analyses of theoretical premises are
certainly necessary in anthropology, but not at the expense of historical distortion.
Hatch is presumably not presenting his own synthesis of the useful ideas of these
ten great men, but reviewing their theoretical positions. These, in terms of history
of anthropology in historical terms, should be presented in their own appropriate
historical context. Hatch appears unduly concerned with what would have hap
pened if history had happened differently. This is feasible when juggling ideas on
paper, but has little relation to the realities of historical events.
Another reader in history of anthropology appeared in 1974 (12). The book is
organized in four sections,none intended to provide exhaustive primary sources, but
each making a claim about the importance of certain kinds of material for the
history of anthropology. The first section takes the view that anthropology, broadly
conceived as the study of man, is not unique to the anthropological tradition which
developed in the western world. First, there is some kind of anthropological folk
knowledge in every human culture. Moreover,such knowledge has been formalized
at least by the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Chinese (not represented), as well as
during the European Renaissance. The anthropological method of cross-cultural
comparison is applied to defining the discipline itself.
The second section, the most obviously arbitrary and incomplete, deals with
reports of voyages of exploration and with the philosophical incorporation of infor
mation from them as the Renaissance world found itself expanded in time and space.
The third section is concerned with the professionalization of anthropology as a
scientific discipline, correlated with the rise' of other scientific disciplines. The em
phasis is on the North American tradition, including, for example, British an-
406 DARNELL
thropologist Tylor's comments on American anthropology. A number of figures are

represented whose reputations in anthropology have been considerably eclipsed by
time, e.g. McGee, Brinton, Gibbs, and Haven. Boas and Malinowski (represented
in a review by Stocking) are anthropologists whose notions of professionalism in
anthropology have persisted to the present day.
The final section deals with the history of anthropology as perceived by disciplin
ary practitioners. It is the.longest and potentially the most interesting portion of the
volume. There is a considerable range of topics and approaches: anthropologists are
disturbed by historical probings into their traditions; anthropologists are historians
anyway; the discipline may be conceived as having a personality; controversies in
anthropology point out the essential nature of the discipline: ideas of man, culture,
and evolution have changed through time; anthropologists repeat the same mistakes
in virtual ignorance of disciplinary history; ideas about the nature and antiquity of
man are conditioned by general scholarly and intellectual climate. A previously
unpublished essay on nineteenth century cultural evolution by Stocking is included
as well as a long address on British social anthropology by Fortes which sharply
contrasts with the American material.
Each section is preceded by a discussion, partially bibliographical, by the editor.
Darnell is an anthropologist with a specialization in history of anthropology, who
argues that disciplinary history should be part of the training and self-image of every
anthropologist. The volume clearly demonstrates that there is a considerable litera
ture about the history of anthropology written by anthropologists and that at least
some of it is concerned with these sorts of issues.
Two potential textbooks have recently appeared which are an answer to Harris
(25), preserving something resembling the scope of his treatment of anthropological
theory but with explicit lack of commitment to any particular theory. The first of
these (79) claims to be a history of ethnology, rather than of anthropology in total.
Previous to this book, Voget has written a number of papers on the intellectual roots
of anthropology. In this volume, he deals very briefly with Graeco-Roman, Renais
sance, and Arabic ideas about man and culture, concluding that no new discipline
emerged from these inquiries. Somewhat more attention is given to the eighteenth
century, characterized by the emergence of a generalized social science out of
history. But the existence of anthropology itself is not recognized until it emerges
in the nineteenth century with a unique theory, methodology, subject matter, and
set of facts for its basis.
Voget defines a period of structuralism from 1890 to 1940 which he associates
with professionalization of the discipline and divides into social anthropology, func
tionalism, and culture historicism, the latter again divided according to its three
national branches, American, British and German. He suggests that all the schools
of structuralism share certain essential features: all react negatively to developmen
talism; causality is attributed to structure within the sociocultural realm; form and
order are stressed; the aim is an inductive natural science which is value-free;
questions of ultimate origin are avoided; explanations at the individual level are
rejected. It is interesting to note that these are all features which have been asso
ciated with the discipline of anthropology, rather than with specific schools within
it. Because this was the period of professionalization, its long-term influence has
been extreme. In fact, this observation may provide the context for the frustration
of Harris and others with the accepted definition of the scope of anthropology,
forcing a rewriting of disciplinary history to justify their current theoretical con
cerns.
Voget's fourth period is one of specialization which began in the 1930s and has
continued to the present. This period is characterized by recognition of variations
from structure and by greater emphasis on the active role of the individual in
culture. Voget sees the immediate future as involving synthesis and reorientation in
these directions, rather than a disintegration of anthropology itself. He stresses the
"scientific mission" of anthropology within the Western world as a science of
non-Western peoples which should remain independent of political ideologies.

The development of anthropology is recognized as an evolutionary process largely
involving substitution or replacement of increasingly complex explanatory models.
Voget envisions a series of specializations leading to convergence in theory within
a dominant paradigm, presumably yet to come. The notion of paradigm is taken
from Kuhn (39), where it is applied to the natural sciences. Although Kuhn himself
believed that the social sciences were essentially preparadigmatic, lacking a single
theory which organized research during a given period or cycle, historians of an
thropology have found the notion useful, albeit sometimes as a metaphor. Voget
claims that the social and natural sciences are parallel in that they aim for reality
control and that the paradigmatic status of theories and models is therefore also
parallel.
Voget is careful to avoid the explicit commitment to a particular theory which
characterizes Harris (25). It is, however, abundantly clear that he has considerable
sympathy with the Boasian position. Indeed, the frontispiece of the volume is a
portrait of Boas, who is thereby labeled as the most significant figure in the history
of ethnology. Voget concludes, however, that the Boasians did not constitute a
"school," since they did not endlessly replicate the same results. This is perhaps
more the view of an insider, who will stress productive divergence among colleagues,
although the same group may appear quite similar to the outsider. Voget implies
that the existence of a school would be a negative thing, again perhaps respond
ing to Harris's (25) critique of the Boasians as a school. From Kuhn's point of
view, however, a school is an efficient and productive way to organize scholarship
as long as its paradigm allows for meaningful research within the shared frame
work.
The most recent contribution to the potential textbook collection focuses on what
are called anthropological ideas (31). Honigmann's focus on cultural anthropology
involves in practice ethnology, social anthropology, and the theoretical foundations
of archaeology. Stress is on ideas general to man and culture rather than on the
culture-specific. Supernatural explanations are excluded. The basic criterion for
inclusion is resemblance to current anthropological ideas. Honigmann intentionally
minimizes historical context in order to demonstrate ideational continuities. The
treatment is organized according to ideas rather than individuals, although basic
biographical information is accurately given.
408 DARNELL
Honigmann is himself theoretically eclectic and believes that the discipline of

anthropology draws its strength from a similar eclecticism. In practice, there is
considerably more attention to British social anthropology and its influence on the
American tradition than by either Harris or Voget. The treatment of the Boasians
is nonpolemic.
Honigmann suggests that the ideas of anthropology have developed more by
substitution than by cumulation (Kuhn's point is that scientific development pro
ceeds in cycles or paradigms, not in straight lines). Anthropological ideas are
divided into orienting concepts which specify subjects of inquiry, theories which are
compounded out of orienting concepts, and methodological propositions which are
comparable to theories. The very abstract and deterministic notion of theory pro
pounded by Harris (25) is implicitly rejected. Honigmann notes that ideas are always
applied from a point of view and identifies eight in anthropology: historical, develop
mental, integrational, instrumental, configurational, biological, psychological, and
geographical. It is these which are combined in various ways to produce theories
and schools. Honigmann also deals with controversies in the discipline over recur
rent themes and issues, e.g. the notion of cultural relativism, society versus the
individual, nature versus culture. Because he focuses on ideas rather then disciplin
ary affiliation, Honigmann is easily able to deal with such figures as Freud and Marx,
whose appearance in many histories of anthropology is somewhat strained.
Honigmann explicitly deals with the professionalization of anthropology around
1900 in terms of Kuhn's notion of paradigm shift or scientific revolution (39). After
200 years without challenge, the evolutionary paradigm was replaced at this time.
As concomitants of this shift, Honigmann notes separation of anthropology from
sociology, emergence of professional societies, emphasis on being value-free, and the
establishment of competing theories and schools, especially along national lines.
Honigmann explicitly avoids dealing with the Boasians as a school, referring to
them instead as "members of the American historical tradition." He notes that they
shared a common frame of meaning and that their brand of historical ethnology was
clearly distinguishable from the German and British versions thereof.
After World War II,with the decline of structural-functional analysis, new trends
included the cognitive definition of culture, renewed interest in culture history and
evolution, increased attention to formalism, phenomenological concern with deci
sion-making and social behavior, and increased specialization. Recent trends in
social structure and cognitive anthropology are better represented in this volume
than in the others reviewed, although Honigmann may also have the most balanced
treatment overall.
Indeed, given the obvious specialization and diversification of anthropology over
the past three decades, we may perhaps look forward to a whole series of histories
of anthropology, each reflecting the historical roots understood by a particular
scholar in coming to his own,perhaps even idiosyncratic,definition of the discipline.
Put in other terms, to what extent is it possible for a single individual to accurately
reflect the diversity of the recent history of anthropology? This question will likely
be answered not by historians of anthropology but by anthropologists dealing with
the increasing specialization of their own discipline. The exercise of writing disci
plinary history merely pinpoints the issues.
Several other works should be mentioned as rather general in their reference,
particularly those by Malefijt (45) and Palerm (57,58). The latter is a series of which
the third volume, dealing with the professionals, is yet to appear. These works,
published in Spanish, present primary source extracts with comments providing
context.
In addition, there are two collections of papers in history of anthropology which
deserve consideration here. The volume edited by Murra (55) results from a sym
posium of the American Ethnological Society (AES). Topics are variable but the
volume retains a certain coherence, both in terms of time period and focus on the
American tradition. Two papers deal with the history of the AES itself, one by a
historian and one by an anthropological participant. There are three biographical
papers dealing with turn of the century figures and a general treatment of Washing
ton anthropology. Three papers discuss the career of Redfield, providing an interest
ing contrast among them. One paper deals with fieldwork, the museum, and
archaeology.
In contrast, the volume edited by Thoresen (76), resulting from the 9th Interna
tional Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, fails to maintain a
unity which would permit the general anthropological reader to profit from it as a
whole. Several papers deal with the development of anthropology in particular
countries (India, Hungary, Yugoslavia); these are basically catalogs of facts. Bibliog
raphy, ethnographic film, the Enlightenment, mound builders, and matrilineality all
appear in the contents. Two papers are modern, dealing with Kroeber and Benedict.
Many of these contributions are useful, but their juxtaposition is frequently confus
ing, and there is no general introduction which attempts to delineate the scope and
purpose of history of anthropology.
In sum the literature of history of anthropology now includes a number of works
which seriously attempt to synthesize the history of discipline and. to relate that
history to current practice. There is a choice of perspectives, both toward history
of anthropology and toward the discipline itself. This diversity reflects increased
interest in the area by anthropologists and perhaps increasing professionalization of
history of anthropology itself. It is now clear that there is not likely to be a single
history of the discipline, just as there is unlikely to be a totally complete and
adequate description of a culture. The matter is both more complex and more
interesting than it was in the not-so-far-distant days when history of anthropology
meant a catalog of facts about the past.
SOURCE MATERIALS
Considerable source material for the history of anthropology, particularly in North

America, has appeared in recent years, reflecting increased concern of anthropolo
gists about the nature of their own history. In many cases, this has involved republi
cation of materials which previously were scattered or out of print. For example,
410 DARNELL
it is unquestionable that Boas is the most significant figure of twentieth century

American anthropology. Coming to terms with Boas is the primary task of many
anthropologists in their own professional socialization, and this fact is reflected in
the literature of history of anthropology. Boas prepared a collection of his own
papers in 1940 which has now been reprinted in a paperback edition (3). The
literature includes, in addition to numerous articles, a biography by a former student
(29) and two memoirs of the American Anthropological Association (20a, 42). The
most outspoken, and historically inaccurate, accounts are probably to be found in
the critiques of White (80, 81), who felt the need to justify his own interest in
evolution by attacking the essentially nonevolutionary assumptions of Boasian an
thropology. This critique is carried on, although in a much more judicious tone, by
Harris (25). There are now two Boas readers: Rohner (62) has presented letters and
diaries from Boas's northwest coast fieldwork, giving an idea of the standards which
guided fieldwork in the early days. The volume includes an introduction which
provides context for the primary source material. Stocking (72) has prepared a
reader which selects from Boas's writings up to 1911 and thereby balances the
picture of his career and of the development of American anthropology which Boas
himself encouraged by the emphasis in his own selection of his writings on the later
years. As Stocking cogently stresses, by 1911 Boas had already established himself
as the leading figure in American anthropology, and his students were beginning to
hold important positions in the discipline. The fact that he lived so long and did so
much more after 1911 does not diminish the importance of his position in the early
period. To ignore the full career of Boas is to accept the rewriting of history by
Boasians which obscures both continuity with the earlier American tradition and
controversy in the establishment of the Boasian tradition. The paradigm shift which
produced Boasian anthropology is discussed by Stocking (71) and Darnell (10, 11),
both dealing explicitly with the extent to which Boasian anthropology constituted
a paradigm.
It is, of course, also obvious that the role of Boas in the current structure of
anthropology as a discipline is of concern in virtually all the efforts to provide
general histories. For the history of anthropology, the significant issue is not whether
Boas's influence was positive or negative, but whether discussion of Boas and his
influence is carried on within scholarly standards, historical or anthropological.
Certainly, if the role of Boas is a historical topic of concern to anthropologists, then
its salient place in the literature of history of anthropology is fully justified.
Selected papers of various anthropologists have appeared, usually at the instiga
tion of colleagues or former students. Mead has prepared the papers of Benedict (47)
for a paperback edition with her comments. Although the historicism of Mead's
treatment is somewhat limited, her own participation in the events described con
tributes to a fascinating document. Fogelson (18) edited a collection of Hallowell
papers, including a number on the history of anthropology (with an introduction
by Stocking). These range from autobiographical to research scholarship.
Three collected volumes of papers from the American Anthropologist have been
issued by the American Anthropological Association. The first, edited by de Laguna
(14) is a reprint of the 1960 edition and includes Hallowell's still classic paper on
early anthropology in North America (23). The volume has some commentary by
the editor and considerable bibliography; selections go through 1920. The second
volume in the series covers the period from 1921 to 1945 (73). Stocking's long
introduction is the most serious attempt to date to deal with the nature and long
range contribution of the interwar period. As he notes, the period is not an inspired
one, yet it set the groundwork for the present specialization and growth of the
discipline. Stocking discusses extensively the institutional changes which took place
during these years, and seeks context both in terms of earlier and later periods. The
third volume, edited by Murphy (54), covers the period from 1946 to 1970. As is
always the case with the recent period in which specialization and diversification are
rampant, the selection often seems rather arbitrary. In general, it is fairly judicious,
and a number of important papers are made easily available. All three volumes
include photographs of contributors, certainly an important attraction of the vol
umes, particularly for students. The set provides an important record of the Associa
tion during its entire existence and permits professional self-examination by
returning these materials to the current literature, complete with commentary on
the historical context (although quite limited, and perhaps less necessary, for the
third volume).
There is also a good deal of biographical or autobiographical material. The most
extensive effort is the Columbia University Press Leaders in Modern Anthropology
series. These volumes involve a brief biographical sketch by a leading anthropologist
who is qualified to evaluate the career of the subject, followed by a selection from
the subject's writings. Treatments are nonpolemical, generally stressing positive
contributions, and personal reminiscences and asides are kept to a minimum. Vol
umes currently available deal with Linton (41), Kidder (83), Kroeber (70), Lowie
(53), Herskovits (66), and Benedict (49). Forthcoming volumes are expected to
include Boas, Hooton, Malinowski, Redfield, Rivers, Sapir, and Whorf. In spite of
the brief format and extensive emphasis on the American tradition, these volumes
make a real contribution to describing and distinguishing the careers of a number
of the major anthropologists of the Boasian camp.
Many miscellaneous biographical works are available. Historians have con
tributed, e.g. Stegner (69), but the recent work is largely from within anthropol�gy.
Helm edited a volume for the American Ethnological Society (28) which raised the
general question of the uses of biography in the history of anthropology, as well as
presenting a number of biographical papers. A biography of Kroeber was written
by his widow (38) and combines objective commentary with personal reminiscence
and delightful reading style; Kroeber's anthropological notions of configuration are
applied to the problem of conveying his personality. Kroeber is also discussed by
Thoresen (75). Lowie's autobiography (44) has long been a major source of informa
tion about the tone of Boasian anthropology, and is 'it fascinating source of informa
tion about the conditions of early fieldwork. Lowie's own judicious temperament
effectively avoids polemics. More recently, Mead's autobiography (48) has set forth
her very personal reactions to being an anthropologist and a professional female
during the past half century. This feminist current is followed up in the more
historically oriented scholarship of Modell (5 l a) on Benedict, but dealing also with
412 DARNELL
Mead. Material comparable to that on Boas's early fieldwork (62) is provided by

the publication of Malinowski's field diaries from the Trobriand Islands (46). In
both cases, the current standards of fieldwork with which the two men are so
intimately associated in the history of the discipline simply do not apply. Finally,
there are a few biographical efforts dealing with nineteenth century anthropologists
and their relationship to the professionalization of the discipline, e.g. Brinton and
Hale (lla, 21).
NATIONAL TRADITIONS
Most of the literature in history of anthropology concedes that anthropology as we

know it is uniquely a product of Western civilization. The question of how many
anthropologies there might be within that western tradition remains obscure. In
English, the literature deals largely with the American and British traditions, with
less detailed treatments of French and German anthropology. The specific relation
ship of anthropology in other parts of the world to these major developments is not
explored in comparative terms. The literature which does exist is widely scattered
and tends to present dates, names, and facts in the restricted context of a single
country.
In the case of British anthropology, however, quite a considerable literature has
developed. There are, of course, historians' treatments of evolution (6, 7, 52), at least
one anthropologist who has written on evolution (IS), medieval and Renaissance
foundations of anthropology (30) from the viewpoint of a historian, and an an
thropologist writing on the influence of the voyages of discovery (63). Professional
anthropology in Britain is described in several places: Firth (16) edited a collection
of papers dedicated to Malinowski by his former students which set out much of
the history of the group. Malinowski's field diaries provide an additional source of
information (46). Fortes's inaugural address at the University of Cambridge dealt
with the development of professional anthropology at that university ( 19). In line
with the synchronic emphasis of the British tradition, however, Fortes is not con
vinced that the history of anthropology, particularly in the preprofessional period,
is of relevance to current practice. It is perhaps not surprising that history of
anthropology as a self-conscious subfield should have emerged in America where
the historical tradition has been strong. Finally, a recent treatment of British an
thropology virtually to the present time (40) is written in an essentially historicist
mode. A number of oral history myths about the social anthropologists are ex
ploded, e.g. the accidental nature of Malinowski's internment in the Pacific dunng
World War I; the degree to which the British social anthropologists constitute a
"school" is addressed at length. The work of G. W. Stocking now in preparation will
further extend our information about British anthropology and may be expected to
deal both with forerunners of professional anthropology and the growth of the
professional discipline.
A concern with the history of anthropology in Canada has developed quite
recently, probably to establish a contrast with the American tradition which was
receiving so much attention to the south. The early literature was somewhat limited
ANTHROPOLOGY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 4 13
and sporadic, e.g. the biographical work of Trigger (77, 78). Over the last few years,
however, Canadian learned societies have given some attention to problems of
disciplinary history. Two symposia of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology
Association have been published in its journal ( 1), although these papers largely
present bibliography for the study of various culture areas of native Canada. None
theless, the label' of history of anthropology is attached to this effort. Other papers
presented at the symposia were not included, to the detriment of the volume.
The most interesting Canadian production to date is a published plenary session
of the Canadian Ethnology Society (20). Two papers deal with the National Mu
seum of Man program in anthropology, one by a former ethnologist there and the
other dealing historically with the years of Sapir's administration. A further paper
along the same lines deals with Barbeau. Quebec anthropology is discussed both
from the Francophone and Anglophone perspectives by established participants.
And finally, the anthropological contribution to Canadian Indian policy is reviewed
from a historical point of view. The published version incorporates considerable
discussion at the conference in which the principals, Hawthorn and Tremblay, saw
the matter somewhat differently from the uninvolved analyst. It is .this interaction
between historical scholarship and oral history which needs to strike a balance in
the history of anthropology, not only in Canada.
SUBDISCIPLINES
The question of historical research in the subdisciplines of anthropology is one

which arises largely in relation to the American tradition, in which archaeology,
physical anthropology, and linguistics have long been combined with ethnology.
The omnipresent fact of the American Indian has generally been blamed for the
holistic scope in the oral history of the discipline. And historians have contributed
to a picture of American history consistent with such an analysis (e.g. 59, 68).
Archaeologists have recently become somewhat more interested in their own
history, a phenomenon which may be correlated with the increasingly theoretical
nature_of archaeology. The traditional sources are European in focus (8, 9) and of
no aid in self-examination of American archaeologists. Fitting's edited collection
(17), in spite of a promising title, catalogs history of archaeological work in various
culture areas. Schuyler (64) is largely devoted to current methodological concerns.
The work of Willey & Sabloff (82) is an extensive and carefully documented treat
ment of the facts of the development of American archaeology. It is full of interest
ing detail, although it does not directly address issues of the appropriate theoretical
basis for writing the history of anthropology. Tax (74), a historian, has also worked
in this area.
Physical anthropology has received less historical attention, although this is
beginning to change. The Columbia Leaders in Anthropology series includes Hoo
ton. Discussions of Washington anthropology (e.g. 29a, 56) also deal extensively
with physical anthropologists. Quade (61) is also useful. In addition, there is consid
erable work in progress, particularly in dissertations, e.g. by P. Erickson and F.
Spencer.
414 DARNELL
There is a whole separate literature dealing with the history of linguistics. Insofar
as that history relates to anthropology, the major figure is Hymes, who first raised
these issues in the early 1960s (33). He has discussed application of linguistic
methods in ethnography within the Boasian tradition (34) and the development of
American structural linguistics (36) in partial connection to anthropology. His
edited book on paradigms and traditions in linguistics (35) contains a number of
articles of interest to anthropologists, although the emphasis remains on the intellec
tual underpinnings of linguistics, particularly Indo-European. A further source
which should be mentioned, however, is a collection of obituaries of linguists (65)
which provides biography, commentary, and professional evaluation. A number of
anthropological linguists are included.

In general, it appears that history of anthropology, insofar as it is a theoretical
enterprise, is likely to retain its focus on cultural anthropology. However, in cases
where the anthropological historian himself works in more than one SUbdiscipline,
connections which rationalize or motivate the subdisciplinary scope may emerge.
Again this is part of the perceived need for disciplinary self-examination which
seems to motivate interest in history of anthropology itself.
CONCLUSION
No attempt has been made to exhaustively catalog the literature of history of

anthropology, even for the last 5 to 10 years. Rather, an effort has been made to
describe the growth and increasingly theoretical development of history of an
thropology. Greater attention has been given to works which raise issues of the role
of history of anthropology within the discipline and its practice. Collections of
historical facts are considered less significant, whatever their intrinsic interest, than
treatments which discuss how the history of anthropology should be written. As a
result of this examination, it is clear that there is a considerable literature, much
of it of excellent quality, in the history of anthropology, most of it very recent. This
literature provides an interesting balance between historians, who tend to set the
scholarly standards, and anthropologists, who tend to define the topics of interest.
It appears certain that the field will continue to grow, both in quantity and sophisti
cation of its productions. Out of this interdisciplinary collaboration a new paradigm
for the history of anthropology is emerging.
Literature Cited
1. Ames, M., Preston, R. J. 1975. Sym 17. Fitting, J. E., ed. 1973.The Develop
posium on the history of Canadian an ment of North American Archaeology.
thropology-Introduction. Can. Rev. Garden City, NY: Anchor. 309 pp.
Socio!. Anthropol. 1 2:243 18. FigeIson, R., ed. 1 976. Contributions to
2. Bieder, R. 1972. The American Indian A nthropology: Selected Papers of A. Ir
and the development of anthropological ving Hallowell Chicago: Univ. Chicago
thought in the United States, J 780- Press. 552 pp.
1851. PhD thesis. Univ. Minnesota, 19. Fortes, M. 1 953. Social Anthropology at
Minneapolis, Minn. Cambridge Since 1900: An Inaugural
3. Boas, F. 1940. Race, Language and Lecture. Cambridge, England: Cam
Culture. New York: Macmillan. 647 bridge Univ. Press. 47 pp.
pp. 20. Freedman, J., ed. 1976. The History of
4. Bohannan, P., Glazer, M., eds. 1973. Canadian Anthropology. Proc. Can.
High Points in Anthropology. New Ethnol. Soc. 3. 200 pp.

York: Knopf. 449 pp. 20a. Goldschmidt, W., ed. 1 959. The An
5. Brew, J. 0., ed. 1968. A Hundred Years thropology of Franz Boas. San Fran
of Anthropology. Cambridge, Mass: cisco: Chandler. 165 pp.
Harvard Univ. Press. 276 pp. 2 1 . Gruber, J. W. 1967. Horatio Hale
6. Bryson, G. 1945. Man and Society: The and the development of American
Scottish Inquiry of the Eighteenth Cen anthropology. Proc. Am. Phi/os. Soc.
tury. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. 3:5-37
Press. 287 pp. 22. Haddon, A. C. 1934. History of An
7. Burrow, J. W. 1966. Evolution and Soci thropology. London: Watts. 206 pp.
ety: A Study in Victorian Social Theory. 23. Hallowell, A. I. 1 960. The beginnings of
Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. anthropology in America. See Ref. 14,
Press. 295 pp. pp. 1-90
8. Daniel, G. E. 1950. A Hundred Years of 24. Hallowell, A. I. 1965. The history of an
Archaeology. London: Duckworth. 343 thropology as an anthropological prob
pp. lem. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 1 :24-38
9. Daniel, G. E. 1 962. The Idea ofPrehis 25. Harris, M. 1968. The Rise ofAnthropo
tory. London: Watts. 1 86 pp. logical Theory: A History of Theories of
10. Darnell, R. D. 1969. The development Culture. New York: Crowell. 806 pp.
of American anthropology 1880-1 920: 26. Harris, M. et al 1968. CA* book review
From the Bureau of American Eth of Rise ofAnthropological Theory. Curro
nology to Franz Boas. PhD thesis. Univ. A nthropol. 9:5 19-33
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 27. Hatch, E. 1 973. Theories of Man and
1 1 . Darnell, R, D. 197 1 . The professionali Culture. New York: Columbia Univ.
zation of American anthropology: A Press. 384 pp.
case study in the sociology of knowl 28. Helm, J., ed. 1966. Pioneers in Ameri
edge. Soc. Sci. Inform. 10:83-103 can Anthropology: The Uses of Biog
l la. Darnell, R. D. 1974. Daniel Brinton raphy. Seattle: Univ. Washington Press.
and the professionalization of American 247 pp.
anthropology. See Ref. 55, pp. 69-98 29. Herskovits, M. J. 1953. Franz Boas: The
12. Darnell, R. D., ed. 1974. Readings in Science of Man in the Making. New
the History ofAnthropology. New York: York: Scribller's. 1 3 1 pp.
Harper & Row. 479 pp. 29a. Hinsley, C. M. 1976. The develop
13. Darnell, R. D. 1 975. The history of cul ment of a profession: Anthropology in
tural anthropology: Two views. Rev. Washington D. C. 1846-1903. PhD
A nthropol. 2: 1 1 8-25 thesis. Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
14. de Laguna, F., ed. 1960. Selected Papers 539 pp.
from the American Anthropologist 30. Hodgen, M. T. 1964. Early An
1888-1920. Evanston, III: Row Peter thropology in the Sixteenth and Seven
son. 960 pp. teenth Centuries. Philadelphia: Univ.
15. Eiseley, L. C. 1 958. Darwin 's Century. Pennsylvania Press. 523 pp.
New York: Doubleday. 378 pp. 31. Honigmann, J. J. 1 976. The Develop
1 6. Firth, R., ed. 1957. Man and Culture. Home
ment of Anthropological Ideas.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, wood, III: Dorsey. 434 pp.
292 pp. 32. Hymes, D. H. 1962. On studying the
416 DARNELL
history of anthropology. Kroeber An Anthropology. Calcutta: Univ. Calcutta

thropoL Soc. Pap. 26:8 1-86 Press. 239 pp.
33. Hymes, D. H. 1963. Notes toward a 5 1 a. Modell, 1. 1975. Ruth Benedict, an
history of linguistic anthropology. An thropologist. See Ref. 76, pp. 1 83-204
thropol. Ling. 5:59-103 52. Murphree, I. 1 96 1 . The evolutionary
34. Hymes, D. H. 1970. Linguistic method anthropologists. Proc. Am. Phi/os. Soc.
in ethnography: Its development in the 105:265-300
United States. In Method and Theory in 53. Murphy, R. 1972. Robert H. Lowie.
Linguistics, ed. P. Garvin, pp. 249-325. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
The Hague: Mouton . 179 pp.
35. Hymes, D. H., ed. 1974. Studies in 54. Murphy, R., ed. 1976. Selected Papers
the History of Linguistics: Traditions from the American A nthropologist
and Paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana 1946-1970. Am. Anthropol. Assoc.
Univ. Press. 5 1 9 pp. 485 pp.
36. Hymes, D. H., Fought, J. 1975. Ameri 55. Murra, J. V., ed. 1974. American An
can structuralism. In Historiography of thropology: The Early Years. St. Paul:
Linguistics, Current Trends in Linguis West. 260 pp.
tics, ed. T. A. Sebeok, 10:903-1 1 76. The 56. Noelke, V. H. 1975. The origin and
Hague: Mouton early history of the Bureau ofAmerican
37. Kardiner, A., Preble, E. 1961. They Ethnology 1879-1910. PhD thesis.
Studied Man. New York: Mentor. Univ. Texas, Austin, Tex.
255 pp. 57. Palerm, A. 1974. Historia de la Et
38. Kroeber, T. 1 970. Alfred Kroeber: nologia: Los Precursores. Mexico: Cen
A Personal Configuration. Berkeley: tro de Investigaciones Superiores, In
Univ. California Press. 292 pp. stituto Nacional de Antropologia e His
39. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure ofScien toria.
tific Revolutions. Chicago: Phoenix. 58. Palerm, A. 1976. Historia de la Et
1 72 pp. nologia: los Evolucionistas. Mexico:
40. Kuper, A. 1973. Anthropologists and Centro de Investigaciones Superiores,
Anthropology: The British School 1 922- Instituto Nacional de Antropolgia e
72. Baltimore: Penguin. 256 pp. Historia. 196 pp.
41. Linton, A., Wagley, C. 197 1 . Ralph 59. Pearce, R. H. 1953. Savages ofAmerica:
Linton. New York: Columbia Univ. A Study of the Indian and the Idea of
Press. 1 96 pp. Civilization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
42. Linton, R., ed. 1943. Franz Boas 1858- Univ. Press. 260 pp.
1 943. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Mem. 6 1 . 60. Penniman, T. K. 1935. A Hundred
Menasha, Wis.: Banta . Years ofAnthropology. London: Duck
43. Lowie, R. H. 1937. The History ofEth worth. 397 pp.
nological Theory. New York: Rinehart. 6 1 . Quade, L. G. 197 1 . American physical
296 pp. anthropology: A historical perspective.
44. Lowie, R. H. 1959. Robert H. Lowie PhD thesis. Univ. Kansas, Lawrence,
Ethnologist: A Personal Record. Ber Kans.
keley: Univ. California Press. 198 pp. 62. Rohner, R. P., ed. 1969. The Ethnogra
45. Malefijt, A. 1 974. Images ofMan. New phy of Franz Boas. Chicago: Univ.
York: Knopf. 383 pp. Chicago Press. 3 3 1 pp.
46. Malinowski, B. 1967. A Diary in the 63. Rowe, J. H. 1965. The renaissance
Strict Sense of the Word. New York: foundations of anthropology. Am. An
Harcourt, Brace & World. 3 1 5 pp. thropoL 67: 1-20
47. Mead, M. 1966. An Anthropologist at 64. Schuyler, R. L. 1971 . The history of
Work: The Writings of Ruth Benedict. American archaeology: An examina
New York: Atherton. 583 pp. tion of procedures. Am. A ntiq. 36:383-
48. Mead, M. 1972. Blackberry Winter: 409
My Early Years. New York: Morrow. 65. Sebeok, T. A., ed. 1 967. Portraits ofLin
305 pp. guists: A Biographical Sourcebook for
49. Mead, M. 1974. Ruth Benedict. New the History of Western Linguistics,
York: Columbia Univ Press. 1 80 pp. 1 746-1963. Bloomington: Univ. Indi
50. Mead, M., Bunzel, R. 1 960. The Golden ana Press. Vols. 1,2. 580 pp., 605 pp.
Age of Anthropology. New York: Bra 66. Simpson, G. E. 1 973. Melville Hersko
ziller. 630 pp. vits. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
5 1 . Mitra, P. 1933. A History of American 200 pp.
67. Slotkin, J. S., ed. 1965. Readings in 75. Thoresen, T. H. 1 97 1 .A. L. Kroeber's
Early Anthropology. Viking Fund Pub!. theory of culture: The early years. PhD
Anthropol. 40. 530 pp. thesis. Univ. Iowa, Iowa City, la.
68. Smith, H. N. 1950. Virgin Land: The 76. Thoresen, T. H., ed. 1975. Toward a
American West as Symbol and Myth. Science ofMan: Essays in the History of
New York: Vintage. 305 pp. A nthropology. The Hague: Mouton
69. Stegner, W. 1954. Beyond the Hun 232 pp.
dredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell 77. Trigger, B. G. 1966. Sir Daniel Wilson:
and the Second Opening of the West. Canada's First Anthropologist. An
Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 438 pp. thropologica 8:3-28
70. Steward, J. H. 1973. A lfred Kroeber. 78. Trigger, B. G. 1966. Sir John William
New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Dawson: A faithful anthropologist. An
137 pp. thropologica 8:351-59
7 1 . Stocking, G. W. 1968. Race, Culture 79. Voget, F. W. 1975. A History of Eth
and Evolution: Essays in the History of nology. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Winston. 879 pp.

380 pp. 80. White, L. 1963. The Ethnography and
72. Stockmg, G. W. 1 974. The Shaping of Ethnology ofFranz Boas. Austin: Texas
American Anthropology 1883-1911: A Mem. Mus. Bull. 6. 76 pp.
Franz Boas Reader. New York: Basic 8 1 . White, L. 1 968. The Sodal Organization
Books. 354 pp. of Ethnological Theory. Rice Univ.
73. Stocking, G. W., ed. 1976. Selected Pa Stud. 52
pers from the American Anthropologist 82. Willey, G. R., Sablolf, J. A. 1973. A
1 921-1945. Am. Anthropo!. Assoc. History of American Archaeology. San
485 pp. Francisco: Freeman. 252 pp.
74. Tax, T. 1973. The development of 83. Woodbury, R. B. 1973. Alfred V. Kid
A merican archaeology 1800-1879. PhD der. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
thesis. Univ. Chicago, Chicago, Ill. 200 pp.

History of Anthropology in Historical Perspective: Further

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Anthropology in Historical Perspective: Further

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

History of Anthropology in Historical Perspective: Further

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL

HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY +9600

History of anthropology has a long-established history within the discipline. Virtu­

the existing literature on anthropological history written by practitioners of the

as a whole. The stress is on developments in the North American tradition, because

thropologist whose commentaries on his own wide reading in history, philosophy,

history of anthropology from the Enlightenment to what Harris calls "techno­

from eulogy to depreciation. The correlation with theoretical persuasion of respon­

RECENT EFFORTS AT SYNTHESIS

Expansion of interest in the history of anthropology has given rise to a feeling of

discuss the nineteenth century basis of Boas's ideas.

thropologist Tylor's comments on American anthropology. A number of figures are

non-Western peoples which should remain independent of political ideologies.

Honigmann is himself theoretically eclectic and believes that the discipline of

Considerable source material for the history of anthropology, particularly in North

it is unquestionable that Boas is the most significant figure of twentieth century

Mead. Material comparable to that on Boas's early fieldwork (62) is provided by

Most of the literature in history of anthropology concedes that anthropology as we

The question of historical research in the subdisciplines of anthropology is one

anthropological linguists are included.

No attempt has been made to exhaustively catalog the literature of history of

High Points in Anthropology. New Ethnol. Soc. 3. 200 pp.

history of anthropology. Kroeber An­ Anthropology. Calcutta: Univ. Calcutta

Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. Winston. 879 pp.

You might also like

History of anthropology has a long-established history within the discipline. Virtu

history of anthropology from the Enlightenment to what Harris calls "techno

from eulogy to depreciation. The correlation with theoretical persuasion of respon

history of anthropology. Kroeber An Anthropology. Calcutta: Univ. Calcutta