Content

Han F. Vermeulen, Anthropology and Ethnology in Europe Today in:

Anthropos, page 188 - 192

Anthropos, Volume 115 (2020), Issue 1, ISSN: 0257-9774, ISSN online: 0257-9774, https://doi.org/10.5771/0257-9774-2020-1-188

Browse Volumes and Issues: Anthropos

Bibliographic information
PDF download Citation download Share
Gonzalez, Luis Chichicastenango llora la partida de don Tomás Calvo Mateo. Republica (06.10.2017): [13.11.2019] Hultkrantz, Åke Ritual und Geheimnis. Über die Kunst der Medizin‐ männer, oder: Was der Professor verschwieg. In: H. P. Duerr (Hrsg.): Der Wissenschaftler und das Irrationale. Erster Band: Beiträge aus Ethnologie und Anthropolo‐ gie; pp. 71–95. Frankfurt: Syndikat/EVA. Jurosz-Landa, Gabriela Transcendent Wisdom of the Maya. The Ceremonies and Symbolism of a Living Tradition. Rochester: Bear & Company. Anthropology and Ethnology in Europe Today Review Essay Han F. Vermeulen* The book under review is an important collec‐ tion of essays on anthropological traditions in Eu‐ rope.1 The subject of "European Anthropologies" has been on the agenda at least since the special issue of Ethnos on “The Shaping of National An‐ thropologies” (1982) and Ulf Hannerz and Tomas Gerholm’s introductory article. It but gained new urgency since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the rise of neoliberalism and global capital‐ ism. Long in the making, but well worth the wait, the book is based on conferences held in Paris (2007) and Madrid (2008), aimed at reviewing “Anthropology in Europe” – defined as both “so‐ ciocultural anthropology and ethnology.” Under the broad rubric of “facing the challenges of Euro‐ pean convergence in higher education and re‐ search,” the book brings together eleven chapters on anthropology and ethnology in Portugal, Ger‐ many, Russia, Italy, France, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Greece. In their introduction, the editors, based at Madrid, Paris and Gdańsk, respectively, explain that the idea was to present an “intellectual and in‐ stitutional portrait” of the “‘smaller’ European tra‐ 2017 1985 2019 * vermeulen@eth.mpg.de 1 Barrera-González, Andrés, Monica Heintz, and Anna Horo‐ lets (eds.): European Anthropologies. New York: Berghahn Books, 2017. 296 pp. ISBN 978-1-78533-607-2. (Anthropo‐ logy of Europe, 2). Price: $ 130.00. ditions … [in the] fields of sociocultural anthro‐ pology and ethnology” (1) vis-à-vis the “hege‐ monic” Anglo-American traditions. They relate these two fields to a distinction in German be‐ tween Völkerkunde, which they define as “the study of ‘other peoples,’” and Volkskunde, “the study of ‘the people’, of one’s own national tradi‐ tions” (3). These definitions are slightly mislead‐ ing as Völkerkunde (ethnology) is the study of peoples (plural), whereas Volkskunde is the study of a people (singular). The editors connect these scholarly traditions to George Stocking’s 1984 dis‐ tinction between “empire-building” and “nationbuilding” anthropologies. The editors’s view is that, despite the homogenising effects of the Bologna Process, which since 1999 aims at har‐ monising degree programs across Europe, these fields should remain distinct and heterogeneous. Most essays begin their analysis in the second half of the nineteenth century. The chapter on Fin‐ land dates the beginnings of Finnish folklore col‐ lection back to the seventeenth century. The eigh‐ teenth century, which saw the genesis of ethnogra‐ phy and ethnology in Russia and the Germanspeaking world (Vermeulen 2015), is merely men‐ tioned in the introduction (3–5), the chapters on Portugal (Brazilian collections in Coimbra, 36), Germany (50), and Russia (etnografia, 88). This historical restriction limits our perspective on the development of the anthropological and ethnologi‐ cal sciences and their transformations. The first chapter, written by Susana de Matos Viegas and João de Pina-Cabral, sets the tone. Fo‐ cusing on “contemporary anthropology” in Portu‐ gal and devoting only a few pages to its (compli‐ cated) history, the authors argue that the two fields mentioned are connected to overseas colonies and empire-building and to “ruralist ethnology” and nation-building, respectively. Whether or not they merge, or what the proportion of research in these fields is, remains open. Clear is that after the Salazar dictatorship (1928–1974) and since the “intense internal questioning” of the 1980 s (34), sociocultural anthropology since the 1990 s has become more and more internationally oriented and “quite successful” among the social sciences (41) – despite the “recessive austerity regime” im‐ posed by the European Union (42). Chapter 2, titled “When a Great Scholarly Tra‐ dition Modernizes: German-Language Ethnology in the Long Twentieth Century,” written by John R. Eidson, reviews developments in the Germanspeaking countries (Germany, Austria, parts of Switzerland). Eidson relates this subject to Ger‐ man Völkerkunde (ethnology), although he briefly 188 Reports and Commentaries Anthropos 115.2020 deals with Volkskunde or folklore studies as well (50, 66 f.). The German tradition, one of four “great traditions” before World War II, is well known and Eidson discusses its establishment in museums, universities, and societies; the founding fathers (Bastian and Ratzel); and the proponents of three main schools – all variants of a cultural-his‐ torical orientation. He deals with ethnology under National Socialism (57 f.), the revival of these schools after 1945, the fusion of Völkerkunde and Volkskunde in a field called Ethnographie in the GDR (60 f.), and gives a survey of institutions and journals after the German unification of 1990 (61– 64). In the concluding part of this chapter he ana‐ lyzes the dilemmas German-speaking ethnologists face regarding their peripheral position in world anthropology; the relation to their sister discipline Volkskunde; their own language; and the reform of their system of higher education (64–69). In chapter 3, on anthropology in Russia, Sergey Sokolovskiy focuses on “Tradition vs. Paradigm Shift.” Concentrating on etnografia as the Russian equivalent of sociocultural anthropology (90), which he distinguishes from physical anthropology (98), Sokolovskiy claims that “Russian anthropolo‐ gy takes its roots in folklore studies ... and various applied ethnographic cum geographic research” (86). He does not discuss Russian folklore studies nor the rich history of ethnographic research, al‐ though “the country’s population … [is] divided in‐ to more than 150 different linguistic communities” (96). As most shifts in Russian anthropology were due to the central government, an externalist ac‐ count makes more sense than an internalist one: during the 1930 s, anthropology was “Marxified”; the 1960 s and 1970 s added structuralism; the late 1990 s saw post-structuralism come to the fore (87). Reviewing “etnos” studies in the Soviet period (1922–1991), and the role of Yulian Bromley (95– 97), he also deals with current research and teaching to conclude that “Russian anthropology ... has lost its previous focus on ethnic studies but has not ac‐ quired any new common focus” (104). The chapter on “Anthropology and Ethnology in Italy,” written by Pier Paolo Viazzo, describes a three-fold division between ethnologia (conduct‐ ing “exotic ethnography”), demologia (doing “ethnography at home”), and antropologia cultu‐ rale (first chair established at Bologna in 1970). These studies experienced rapid institutional growth after the university reforms of 1969 and, despite theoretical differences, merged in a “large‐ ly unified field” during the 1990 s – officially adopted in the ministerial vocabulary as: “demoethno-anthropological disciplines” (115). Despite a “rising demand” for anthropologists (117, 120, 125) and the rapid expansion of student numbers, the Germini Reform of 2010 and the lack of pro‐ fessional recognition of anthropologists, especially as teachers in secondary schools – despite the drafting of text books for schools! (123) – leave “prospects for the future look uncertain” (120). Echoing the diagnosis of two anthropologists from Portugal, not mentioned in chapter 1, Viazzo makes a plea for more practical training in the “delicate problems of intercultural communication and multi-ethnic coexistence that immigration is raising” in order to develop a “skill-based peda‐ gogy” as an antidote to “autistic anthropology” (124 f.). In chapter 5, Sophie Chevalier sketches the re‐ cent trajectory of French anthropology. Starting with the auto-assessment of French ethnology and anthropology in 2007, attended by 350 people at the Musée de l’Homme and its successor, the Musée du Quai Branly, and the 2009 attempt to unify various associations in the “Association française d’ethnologie et d’anthropologie” (AFEA), she focuses on the effects of the collapse of grand theory (146) and the Bologna reform of 1999, which “has not worked out well for anthro‐ pology in France” (133). AFEA’s first annual con‐ ference in 2011, attended by 600 people, was “the first step towards unity” (132). Despite a growing demand for anthropologists (133, 135, 139, 141), the lack of anthropological training at the under‐ graduate level, of jobs other than at the CNRS or the universities, the “paradigm shift from a scien‐ tific model to an aesthetic one” in French muse‐ ums, the weak institutional grounding of anthro‐ pology in French academia, compared to sociolo‐ gy, and the “reduced prominence” of theoretical approaches paint a complicated picture of French anthropology, which continues to be divided be‐ tween ethnology (folklore studies) and sociocul‐ tural anthropology. Although “national anthro‐ pologies have by no means disappeared, a new an‐ thropology in (and of) Europe is gradually coming into being” (144), and “the evidence from France refutes” predictions about the “end of anthropolo‐ gy” (146). Chapter 6 presents an “intellectual and social history of folkloristics, ethnology and anthropolo‐ gy in Finland,” written by Ulrika Wolf-Knuts and Pekka Hakamies. Separate from Sweden since 1809 and independent from Russia since 1917, Finland presents a special case as Finnish “[f]olk‐ lore studies are generally regarded as more inter‐ national than ethnology, which is more focused on regional studies” (150). Adopting Leibniz’s histor‐ Reports and Commentaries 189 Anthropos 115.2020 ical linguistics and Herder’s arguments about the originality of folk life, Swedish and Finnish schol‐ ars began to collect folk tales and folk songs that played a role in creating Swedish and Finnish identities up to World War II (152). The material collected among the Swedish and Finnish popula‐ tions, the Sámi, and among kindred Finno-Ugric peoples of northern Eurasia, is so huge that ethno‐ logy (kansatiede) is divided in five types: anti‐ quarian, language-based, regional, cultural-histor‐ ical, and anthropological ethnology (158–163). Anthropology is usually associated with British anthropology, which counts as theoretically more advanced (162, 165). The case of Lithuania partly confirms this pat‐ tern: national ethnology was produced before and during the Soviet period (1940–1990); sociocultur‐ al anthropology emerged after the Singing Revolu‐ tion of 1989 (171 f.). Vytis Ciubrinskas summarises these as “the discipline(s) of studying ‘our own’ and/or ‘the other’ people in Lithuania.” Lithuanian ethnology (tautotyra), like Finnish folklore studies, was influenced by German Volkskunde, but ob‐ tained new urgency during communism with efforts to salvage and revive “authentic Lithuanian-ness” vis-à-vis the promotion of a “socialist lifestyle” (174–178). During perestroika this movement led to studies of “ethnic culture” (etninė kultura) that needed to be nurtured (178 f.) – until Lithuanian professors from the diaspora in North America began to offer courses in cultural and social anthro‐ pology in 1990 and 1991. Yet, it was only in 2010 that anthropology was recognised as a “separate so‐ cial science” (182). The “moieties, lineages, and clans in Polish an‐ thropology before and after 1989” are discussed by Michal Buchowski in chapter 8. Poland differs from other Eastern European countries in that “Polish ethnology/anthropology had been able to build on various Western theories” well before the post-1989 transformation (187). Characterising the “ethnographic paradigm” of the 1960 s and 1970 s as positivist, modernist, and romanticist (190– 192), the label ethnology was used in the 1980 s to signal a shift to a post-traditional paradigm. From then on, the “neo-tribe” of Polish anthropologists comprised two pillars: the ethnological and the so‐ ciological moiety, itself defined as “disciplinary training” (190). While the first moiety included Scientific Ethnology, the New Polish Ethnology in Warsaw and Cracow, and Socio-Pragmatic An‐ thropology in Poznań (193–196); the latter com‐ prised Social Anthropology in Cracow (Malinow‐ ski!) and Sociological Anthropology in Warsaw (196–198). Although the author is less clear about the differences between lineages, clans, and schools, the variety of Polish literature is neatly arranged according to these labels. The lack of fieldwork among most practitioners, and the fail‐ ure to theorise about the change to post-socialism and neoliberal capitalism while these processes took place during the 1990 s, are duly noted (199– 203). In chapter 9, “Between Ethnography and An‐ thropology in Slovakia,” Alexandra Bitušíková presents “autobiographical reflections” on the change from ethnography (národopis) and folklore studies to ethnology and anthropology. In 1968, before the invasion of the Soviet army, ethnology had been introduced in Bratislava with an insti‐ tute, a journal, a seminar, and an Archivum ethno‐ logicum; fieldwork was a significant component of the curriculum (214 f.). The close relation be‐ tween ethnography/ethnology and history, going back to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and the Enlightenment, was part of the Germanic legacy of Volkskunde in the whole of Central and Eastern Europe, and reinforced by historical materialism after the Soviet takeover of Czechoslovakia (216 f.). Since 1989, five departments with combi‐ nations of ethnology, folklore studies, social or cultural anthropology have been established, the last one in 2002. Despite internal divisions, the “thematic scope has broadened and is mainly ori‐ ented towards contemporary societal and cultural changes” – an interest that should be linked to “the close relationship [between] ethnology and histo‐ ry” (225). A fourth case of Central and Eastern European traditions is discussed by Jasna Čapo and Valentina Gulin Zrnić in their chapter “Grounding Contemporary Croatian Cultural Anthropology in Its Own Ethnology.” Ethnology in Croatia was practiced as the “science of people” (narodo‐ znanstvo) during the 1890 s–1920 s, “aimed at the documentation of folk (peasant, rural) culture in its entirety” (232). The approach remained cultur‐ al-historical until the 1990 s, although elements from cultural anthropology were adopted from the 1970 s on. After folklore studies had been rede‐ fined as “national ethnology” during the European conference at Arnhem in 1955 (245, n. 1), the De‐ partment of Ethnology at Zagreb kept its name de‐ spite pressure to rename the subject in “ethnogra‐ phy” (246, n. 12). After the 1991 break-up of Yu‐ goslavia, an “ethnography of war” developed as well as an interest in the history of ethnology. In the early twenty-first century a “diversified disci‐ pline” developed and the Department added Cul‐ tural Anthropology to its name in 2004, resulting 190 Reports and Commentaries Anthropos 115.2020 in rapid growth (239). Social anthropology never really found a foothold. The authors argue that an‐ thropology at home (ethnologie du proche) is as valuable as anthropology abroad and that a dia‐ logue between national ethnologies and anthropol‐ ogy should be developed (242–244). The final chapter 11, by Aliki Angelidou, dis‐ cusses the “dynamics, difficulties, and challenges” of anthropology in Greece. Ethnology was desig‐ nated as laografia in 1884 and introduced at the University of Athens in 1890 (253 f.); the journal Laografia dates from 1909. As in other parts of southeastern Europe, it is regarded as a nationbuilding science. Although sociological courses were introduced during the 1920 s and 1930 s, and fieldwork was conducted among minorities (255), national studies remained dominant until the 1980 s. British, American, and French anthropolo‐ gists carried out fieldwork in rural Greek areas during the 1950 s and 1960 s, and UNESCO opened the Athens Centre for Social Research in 1959, but these initiatives were halted by the mili‐ tary junta (1967–74). The first departments of an‐ thropology were established at Lesvos in 1987–88 and Athens in 1990–91. The 1990 s saw “unique growth” and Greek anthropology developed into “a polyphonic and diversified field” (259 f.). How‐ ever, due to challenges (little funding for PhD stu‐ dents, most courses focused on Europe, the rivalry between laografia and anthropology, a struggle for legitimacy within academia, a weak reception in Greek society, budgetary cuts, centralised admin‐ istration, lack of applied education) the future of anthropology in Greece is uncertain. The editors emphasise the “Strength from the Margins” and, indeed, these case studies show di‐ versity behind a label of anthropology suggesting more unity than there actually is. On the other hand, Europe includes 51 independent states, 27 of which are member states of the European Union. Anthropology in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Nor‐ way, Serbia, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, and other countries of Europe has been left out. A chapter on anthropology in Spain, given its global influ‐ ence, is badly missed. The book under review deals with anthropologi‐ cal traditions that are marginal to “hegemonic” Anglo-American traditions. It blends in with the debate on “world anthropologies”2 and builds on volumes such as Vermeulen and Alvarez Roldán (1995), Skalník (2002, 2005), Dracklé et al. (2003, 2 Ribeiro and Escobar (2006); Bošković (2007); Ribeiro (2014). 2004), Gaillard (2004), Barth et al. (2005), Hann et al. (2005), Kuklick (2008), Bošković (2008), Mihǎilescu et. al. (2008), Kürti and Skalník (2009), Mühlfried and Sokolovskiy (2011), Bošković and Hann (2013) – recently supplement‐ ed by over 30 entries on national traditions in the “International Encyclopedia of Anthropology” (Callan 2018). It also contributes to debates on “the end of anthropology” (Jebens and Kohl 2011), on anthropology in small countries (Han‐ nerz and Gingrich 2017) and on a cosmopolitan anthropology seeking a balance between diversity and commonality.3 The question remains whether the concept of “anthropology in Europe” provides a way out of working within and theorising about national dis‐ ciplinary traditions. In any case, while dealing with European anthropology, these essays demon‐ strate that, apart from social or cultural anthropol‐ ogy, there is and has been a large amount of ethno‐ logical scholarship, conducted within national tra‐ ditions and in the world at large. Aware of this, the editors opted for pluralising the concept in their ti‐ tle: “European Anthropologies.” This volume makes clear that theoretical and methodological pluralism is very much en vogue in Europe today. References Cited Antweiler, Christoph Our Common Denominator. Human Universals Revisit‐ ed. (Transl. by Diane Kerns.) New York: Berghahn Books. [Paperback ed. 2018] Barrera-González, Andrés, Monica Heintz, and Anna Horo‐ lets (eds.) European Anthropologies. New York: Berghahn Books. Barth, Fredrik, Andre Gingrich, Robert Parkin, and Sydel Silverman One Discipline, Four Ways. British, German, French, and American Anthropology. (The Halle Lectures, With a Foreword by Chris Hann.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bošković, Aleksandar “World Anthropologies” and Anthropologies in the World. Three Perspectives. A Review Essay. Anthropos 102: 230–234. Bošković, Aleksandar (ed.) Other People’s Anthropologies. Ethnographic Practice on the Margins. New York: Berghahn Books. Bošković, Aleksandar, and Chris Hann (eds.) The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, 1945–1991. Berlin: LIT Verlag. 2016 2017 2005 2007 2008 2013 3 E.g., Kuper (1994, 2019); Gudeman (2010); Rapport (2012); Ribeiro (2014); Glick Schiller and Irving (2015); Antweiler (2016). Reports and Commentaries 191 Anthropos 115.2020 Callan, Hilary (ed.-in-chief) The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 12 Vols. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Dracklé, Dorle, and Iain R. Edgar (eds.) Current Policies and Practices in European Social An‐ thropology Education. New York: Berghahn Books. Dracklé, Dorle, Iain R. Edgar, and Thomas K. Schippers (eds.) Educational Histories of European Social Anthropolo‐ gy. New York: Berghahn Books. Ethnos The Shaping of National Anthropologies. Ethnos (Spe‐ cial Issue) 47/1–2. [Issue ed. Karl Eric Larsson] Gaillard, Gérald The Routledge Dictionary of Anthropologists. (Transl. by James Bowman.) London: Routledge. [French orig: Dictionnaire des ethnologues et anthropologues. Paris 1997] Glick Schiller, Nina, and Andrew Irving (eds.) Whose Cosmopolitanism? Critical Perspectives, Rela‐ tionalities, and Discontents. New York: Berghahn Books. Gudeman, Stephen A Cosmopolitan Anthropology? In: D. James, E. Plaice, and C. Toren (eds.), Culture Wars. Context, Models, and Anthropologists’ Accounts; pp. 136–151. New York: Berghahn Books. Hann, Chris, Mihály Sárkány, and Peter Skalník (eds.) Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Social‐ ist Era Anthropology in East-Central Europe. Berlin: LIT Verlag. Hannerz, Ulf, and Tomas Gerholm Introduction. The Shaping of National Anthropologies. Ethnos (Special Issue) 47/1–2: 5–35. Hannerz, Ulf, and Andre Gingrich (eds.) Small Countries. Structures and Sensibilities. Philadel‐ phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Jebens, Holger, and Karl-Heinz Kohl (eds.) The End of Anthropology? Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston Publishing. Kürti, László, and Peter Skalník (eds.) Postsocialist Europe. Anthropological Perspectives from Home. New York: Berghahn Books. 2018 2004 2003 1982 2004 2015 2010 2005 1982 2017 2011 2009 Kuklick, Henrika (ed.) A New History of Anthropology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Kuper, Adam Culture, Identity, and the Project of a Cosmopolitan Anthropology. Man (N.S.) 29/3: 537–554. Deconstructing Anthropology. First Annual Stephen F. Gudeman Lecture. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 9/1: 10–22. [French Version: Déconstruire l’anthropologie. Première conférence annuelle Stephen F. Gudeman, 5 novembre 2018, Université du Minnesota. In: BEROSE – International Encyclopaedia of the Histories of An‐ thropology. Paris 2019: (14.11.2019)] Mihǎilescu, Vintilǎ, et. al. (eds.) Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Vol. 2: Socialist Era Anthropology in South-East Europe. Münster: LIT. Mühlfried, Florian, and Sergey Sokolovskiy (eds.) Exploring the Edge of Empire. Soviet Era Anthropolo‐ gy in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Wien: LIT Verlag. Rapport, Nigel Anyone. The Cosmopolitan Subject of Anthropology. New York: Berghahn Books. Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins World Anthropologies. Anthropological Cosmopoli‐ tanisms and Cosmopolitics. Annual Review of Anthro‐ pology 43: 483–498. Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins, and Arturo Escobar (eds.) World Anthropologies. Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Skalník, Peter (ed.) A Post-Communist Millenium. The Struggles for So‐ ciocultural Anthropology in Central and Eastern Eur‐ ope. Prague: Set Out. Anthropology of Europe. Teaching and Research. Prague: Set Out. Vermeulen, Han F. and Arturo Alvarez Roldán (eds.) Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of European Anthropology. London: Routledge. Before Boas. The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnolo‐ gy in the German Enlightenment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [Paperback ed. 2018] 2008 1994 2019 2008 2011 2012 2014 2006 2002 2005 1995 2015 192 Reports and Commentaries Anthropos 115.2020

Abstract

The book under review is an important collection of essays on anthropological traditions in Europe. The subject of "European Anthropologies" has been on the agenda at least since the special issue of Ethnos on “The Shaping of National Anthropologies” (1982) and Ulf Hannerz and Tomas Gerholm’s introductory article. It but gained new urgency since the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the rise of neoliberalism and global capitalism. Long in the making, but well worth the wait, the book is based on conferences held in Paris (2007) and Madrid (2008), aimed at reviewing “Anthropology in Europe” - defined as both “sociocultural anthropology and ethnology.” Under the broad rubric of “facing the challenges of European convergence in higher education and research,” the book brings together eleven chapters on anthropology and ethnology in Portugal, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Croatia, and Greece.

References
Antweiler, Christoph
2016 Our Common Denominator. Human Universals Revisited. (Transl. by Diane Kerns.) New York: Berghahn Books. [Paperback ed. 2018]
Barrera-González, Andrés, Monica Heintz, and Anna Horolets (eds.)
2017 European Anthropologies. New York: Berghahn Books.
Barth, Fredrik, Andre Gingrich, Robert Parkin, and Sydel Silverman
2005 One Discipline, Four Ways. British, German, French, and American Anthropology. (The Halle Lectures, With a Foreword by Chris Hann.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bošković, Aleksandar
2007 “World Anthropologies” and Anthropologies in the World. Three Perspectives. A Review Essay. Anthropos 102: 230–234.
Bošković, Aleksandar (ed.)
2008 Other People’s Anthropologies. Ethnographic Practice on the Margins. New York: Berghahn Books.
Bošković, Aleksandar, and Chris Hann (eds.)
2013 The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, 1945–1991. Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Callan, Hilary (ed.-in-chief)
2018 The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. 12 Vols. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Dracklé, Dorle, and Iain R. Edgar (eds.)
2004 Current Policies and Practices in European Social Anthropology Education. New York: Berghahn Books.
Dracklé, Dorle, Iain R. Edgar, and Thomas K. Schippers (eds.)
2003 Educational Histories of European Social Anthropology. New York: Berghahn Books.
Ethnos
1982 The Shaping of National Anthropologies. Ethnos (Special Issue) 47/1–2. [Issue ed. Karl Eric Larsson]
Gaillard, Gérald
2004 The Routledge Dictionary of Anthropologists. (Transl. by James Bowman.) London: Routledge. [French orig: Dictionnaire des ethnologues et anthropologues. Paris 1997]
Glick Schiller, Nina, and Andrew Irving (eds.)
2015 Whose Cosmopolitanism? Critical Perspectives, Relationalities, and Discontents. New York: Berghahn Books.
Gudeman, Stephen
2010 A Cosmopolitan Anthropology? In: D. James, E. Plaice, and C. Toren (eds.), Culture Wars. Context, Models, and Anthropologists’ Accounts; pp. 136–151. New York: Berghahn Books.
Hann, Chris, Mihály Sárkány, and Peter Skalník (eds.)
2005 Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Socialist Era Anthropology in East-Central Europe. Berlin: LIT Verlag.
Hannerz, Ulf, and Tomas Gerholm
1982 Introduction. The Shaping of National Anthropologies. Ethnos (Special Issue) 47/1–2: 5–35.
Hannerz, Ulf, and Andre Gingrich (eds.)
2017 Small Countries. Structures and Sensibilities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-nia Press.
Jebens, Holger, and Karl-Heinz Kohl (eds.)
2011 The End of Anthropology? Canon Pyon: Sean Kingston Publishing.
Kürti, László, and Peter Skalník (eds.)
2009 Postsocialist Europe. Anthropological Perspectives from Home. New York: Berghahn Books.
Kuklick, Henrika (ed.)
2008 A New History of Anthropology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Kuper, Adam
1994 Culture, Identity, and the Project of a Cosmopolitan Anthropology. Man (N.S.) 29/3: 537–554.
2019 Deconstructing Anthropology. First Annual Stephen F. Gudeman Lecture. Journal of Ethnographic Theory 9/1: 10–22. [French Version: Déconstruire l’anthropologie. Première conférence annuelle Stephen F. Gudeman, 5 novembre 2018, Université du Minnesota. In: BEROSE – International Encyclopaedia of the Histories of Anthropology. Paris 2019: <http://www.berose.fr/article1649.html> (14.11.2019)]
Mihǎilescu, Vintilǎ, et. al. (eds.)
2008 Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies. Vol. 2: Socialist Era Anthropology in South-East Europe. Münster: LIT.
Mühlfried, Florian, and Sergey Sokolovskiy (eds.)
2011 Exploring the Edge of Empire. Soviet Era Anthropology in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Wien: LIT Verlag.
Rapport, Nigel
2012 Anyone. The Cosmopolitan Subject of Anthropology. New York: Berghahn Books.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins
2014 World Anthropologies. Anthropological Cosmopolitanisms and Cosmopolitics. An-nual Review of Anthropology 43: 483–498.
Ribeiro, Gustavo Lins, and Arturo Escobar (eds.)
2006 World Anthropologies. Disciplinary Transformations within Systems of Power. Ox-ford: Berg Publishers.
Skalník, Peter (ed.)
2002 A Post-Communist Millenium. The Struggles for Sociocultural Anthropology in Cen-tral and Eastern Eur¬o⁠p⁠e. Prague: Set Out.
2005 Anthropology of Europe. Teaching and Research. Prague: Set Out.
Vermeulen, Han F. and Arturo Alvarez Roldán (eds.)
1995 Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of European Anthro-pology. London: Routled­ge.
2015 Before Boas. The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlighten-ment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. [Paperback ed. 2018]

Abstract

Anthropos is the international journal of anthropology and linguistics, founded in 1906 by Wilhelm Schmidt, missonary and member of the Society of the Divine Word (SVD). Its main purpose is the study of human societies in their cultural dimension. In honor of Wilhelm Schmidt‘s legacy, the cultivation of anthropology, ethnology, linguistics, and religious studies remain an essential component oft he Anthropos Institute – the organizational carrier of the journal.

Zusammenfassung

Anthropos - internationale Zeitschrift für Völkerkunde wird vom Anthropos Institut St. Augustin seit 1906 zweimal jährlich herausgegeben. Ursprünglich als Sprachrohr für katholische Missionarsarbeit geplant, gilt sie heute als wichtige Fachzeitschrift der allgemeinen Ethnologie. Sie behandelt sowohl kulturelle als auch sprachliche Themen in mehreren Sprachen, mit Schwerpunkt auf den Völkern des gesamtamerikanischen und afrikanischen Kontinents.