The Wenner-Gren Foundation

2016 1− 194 PRESS LITA OSMUNDSEN 5 YEARS CHICAGO PAUL FEJOS VOLUME 57VOLUME SUPPLEMENT 14 OCTOBER 2016 UNIVERSIT Y O F RADIN JOANNA THE

AXEL WENNER-GREN Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological y Anthropolog SUPPORTING ANTHROPOLOGY FOR 7 SUPPORTING ANTHROPOLOGY GUEST EDITORS: LESLIE C. AIELLO, LAURIE OBBINK, AND MARK MAHONEY GUEST EDITORS: LESLIE C. LESLIE C. AIELLO LESLIE 75 Years for Anthropology Supporting Foundation: Wenner-Gren e and LINDEE SUSAN for Foundation Wenner-Gren the of Experience: A History Human the of Patrons 1941–2016 Research, Anthropological A. LUCIAK ILJA Origins Wenner-Gren the the of and Fejos, Paul Wenner-Gren, Reality: Axel and Vision Research Anthropological for Foundation The Wenner-Gren Foundation The Wenner-Gren

t Curren

Current Anthropology October 2016 Volume 57 Supplement 14 Pages S211−S332

Current Anthropology is sponsored by e Wenner- Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, a foundation endowed for scientic, educational, and charitable purposes. e Foundation, however, is not to be understood as endorsing, by virtue of its nancial support, any of the statements made, or views expressed, herein.

of anthropology. and its role in the development of the eld and its role in the development of the rst comprehensive history of the foundation rst comprehensive history of the foundation issue of Current Anthropology provide the Research. e papers in this supplementary Research. e papers in this supplementary Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Wenner-Gren Foundation 2016 is the 75th anniversary of the 2016 is the 75th anniversary The Wenner-Gren Foundation Supporting Anthropology for 75 Years, 1941–2016

Guest Editors: Leslie C. Aiello, Laurie Obbink, and Mark Mahoney

Wenner-Gren Symposium Series Editor: Leslie Aiello Wenner-Gren Symposium Series Managing Editor: Laurie Obbink Current Anthropology Editor: Mark Aldenderfer Current Anthropology Managing Editor: Lisa McKamy Book Reviews Editor: Holley Moyes Corresponding Editors: Claudia Briones (IIDyPCa-Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, Argentina; [email protected]), Michalis Kontopodis (Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany; [email protected]), José Luis Lanata (Universidad Nacional de Río Negro San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina; [email protected]), David Palmer (Hong Kong University, China; [email protected]), Anne de Sales (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France; [email protected]), Zhang Yinong (Shanghai University, China; [email protected])

Please send all editorial correspondence to (877) 705-1878. Fax: (773) 753-0811 or toll-free (877) 705- Mark Aldenderfer 1879. E-mail: [email protected]. School of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts University of California, Merced Reasons of practicality or law make it necessary or desirable 5200 North Lake Road to circulate Current Anthropology without charge in certain Merced, CA 95343, USA portions of the world; it is hoped, however, that recipients of (fax: 209-228-4007; e-mail: [email protected]) this journal without charge will individually or collectively in various groups apply funds or time and energy to the world Individual subscription rates for 2017: $79 print + electronic, good of humankind through the human sciences. Information $47 print-only, $46 e-only. Institutional subscription rates are concerning applicable countries is available on request. tiered according to an institution’s type and research output: $346 to $727 print + electronic and $301 to $632 e-only. In- q 2016 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological stitutional print-only is $397. Additional taxes and/or postage Research. All rights reserved. Current Anthropology (issn for non-US subscriptions may apply. For additional rates, in- 0011-3204) is published bimonthly in February, April, June, cluding prices for full-run institutional access and single cop- August, October, and December by The University of Chicago ies, visit www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/ca/about. Free Press, 1427 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637-2954. or deeply discounted access is available in most developing na Periodicals postage paid at Chicago, IL, and at additional tions through the Chicago Emerging Nations Initiative (www mailing ofﬁces. Postmaster: Send address changes to .journals.uchicago.edu/ceni). Current Anthropology, PO Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637.

Please direct subscription inquiries, back-issue requests, and address changes to the University of Chicago Press, Jour- nals Division, PO Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Telephone: (773) 753-3347 or toll-free in the United States and Canada Current Anthropology Volume 57 Supplement 14 October 2016

The Wenner-Gren Foundation: Supporting Anthropology for 75 Years

Leslie C. Aiello The Wenner-Gren Foundation: Supporting Anthropology for 75 Years S211 Susan Lindee and Joanna Radin Patrons of the Human Experience: A History of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, 1941–2016 S218 Ilja A. Luciak Vision and Reality: Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and the Origins of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research S302

Paul Fejos with Axel Wenner-Gren filming in Indonesia circa 1938 (Wenner-Gren Foundation archives). http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 S211

The Wenner-Gren Foundation: Supporting Anthropology for 75 Years

Leslie C. Aiello

CA1 Online-Only Material: Supplement A

The Wenner-Gren Foundation is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2016. It was founded in 1941 with an endowment of approximately US$2 million in Servel and Electrolux stock, funds that Axel Wenner-Gren and his lawyers were sheltering from the US Internal Revenue Service. Over the foundation’s 75-year history, nothing has been added to the endowment, but it has grown to approximately US$165 million. Wenner-Gren has never been a large foundation in the sense of Rockefeller or Mellon, but it has had a disproportionate impact on the field of anthropology. The foundation and the field have in essence grown up together. Wenner-Gren preceded the other major US funder of anthropology, the National Science Foundation, by almost two decades and, through its grants, fellowships, sponsored symposia, and publications, has always been there for anthropology. It is not the same foundation as it was 75 years ago, however, and it has gone through its own difficult times, particularly in the 1970s, whenadownturninthefinancial markets together with changes in the US not-for-profit laws put severe pressure on the foundation, and again in the 1980s when, for a variety of reasons, it was almost lost to anthropology. However, the past three decades have seen a resurgence, and over this period we have provided approximately US$90 million to anthropology, funding almost 6,000 anthropological projects in the United States and abroad.

I have been president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation since 1960s. This was just before the field exploded. According to 2005, and it has never ceased to surprise me that younger National Science Foundation (NSF) data, between the mid- colleagues and students do not wonder why the foundation 1960s and mid-1970s the number of doctoral degrees awarded exists, let alone why anthropology is in the virtually unique in anthropology in the United States increased fourfold, from position of having its own private foundation dedicated solely approximately 100 annually to slightly over 400 (more than 600 to funding our relatively small social science discipline. In the are awarded annually today; fig. 1). At the same time, the field many grant-writing seminars I have given over the years or was rapidly diversifying and trying to find its way in a post- conferences I have attended, it is extremely rare for anyone to colonial world. Those with academic roots in the earlier years ask basic questions about the foundation or to show an in- did not need to be told about the foundation. It was familiar to terest in its history or why it has been able to survive over the them, and the community was small enough that almost ev- years. No one asks where the money came from, or about the eryone knew the personalities involved. Most of these older people who shaped the foundation, or how the endowment anthropologists also had firsthand experience of the founda- has been able to grow, or anything about our internal op- tion, either through attending events at the Wenner-Gren head- erations and governance. It seems sufficient that Wenner- quarters on New York’sUpperEastSideoratitsfairy-talecas- Gren is a source of support for the field and that is all that tle, Burg Wartenstein, just outside of Vienna in Austria. needs to be known. However, things changed, and not only because of the run- Part of this lack of curiosity is perhaps our own fault. In away growth and diversification of anthropology. The 1960s was the early years, anthropology was much different than it is a golden decade for the Wenner-Gren Foundation. It was on a today—it was smaller and more intimate—and virtually all strong financial footing and had embraced its mission to sup- anthropologists were related through their academic geneal- port anthropology internationally through Burg Wartenstein ogy to a handful of founders. I first came into anthropology (its international conference center) and through Current An- as an undergraduate and then a graduate student in the thropology, which was—and still is—an important venue for dissemination of international research in anthropology. The foundation also recognized the need in biological anthropology Leslie C. Aiello is President of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for for replicas of hominin fossils. After funding extensive research Anthropological Research (470 Park Avenue South, 8th Floor, New on casting and molding techniques, it sent technicians around York, New York 10016, U.S.A.). the world to mold more than 180 fossil specimens. In the mid- q 2016 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2016/57S14-0001$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/688052 S212 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

venues, the Wenner-Gren symposium books, when and if they were published by the symposium organizers, became just another edited volume among a sea of other edited volumes. With the expansion of the field, the Wenner-Gren symposia, although still unique in their format, had lost much of their earlier cachet. In the midst of all these changes, the foundation has kept extensive archival records, including audio recordings of meetings and numerous archival photographs, as well as files of correspondence relating to all aspects of foundation life. Over the years there also have been reflections on the significance of the Wenner-Gren Foundation to the ongoing development of the fi ’ Figure 1. Number of doctorates awarded annually in anthropology eld. However, these appeared in the foundation s annual re- (including archaeology) since the inception of the Wenner-Gren ports (marking its 10th, 20th, and 50th anniversaries) and have Foundation in 1941 (National Science Foundation data for the years gone largely unnoticed by both anthropologists and histori- – 1920 1999 at http://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150819080433 ans of the discipline.1 The first short history of the founda- /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf06319/pdf/tabs1.pdf and for more recent years at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16300/data-tables tion also appeared in an annual report in 1986 (the 45th). It was .cfm). written by Lita Osmundsen, who followed her late husband, Paul Fejos, as head of the foundation after his death in 1963 and ran it for another 23 years. Fejos had been head of the foundation almost from its beginning in 1941 and was the person 1960s it launched AnthroCast, the first commercial source of who persuaded Axel Wenner-Gren to target the field of an- high-quality paleoanthropological replicas. thropology with foundation funds. For its first 45 years the All was fine until the 1970s recession, which, with prolonged foundation had been basically a family business. All of these economic stagnation and high inflation, put an end to the post– little-known reflections on the foundation’s history make for World War II economic boom. The effects on the Wenner-Gren interesting reading. Foundation were devastating, and half of its endowment dis- Equally interesting is the biography of Paul Fejos, published appeared. By the end of the 1970s, in an attempt to save the in 1973 by his longtime friend and member of the Board of foundation, both Burg Wartenstein castle and the foundation’s Trustees of the Wenner-Gren, John W. Dodds (Dodds 1973). New York headquarters were sold. AnthroCast, whose exacting The book is based on oral-history interviews with Fejos and is standards for research accuracy of the hominin casts were a fanciful in many areas, but it provides insight into a self-made major reason for its continuing failure to make a profit, was Hungarian immigrant who was not averse to fabricating his past closed. The foundation retrenched, cut staff, moved to rented life. Regardless, once in the United States, he enjoyed a highly premises, and began a long process of reflection on its role in successful career as a Hollywood silent filmmaker and later supporting anthropology. The foundation that emerged at the remade himself, first with ethnographic and documentary film end of the 1980s was much different from the foundation dur- and then as the leading patron of anthropology, through his ing its earlier decades. The decision had been made to do away leadership of the Wenner-Gren Foundation. All of this, together with high-cost initiatives and to focus on more of a shotgun ap- with reflections on the foundation’sjournal,Current Anthro- proach to awarding numerous small grants. This allowed the pology, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary in 2009, pres- foundation to spread its financial risk and control outflow of funds as the investment climate went through its cycles. This, by the way, was the primary reason the foundation was able to weather the 2008 Great Recession without the same damage that it had incurred in the 1970s. 1. For example, in the 10th-anniversary annual report, published in While the foundation was going through its midlife crisis, the 1951, Alfred L. Kroeber offered his appraisal of the foundation’s achieve- field was maturing, expanding, and diversifying. The personal ments. In the 20th annual report, published in 1961, three anthropologists connections of anthropologists with Wenner-Gren were weaken- representing the major areas of specializations reflected on the importance fi ing as older anthropologists gave way to younger genera- of the foundation to the developing eld. Raymond Firth wrote on eth- tions. The foundation came to be seen more and more as a nology, Emil W. Haury on archaeology, and Adolph H. Schultz on physical anthropology. In the 50th annual report, published in 1991, six reliable source of small research grants for doctoral students and anthropologists contributed their reflections: F. Clark Howell (paleoan- seed-money grants for more senior anthropologists. The sig- thropology), Emöke J. E. Szathmary (biological anthropology), Gordon R. fi ni cance of the outcomes from the Burg Wartenstein sympo- Willey (New World archaeology), Patty Jo Watson (archaeology), sia, many of which had made landmark contributions to the Elizabeth Colson (social anthropology), Fredrik Barth (social anthropol- field in the 1960s and 1970s, diminished with the sale of the ogy). Full text for all of these articles can be found on the foundation’s castle. Although the symposium program continued at other website, at http://www.wennergren.org/history/grants-and-fellowships. Aiello Wenner-Gren Foundation S213 ents a fairly scattered and hidden history of the Wenner-Gren and Mexico, he has also presented what is perhaps the most Foundation.2 comprehensive review of the issues surrounding Wenner-Gren’s When mulling over ways to mark the foundation’s75than- blacklisting to date. Although it is not possible to know what niversary, it rapidly became clear that this was the ideal time Axel Wenner-Gren’s true feelings might have been, this re- to draw together all the threads of the foundation’s history into search clearly demonstrates that there were other important a coherent, well-substantiated account that would not shirk issues surrounding the blacklisting that might have been more uncomfortable issues. One of the most uncomfortable issues important than alleged Nazi sympathies. is the cloud that has hung over the foundation since its incep- Luciak’s paper deals primarily with the decade from the mid- tion in the guise of Alex Wenner-Gren’sblacklistingbytheUS 1930s through the mid-1940s and focuses specifically on the government in 1942 as a Nazi sympathizer. In fact, on learning beginning of the foundation, on Fejos and Wenner-Gren as that I would take over the foundation in 2005, a senior colleague individual personalities, and on the possibility (which turned jokingly (or not) said that I was going to run “that Nazi orga- out to be little more than fantasy) that Wenner-Gren’s entire nization.” My response was to ask him how many of his stu- fortune would be added to the original relatively small en- dents the foundation had funded over the years. If I were to dowment and would transform Fejos’s Wenner-Gren Foun- give the same reply now, it would be much better informed by dation into a major philanthropic force. extensive historical and archival research, including access to The other paper in this anniversary issue is a more encom- previously censored FBI files. The true story is complex and passing review of the history of the foundation that takes us to centers less on Axel Wenner-Gren’sbusinessrelationshipsand the present day. In early 2014 the foundation commissioned other involvements with Germany leading up to World War II two historians of science, Susan Lindee (University of Penn- and more on his growing economic influence in Mexico (and sylvania) and Joanna Radin (Yale University), to pull together other Latin American countries) and the resulting discomfort all of the threads into an official history of the Wenner-Gren of the US State Department. His relationship to Fejos (whose Foundation (“Patrons of the Human Experience: A History then-wife Inga Arvad had been both a mistress of JFK and a of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, companion of Hitler at the 1936 Summer Olympics), his 1941–2016”; Lindee and Radin 2016). This work covers some of friendship with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in the the same ground as does Luciak, and areas where the emphasis Bahamas, and rumors around his wartime activities did not or conclusions differ reflect different interpretations of what in help the situation. In the early years of the foundation, Fejos at some cases is a contradictory or less than perfect documentary times had a difficult job giving away grant money because of record. Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting and alleged Nazi sympathies. Lindee and Radin’s mission was to produce a history of the The foundation’s research into its history began in 2009 with foundation in the context of the development of anthropology an Initiatives Grant to Ilja Luciak, a political scientist from Vir- as a discipline. They have done this in a comprehensive, clear, ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Blacksburg, and engaging fashion. Some of the highlights (at least for me) Virginia), to research the politics of Axel Wenner-Gren. Luciak include, for example, the role of Yale anthropologist Cornelius is a distant relative of Axel Wenner-Gren and has an academic Osgood in establishing the anthropological credibility of the interest in his involvement in the economy and politics of foundation in the years immediately following its establishment. Latin America. His three-year research into Alex Wenner-Gren Osgood was both mentor and friend to Fejos, and through his resulted in his contribution to this anniversary issue, “Vision founding editorship (1943–1947) of the foundation’spub- and Reality: Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and the Origins of lication series, Viking Fund Publications, he helped to establish the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research” the Wenner-Gren Foundation as a major force in the disci- (Luciak 2016). In this work he reviews the often complex re- pline. Other highlights in the early years include the 1952 “In- lationship between Axel Wenner-Gren and Paul Fejos and dem- ternational Symposium on Anthropology,” a comprehensive onstrates Fejos’s important role in ensuring that anthropology stocktaking of the discipline involving 81 anthropologists from remained the target of foundation support. Through Luciak’s around the world that ultimately led to the establishment of work with the FBI archives as well as other archives in Europe Current Anthropology in 1959. This was followed in 1955 by another symposium, “Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth,” an ambitious project noted for its historic scope and innovative, multidisciplinary approach. It is widely recognized as having launched the emerging field of ecological stud- 2. The 50th-anniversary issue of Current Anthropology (December ies and was an early harbinger of the modern interest in the 2009, vol. 50, no. 6) includes a paper on the history of the journal by Sydel Anthropocene. Silverman and short essays by all of the living editors (Cyril Belshaw, Adam Kuper, Ben Orlove) as well as reflections by Mark Aldenderfer, The history of the foundation can basically be divided into fi fi the current editor, and Barbara Metzger, the longtime CA copy editor, and three phases. The rst phase encompasses its rst two decades fi previously published comments by the founding editor, Sol Tax. Full text (1940s and 1950s), when the foundation was nding its way, of these articles are available on the foundation’s website, at http:// assessing the needs of the field, establishing its identity, and www.wennergren.org/history/journals-publications/current-anthropology. developing its central mission to support anthropology on an S214 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 international scale. This phase ended abruptly with the deaths members complete their 12-year tenure, new ones have been of Axel Wenner-Gren in 1961 and Paul Fejos in 1963. However, recruited, bringing with them the skills needed to help Wenner- the stage had been set for the next two-and-a-half decades, and Gren keep pace in the rapidly changing worlds of electronic it was Lita Osmundsen, Paul Fejos’s fifth wife, who executed the communication, social media, and academic publishing. At the plans that had been so carefully put in place. Burg Wartenstein same time, the academic Advisory Council (seven senior an- became the summer center of anthropological intellectual life, thropologists, including the editors of Current Anthropology and the Wenner-Gren Foundation continued to cultivate its and SAPIENS), keep the foundation in touch with trends across position at the heart of the discipline. In the end it was the the discipline and advise on the development of new pro- economic crisis of the 1970s that brought this second phase to a grams and initiatives. Selection of board and Advisory Council close, and the foundation was thrown into turmoil in its efforts members is based on both expertise and collegiality, and much to adapt to changing circumstances. of the success of the foundation in recent years is owed to the The third phase begins in 1987 when Sydel Silverman be- ability of everyone to work together effectively toward com- came the foundation’s president. It was up to her, with the monly determined goals. support of a strong board of trustees, to turn the foundation The strength of our board and advisory council is matched around and set it on a new course to support anthropology. only by the Wenner-Gren Foundation staff (fig. 3). The staff is We are still in this phase, and the two foundation presidents much smaller than many expect. There are only 12 of us in the following Silverman (Richard Fox, 2000–2005, and Leslie Wenner-Gren offi ce to manage our entire suite of programs— Aiello, 2005–present) have continued to build on Silverman’s applications and grants, conferences and symposia, fellow- initiatives while at the same time introducing new programs ships, archives, etc.—as well as the financial and office man- to benefit anthropology. agement required for a successful organization. Most of the Lindee and Radin have used their historian’sskillstopresent staff members are long-term Wenner-Gren employees; some this long foundation history. Some of what they chose to em- were even hired by Lita Osmundsen and have worked at the phasize may differ from what others might have thought sig- foundation for more than 30 years. The institutional memory nificant. However, all of the actors and major milestones are and dedication are part of our success. Together with the per- present, and their research has uncovered previously unknown manent staff there is also a rotating panel of up to 65 reviewers or underappreciated aspects of foundation history. They have to help assess our applications and ensure that we are fund- done an exemplary job of telling a story that is important to ing the highest-quality and most innovative anthropological insiders at the foundation and that should be equally significant research. to our colleagues and students interested in the growth of the I have been lucky to have taken over the foundation at the discipline. One comes away with a clear understanding of the time when the financial markets were surging and there was a rather quirky history of the foundation, including the fortuitous strong desire from the board for the foundation to grow and circumstances surrounding its beginnings and longevity. continue to develop to meet the needs of modern anthropol- One aspect that may not have been emphasized strongly ogy. It has been an honor to be at the head of an organization enough by Lindee and Radin is the role of the Wenner-Gren with such a rich history and legacy; however, it has also been Board of Trustees, the academic Advisory Council, and the a challenge. When I was hired, I was told by the then-chair Wenner-Gren staff in the foundation’s resurgence in the last few of the board that I was now “the foundation.” The president decades (fig. 2). When the foundation was going through its of the Wenner-Gren Foundation is responsible only to the crisis period in the 1980s, there was considerable animosity board of trustees in decisions surrounding foundation man- within the board of trustees and between the board and the agement and direction. It has also been a foundation tradi- foundation’s president, Lita Osmundsen. This has not been the tion that the president personally makes all of the funding case in recent years, and the solid governance structure, friendly decisions. Because I was the first biological anthropologist and supportive atmosphere, and dedicated staff have been key to head the foundation, there was considerable trepidation to foundation success. from some areas of the discipline about my plans for the future Most anthropologists do not realize the importance of the and potential biases in my funding preferences. I hope that I board of trustees in ensuring that the foundation has the re- have provided reassurance in this area; however, one of the sources to continue to give more than US$5 million in grants main challenges for the future is how to best use our relatively and other support for the field each year. The simple reason is modest resources to serve the needs of the expanding field. that half of the board of trustees are financial professionals who Right now, in 2016, with our current suite of programs, we have manage the endowment to ensure that there are sufficient funds sufficient funds to support only about 15% of the applications to support ongoing programs and to develop new ones. They do we receive. Any major new programs by necessity require the this as an unpaid “hobby” and deserve a large vote of thanks. closure of older programs. In this sense, the foundation is like Without our financial board members, we would not exist— a large boat—it cannot be turned and realigned quickly or there would be a diminished renewal of funds and dwindling painlessly. support for the field. The other half of the board is made up of There are also a number of challenges waiting around the academics (and two lawyers). In recent years, as old board corner. Prime among them is the state of the financial markets Aiello Wenner-Gren Foundation S215

Figure 2. Members of the Wenner-Gren Board of Trustees (BOT), Advisory Council (AC), and staff (S) at the 75th-anniversary board meeting held May 5–7, 2016, at Palácio de Seteais in Sintra, Portugal. Seated, from left: Leslie Aiello (President), John Immerwahr (BOT), Seth Masters (outgoing Chair, BOT), Sydel Silverman (President Emerita). Middle row, from left: Darcy Kelley (BOT), Barbara Savage (BOT), Cass Cliatt (BOT), Niloofar Haeri (AC), Lorraine Sciarra (incoming Chair, BOT), Cynthia Beall (AC), Barbara Rockenback (BOT), Patsy Spier (AC), Chip Colwell (SAPIENS editor, AC). Back row, from left: Laurie Obbink (S), Michael Muse (S), Lauren Meserve (BOT), Henry Gonzalez (BOT), Maugha Kenny (S), Susan Brownell (AC), Ben Vershbow (BOT), Noah Feldman (BOT), Philippe Bourgois (AC). Not pictured: Mark Aldenderfer (Current Anthropology editor, AC), Ira Berlin (BOT), Meredith Jenkins (BOT), Ted Seides (BOT). See figure 3 for all Wenner-Gren staff members. and whether it will continue to be possible to earn a 7% annual academic anthropology, but there are other unmet anthropo- return on our investments. This level of return is required to logical needs. Increasing numbers of anthropologists are work- allow us to stay in the same financial place, taking into con- ing outside of the academy, which raises the question of whether sideration the rate of inflation and our spending requirements we should think about supporting more applied areas of the under US not-for-profit rules and regulations. It might be time discipline. There is also the need to raise the profile of anthro- to think about fund-raising for the first time in 75 years. pology for the general public and, importantly, for policy makers. A second and related challenge is whether we can continue to Leading up to this 75th-anniversary year, the foundation has fund a diverse suite of programs given the increased demand on launched a major initiative to bring anthropology to the pub- our funds—demand that could escalate more rapidly in the lic. SAPIENS is the new Wenner-Gren-sponsored news portal wake of potential cutbacks in US government funding for the for anthropology, and in its first six months since launch in social sciences. A third challenge is maintaining an appropriate January 2016, it has achieved growing recognition in the field balance between overhead and program funding, which is ex- and beyond. In many ways this launch parallels that of Current acerbated by our presence in New York City, one of the most Anthropology in the late 1950s. It is taking the Wenner-Gren expensive cities in the world. Foundation in a new and exciting direction, and the major tasks And a final challenge is to decide what we should be funding. are to continue to build it and to ensure that it is on a sus- Since its inception the foundation has focused on broad-based tainable financial footing. S216 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 3. Wenner-Gren Foundation staff. Front row, seated, from left: Laurie Obbink (Conference Associate), Leslie Aiello (Presi- dent), Maugha Kenny (Vice-President for Finance), Maritza Burgos (Assistant Controller). Back row, standing, from left: Mark Mahoney (IT and Archives), Natasha Fenelon (Applications Program Assistant), Michael Muse (Foundation Anthropologist— International Programs), Liz Rojas (Program Administrator), Mary Beth Moss (Grants Administrator), Mark Ropelewski (Program Administrator), Judy Kreid (Foundation Anthropologist—International Programs), Daniel Salas (Communications Coordinator). Photographed June 9, 2016, at the Foundation ofﬁces in New York.

I will be stepping down as president of the Wenner-Gren Last—but definitely not least—I am proud of this 75th- Foundation at the end of June 2017. Among the accomplishments anniversary issue of Current Anthropology, which at last brings of which I am most proud are the launch of SAPIENS and the together Wenner-Gren Foundation history. It was one of my reinvigoration of the Wenner-Gren symposium program. Al- goals when I took over the foundation to “do” the history of the though we no longer own Burg Wartenstein, we continue to run foundation and present it in a form that is easily accessible to the cloistered castle-like intensive workshop meetings in similar en- field. Anthropologists no longer have an excuse to be naive about vironments, most recently at Palácio de Seteais in Sintra, Portugal. the history of an institution that has played such a major role in The outputs of these meetings are reaching large audiences as the development of the field. We should celebrate our history. open-access supplementary issues of Current Anthropology,and To help this celebration, the Wenner-Gren archivist, Mark some of these are receiving a similar level of attention and acclaim Mahoney, together with our conference associate, Laurie Ob- as the classic Burg Wartenstein symposium volumes. So far, so bink, have put together four slide show videos with pictures good. Other things that I am proud of are the continued Wenner- drawn from our archives that illustrate the foundation, old and Gren support for international anthropology and the numerous new. The videos don’t take too long to view, and they all help to changes that have been made to our internal grant-making pro- bring the foundation and its history to life. The first is a general cedures, our website, our social media presence, and our rela- pictorial overview of foundation history (video A1; videos A1– tionship with our applicants and grantees. A4 available in CA1 online supplement A), the second provides Aiello Wenner-Gren Foundation S217

The only thing that remains is to introduce the new president of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, Danilyn Rutherford, who will take over in July 2017 and will serve as president-elect until that time (ﬁg. 4). She comes to Wenner-Gren from the University of California, Santa Cruz, where she is professor and chair of the Anthropology Department. She is well known for her work in the West Papua province of Indonesia, for her research focus on questions of culture and power, and for promoting research at the intersections of the range of disciplines that make up modern anthropology. The current chair of the Wenner-Gren Board of Trustees and head of the presidential search committee, Lorraine Sciarra, describes Rutherford as having a vision of the broad ﬁeld of anthropology, an exceptional record of accomplishment, and the creativity and drive to lead Wenner- Gren. Rutherford will face the challenges I have listed—and more— as the foundation moves into the future, but she has the support of an excellent team. I would like to welcome her to Wenner- Gren and wish her success and as much joy and satisfaction with the job as I have experienced. I would also like to thank our team—the board of trustees, the Advisory Council, and the Wenner-Gren staff—for their support and encouragement over the past decade. They are truly “the foundation.” Our successes over the years, including our ongoing ability to support anthropology and to live up to the legacy of the Wenner- Gren Foundation, could not have been accomplished without them. I have often been told that I have the best job in an- Figure 4. Danilyn Rutherford, President-Elect of the Wenner- thropology—and I agree. Thank you. Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. References Cited a guided tour through Burg Wartenstein castle with photos dat- Dodds, John W. 1973. Several lives of Paul Fejos. New York: Wenner-Gren “ ” Foundation for Anthropological Research. ing from the golden era of the 1960s and 1970s (video A2), the Lindee, Susan, and Joanna Radin. 2016. Patrons of the human experience: a third provides a similar tour through the foundation’s head- history of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, quarters on New York’sUpperEastSide(1947–1979) (video A3), 1941–2016. Current Anthropology 57(suppl. 14):S218–S301. Luciak, Ilja A. 2016. Vision and reality: Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and and the fourth introduces the modern Wenner-Gren symposia the origins of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. at Palácio de Seteais in Sintra, Portugal (video A4). Current Anthropology 57(suppl. 14):S302–S332. S218 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Patrons of the Human Experience A History of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, 1941–2016

by Susan Lindee and Joanna Radin

The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research has played a critical but little-understood role in the development of the social and biological sciences since 1941. For anthropology particularly, its programs have often helped redefine scholarly priorities and research trajectories. Its grants to doctoral students have functioned as an important early sign of scholarly legitimacy, a mark of belonging to the profession. The foundation’s history also reflects general transformations in scientific patronage as new landscapes of federal, military, and private funding reconfigured opportunities in the social sciences. In this account we track the evolution of the foundation in tandem with the evolution of anthropology during a period of dramatic change after 1941, looking at the Second World War context from which the foundation emerged and the ideas and experiences of those who played a key role in this history. We examine the long-term influence of a philanthropic foundation on the postwar emergence of an internationally oriented anthropology from a tiny, almost clubby discipline with a few key institutions and leaders to a major academic and scientific enterprise with sometimes revolutionary ideas about evolution, human biology, race, culture, power, gender, and social order.

An international symposium of the Wenner-Gren Foundation send gushing letters of gratitude, admiration, and indebtedness. for Anthropological Research (WGF) is often remembered An invitation to a Wenner-Gren symposium is still a delightful by participants as a rare pleasure. There are “unforgettable thing to receive. It is an elegant invitation to join the clan and days” of discussion and debate producing “glorious new im- the party. Now sent via e-mail, the formal letter from the foun- pressions,”1 with elegant meals in beautiful settings, evening dation’s president (currently Leslie Aiello) explains a set of non- performances by local musicians and dancers, and long talks negotiable rules: there are to be no outsiders (including spouses around the pool or in the gardens. In 1964, population ge- or family), all papers are to be read before arrival, and there neticist Theodosius Dobzhansky called his second invitation to will be significant unstructured time for informal encounters. the foundation’s Austrian castle Burg Wartenstein “irresistible.”2 While it is happening, a Wenner-Gren international sympo- After the castle was sold in 1981, conferences were held else- sium can seem like an academic fantasy, the best graduate sem- where, but the “Old World” charm of the symposium format inar anyone ever pulled together. And its long-term results, in endured. In the “dramatic, yet comfortable” setting of Fez, one participant wrote, “I for one felt wanted, and I was able to re- lax and to attend to intellectual matters fully, without being 1. Alberto Carlo Blanc, Rome, to Paul Fejos, August 26 1958, and burdened by other concerns.”3 Another expressed grief at the Schultz to Fejos, August 25, 1958, in “Burg Wartenstein Symposium #1 end of a conference, when “the summerly ‘fairy tale of science’ Organizer Sol Tax, Current Anthropology, August 18–23, 1958,” Wenner- is over.”4 Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. From their beginnings in the 1950s through the present, WGF’s 2. Theodosius Dobzhansky to Lita Binns Fejos, January 27, 1964, in “Spuhler, J.N. Behavioral Consequences of Genetic Differences in Man, international symposium programs have inspired scholars to September 16–26, 1964,” Wenner-Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. Susan Lindee is Janice and Julian Bers Professor in the Department of 3. Handelman to Lita Osmundsen, February 19, 1986, untitled folder, History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania Box #DoR-6, WGF. (249 South 36th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A. 4. “Though certainly you have received hundreds of grateful letters [[email protected]]). Joanna Radin is Assistant Professor in already after the 27 Wartenstein conferences, let me express myself none- the Program in History of Science and Medicine at Yale University, theless my lasting indebtedness to Wenner-Gren Foundation.” Freidrich where she also holds appointments in the Departments of History Keiter, Hamburg, Gerichtsanthropologisches Laboratorium, to Lita Binns and Anthropology (333 Cedar Street, L132, New Haven, Connecticut Fejos, October 14, 1964, in “Spuhler, J.N.—Behavioral Consequences of 06520, U.S.A. [[email protected]]). This paper was submitted Genetic Differences in Man, September 16–26, 1964,” Wenner-Gren Foun- 20 VIII 15 and accepted 18 V 16. dation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. q 2016 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2016/57S14-0002$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/687926 Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S219 connections forged, theories meshed, and pathbreaking publi- thropologist Alfred Kroeber (who died on his way home from cations, can transform careers, ideas, and fields. a Wenner-Gren symposium), and Lita Binns Fejos Osmund- The international symposium is the trademark experience sen (who first encountered the organization as a student at of a foundation that conjured these enticing practices out of Hunter College, pursued but never completed a PhD in an- complicated origins that bear no relationship to such lofty intel- thropology at Columbia, and married Paul Fejos; she became lectual aspirations. If the American experience is one of self- director of research and later president of the foundation af- fashioning (e.g., Howe 2009), Wenner-Gren is a deeply Ameri- ter Fejos died). can foundation. Neither Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren, We consider the supper conferences, international sympo- who provided $2,362,500 in stock to create the foundation, ini- sia, and summer seminars, all of which were designed to push tially known as the Viking Fund, in 1941 (primarily as a re- participants out of their academic comfort zones by resituating sponse to an Internal Revenue Service investigation of his United them in settings of Old World glamour at the foundation’s States operations), nor Hungarian filmmaker Paul Fejos, who elegant New York brownstone and romantic Austrian castle; became its first scientific director and later president, had any the distribution of small grants that have enabled anthropol- formal training in anthropology (fig. 1). Neither had ever been ogists to take risks on new kinds of research; the creation of the a PhD student or held a faculty position at a research univer- journal, Current Anthropology; the Viking Medal and Viking sity.5 Yet the Foundation they built with money, ideas, and Fund Publications in Anthropology; and the eventual sale of carefully cultivated social networks has for 75 years played a the brownstone and castle, both lost as the economic down- critical role in the lives of scholars in many fields, most im- turn of the 1970s threatened the endowment. Each of these portantly in each of the subfields (social anthropology, lin- particular facets of WGF serve as points of entry into broader guistics, archaeology, and physical anthropology) encompassed questions about the role of philanthropic patronage in shapin the common, if disputed, understanding of anthropology ing anthropology in particular and the human sciences in gen- as a “four-field” discipline in the United States (Hicks 2013; eral since the end of World War II.7 Kuklick 2008; Segal and Yanagisako 2005; Stocking 1988). Historians of science have recently begun to acknowledge In this study of WGF in commemoration of its 75th anni- the unique features characterizing the increasing influence of versary, we begin the process of excavating and unpacking the the human sciences during the Cold War (Isaac 2007). They history of an institution that has been critical to the develop- have also emphasized American institutions’ commitments to ment of a particular academic discipline: anthropology. We internationalism; investments in innovative techniques for ac- consider the evolution of the foundation in tandem with the cumulating, representing, and modeling data; and efforts to evolution of anthropology during a period of dramatic change remake ideas about the state, society, the species, and the self after 1941, looking at the Second World War context from (Erickson et al. 2013; Heyck and Kaiser 2010; Lemov 2005, which the foundation emerged and the ideas and experiences 2015). WGF and its emphasis on anthropology as an interna- of those who played a key role in this history. These individ- tional field of inquiry are exemplary of the global flows of uals include Wenner-Gren and Fejos but also Manhattan lawyer knowledge, power, and wealth that emerged in the postwar Richard Carley Hunt (personal lawyer to Wenner-Gren and period, with consequences for understandings of what it has the foundation’s first president), Stanford University professor meant to be human (Haraway 1988; Wax 2008b). This case of English John W. Dodds (a board member and friend to study provides a fine-grained analysis of how a system of pa- Fejos), University of Chicago anthropologist Sol Tax (who tronage for anthropology was constructed, maintained, and re- dreamed up, among other things, Current Anthropology), Yale structured over the course of the foundation’s75-yearhistory. anthropologist Cornelius Osgood (mentor to Paul Fejos), Shake- The forced resignation of WGF president Osmundsen in spearian scholar Frank Wadsworth (who served on the board 1986 amid large-scale transformations in the conduct of Amer- from 1977 until 2006),6 University of California Berkeley an- ican foundations and shifting economic policies marked the end of an era and the need to reimagine what the foundation’s 5. Indeed, Axel Wenner-Gren seems to have ended his full-time, formal role would be (Zunz 2011). Certain members of the board of schooling at the age of 15, with his studies after that limited to occasional trustees, whose expertise was overwhelmingly inclined toward lecture courses and short educational programs. Fejos probably left school at money management, questioned whether or not the founda- an even younger age. Axel Wenner-Gren’s education is described in Ilja tion’s focus should remain on anthropology. WGF ultimately Luciak, “TheLifeofAxelWenner-Gren:AnIntroduction,” paper presented renewed its commitment to anthropology after a period of tur- at “Reality and Myth: A Symposium on Axel Wenner-Gren,” Stockholm, May 30–31, 2012 (Luciak 2012). Download the official conference booklet with conference papers at http://blog.wennergren.org/2012/08/reality-and 7. Historians have long recognized patronage as a crucial feature of -myth-a-symposium-on-axel-wenner-gren/ (accessed August 7, 2016). On scientific practice, from Galileo to biotech (Biagioli 1993; Shapin 2008). The the clouded educational history of Paul Fejos, who claimed to have a medical role of private philanthropic foundations, in particular, has been crucial for degree for most of his life but probably did not, see “P. Fejos and L. B. Fejos understanding shifts in the priorities and practices of the natural sciences, Portraits,” Nemesk’eii Report, July 4, 1963, in Box #DoR-10, WGF. medicine, and public health. The Rockefeller Foundation alone has been 6. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nytimes/obituary.aspx?pid the subject of many landmark studies, including Kohler (1991), Kay (1993), p159185786. Cueto (1994), Birn (2006), and Palmer (2010). S220 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 1. Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and Lita Binns Fejos Osmundsen (WGF archives). Osmundsen took over the foundation after Fejos’s death in 1963 and ran the foundation for 23 years until 1986. moil, and its intellectual and financial health today are largely line on a CV. In its early years, WGF could support many or due to the leadership of those who took over after the depar- most of those who applied. As the discipline has grown in size, ture of the “original cast,” including Sydel Silverman, Richard competition for these field grants, which are subject to strict Fox, and current (outgoing in 2017) president Aiello. The con- peer review, has become more intense, and only about 8%– temporary WGF remains an important source of financial and 15% of applicants today can expect to be funded. In addition intellectual support for scholarship and training in anthropol- to access to precious funds, these awards confer on a fledgling ogy, and many of its current policies and practices reflect the anthropologist professional legitimacy and authority for that history we explore here. first field research as they have for generations of anthropol- In financial terms, WGF has not been the most important ogists, and this has given the foundation a special place in the source of support for North American anthropological research. discipline’s identity—it is, in the words of one anthropologist, That honor, in the United States, belongs to the National Sci- “our foundation.” ence Foundation.8 Yet WGF has leveraged its resources to At what might be considered the other end of the funding strategically shape and build the discipline.9 It continues to bell curve, WGF’s continuing International Symposium Pro- support graduate students with grants that launch their re- gram (now called the Wenner-Gren Symposium Program) en- search. For many anthropologists working today in the United gages with established leaders in the field (fig. 2). These elite States, their first fieldwork as PhD students—when they felt meetings are by invitation only, and those invited are gener- they knew very little—was supported by a Wenner-Gren grant. ally prominent scholars or promising up-and-coming junior To be awarded a Wenner-Gren grant is to be officially recog- scholars from around the world. Bringing together carefully nized as a legitimate member of the clan. It is an important chosen individuals, WGF symposia have long helped navigate shifting theories of culture and personality, evolution, race, primate behavior, the archeological past, or language devel- 8. The NSF, itself a postwar creation, has been extraordinarily influ- opment and use, among other topics. Through the sympo- ential in supporting the natural sciences in the United States (Appel 2000; sium series sponsored by WGF, one can track the turn to the Engerman 2010). “new physical anthropology,” molecular genetics, writing cul- 9. Along similar lines, although foundations such as the Rockefeller fl ture, postcolonial theory, feminist theory, studying up, and Foundation wielded much greater fortunes than WGF, the in uence of “ ” such philanthropies went further than money. The Rockefeller Foun- complex ethical debates about the study of primitive popu- dation’s effectiveness “lay in creating and promoting new institutional lations and indigenous rights. Sometimes the meetings have mechanisms . . . through an extensive system of grants and fellowships” been contentious clashes between different modes of thought (Kay 1997). The Rockefeller Foundation’s network permeated academia and different approaches. Sometimes they have fizzled. And itself. The same is true for WGF’sinfluence on anthropology. sometimes they have activated a deep and influential consen- Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S221

Figure 2. Burg Wartenstein symposium 12, “Economics and Anthropology: Capital, Saving and Credit in Peasant Societies,” organized by Raymond Firth and Bert F. Hoselitz and held August 22–28, 1960. Seated on the ground (left to right): Sidney Mintz, F. B. Bailey, Basil Yamey, Sol Tax, Michael Swift; back row (left to right): Lorraine Lancaster, Eric de Dampierre, Chie Nakane, Cyril Belshaw, Fredrik Barth, Bert Hoselitz, Zofia Szyfelbejn, Joan Thirsk, Rudolf Bicanic, Henri Mendras, A. G. Frank, Raymond Firth (WGF archives). sus. “Every now and then,” Osmundsen told a colleague in participating in the international symposia have included now 1972, “we have a conference that produces a by-product of iconic thinkers in anthropology and other fields over the last almost magic communication.”10 75 years: Gregory Bateson, Eric Wolf, Mary Douglas, Sarah Indeed, many of the Wenner-Gren international symposia Hrdy, Laura Nader, Julian Pitt-Rivers, L. S. B. Leakey, Alfred are seen as disciplinary turning points. Those organizing and Kroeber, Robert H. Lowie, Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, Mar- garet Mead, Raymond Dart, Alfred Irving Hallowell, Sher- wood Washburn, Robert Redfield, Sir Julian Huxley, F. Clark 10. Osmundsen to Roger D. Abrahams, July 12, 1972, in “Ardrey to Howell, and many more. In one area alone, human evolution, Douglas Committee on Afro-American Societies and Cultures,” Box the symposium series helped define the field, leading to classic #DoR-3, WGF. publications including The Social Life of Early Man (Wash- S222 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 burn 1962), African Ecology and Human Evolution (Howell Fejos’s fifth wife, Lolita Binns Fejos Osmundsen, was iden- and Bouliere 1963), Man the Hunter (Lee and DeVore 1968), tified as “Negro” in the 1930 census records, but by the 1950s and The Great Apes (Hamburg and McCown 1979). Publica- she occupied a social identity within the foundation and the tions of landmark symposia in other subfields demonstrate anthropological profession as white. She became the director the breadth of the foundation’s intellectual commitments, such of research of the Wenner-Gren Foundation, which was a ma- as From 15,000 BC to the Threshold of Urban Civilization (Braid- jor scholarly foundation in New York City in 1963—a stature wood and Willey 1962), Andean Ecology and Civilization (Ma- presumably facilitated by her ability to “pass.”14 With its Aus- suda, Shimada, and Morris 1985), Sepik Heritage (Lutkehaus trian castle, Burg Wartenstein (fig. 3), the Manhattan brown- et al. 1990), and Conceiving the New World Order (Ginsburg stone (more properly, mansion) on 71st Street, the high-end and Reiter 1995). paleontological casts that were sold in burgundy velvet bags, Yet despite the centrality of the foundation to the discipline and the glittering circles of elite scholars who participated in the of anthropology and to social science in general, many anthro- foundation’s programs, the history of WGF could almost be pologists (and even historians) seem to know little about its a television miniseries starring some of the most profound history. In a 1978 advisory council meeting, primatologist Irvin thinkers of the twentieth century. DeVore commented that “to most anthropologists the WGF These details are much more than “quirks,” and they are works in mysterious ways.”11 Our work elucidates some of the crucial to understanding how power over knowledge can work historical forces shaping those “mysterious ways.” when supported outside of formal channels of either state The foundation has a strangely operatic past and not only or corporate power. Historian Waldemar A. Nielson (1989) has because it played a role in bringing an anthropological opera, described philanthropy as a “third” sector of American public Tamu Tamu, to the stage in Chicago in 1973 (Hixon 2000: life that remained relatively independent of oversight or ac- 263–267; Stocking 2000:171–264, esp. 209–213). Until the era countability before the 1980s. The history presented here is of institutional reform inaugurated by Silverman’s leadership, a detailed case study of the long-term influence of a philan- the foundation’s social networks hummed with personal and thropic foundation’s devotion to a particular domain of knowl- professional crises—with mysteries, affairs, political intrigue, edge.15 In the networks that WGF built and maintained, it profound scholarly disagreements, and even a murder case, becomes possible to appreciate previously unexamined features when the editor of the WGF-sponsored journal Current An- of the emergence of an internationally oriented anthropology thropology was imprisoned as a suspect in the murder of his after 1941 from a tiny, almost clubby discipline with a few key wife in Switzerland (he continued to edit the journal while institutions and leaders to a major academic and scientificen- jailed for more than a year).12 Axel Wenner-Gren, who was terprise with sometimes revolutionary ideas about evolution, blacklisted as a Nazi sympathizer in 1942, was the subject of human biology, race, culture, power, gender, and social order. unsubstantiated rumors that he “shared a lover with John F. WGF played a crucial role in the transformation of a relatively Kennedy 2 decades before J.F.K. assumed the US presidency, provincial form of American anthropology into a cosmopoli- sold Fidel Castro the Granma, the iconic boat of the Cuban tan enterprise at a time of American imperial ascendancy. revolution, and hid the Nazi gold treasure in South America” The fact that WGF’s endowment came from a wealthy (Luciak 2012). Paul Fejos had a first career in Hollywood as a entrepreneur whose primary interest was in making money filmmaker—his The Last Moment (1928), about a suicide vic- is consistent with the origins of America’s great foundations tim recalling his life, is still considered one of the great early in general (Nielson 1989; Parmar 2012). Nielson (1989) argues experimental films.13 He also carried out grueling fieldwork that many of the industrialists and entrepreneurs who have (with no prior training) as an archeologist and ethnographic come to endow the great philanthropies of the United States filmmaker in Madagascar, Peru, Thailand, and other challeng- have often found themselves faced with crises of meaning; they ing places around the world (De Brigard 1995). do not know what they believe in, so they give in order to allay their conscience. He invokes Thorstein Veblen to suggest that, in this view, those who give philanthropically may be engag- 11. This quote is drawn from a summary of notes written down May 5, ing in the most conspicuous form of consumption of all. This 1978, after the April 29, 1978, meeting of the trustees with the ad hoc certainly seems to have been the case for Axel Wenner-Gren. advisory council, by Richard B. Hunt, then trustee and treasurer of WGF. In Advisory Council 1977–1980, Box BoT #10, WGF. 12. Cyril Belshaw managed to continue his editing work while imprisoned in Switzerland on charges of murdering his wife. The foundation’s efforts to arrange bail were unsuccessful. Eventually he was found not guilty 14. On the history of passing, see Borstelmann (2009). “by reason of doubt.” The story of the resulting scandal is recounted in 15. Here we are inspired by the work of Ian Hacking and his attention Godfrey (1981). to the “looping effects” through which new modes of existence—in this 13. Mordaunt Hall, “A Guy Maupassant of Film: Interesting Career of case the postwar academic idea of the human—are created in the ex- Paul Fejos, Bacteriologist, Who Has Produced Weird but Brilliant Screen change between social and scientific ideas (Hacking 1986). The idea that Study,” New York Times, February 26, 1928. (Fejos told one of his bio- social and technical orders are coproduced (Jasanoff 2004) has also been graphers that he considered suicide twice.) examined in a range of scenarios. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S223

around the table (and for every conference, even some that were canceled, the paper trail has been splendidly preserved). The list of those not invited (or choosing to decline the invitation) can be intriguing as well. Inclusion and exclusion were everyday matters in the history of WGF. The foundation made all such decisions based on the priorities and commitments of anthropologists who were organizing events and responding to proposals, and its archives preserve the decision- making process in all its dimensions in vivid detail. Indeed, we do not claim that WGF unilaterally caused the shifting fortunes, practices, and orientations of anthropology after 1941. Rather, it was a key node in a network within which those fortunes can be seen, tracked, and understood. Almost every major issue in anthropology of the last 75 years is entangled with the story we explore here. Some decisions and policies of WGF had consequences for the discipline of anthropology, and many anthropologists gave the foundation a great deal of credit for shaping the field, but WGF mirrored the discipline and made decisions and choices that drew on the views of leading academic anthropologists. By comparison, the Rockefeller Foundation’s decision to commit significant resources to Malinowski’s social anthropology (an approach that challenged then popular ideas about “diffusionism”) in Britain in the interwar period was a relatively draconian extension of anthropological ideas into the realm of state power. Rockefeller officials from 1930 to 1940 had a stake in the conservation of stable social orders and chose to Figure 3. Burg Wartenstein castle, located 90 km southwest of support anthropological agendas that were scientifically “prac- Vienna, near Raach am Hocchgebirge, Semmering, Austria (WGF tical” and “functional,” thereby helping to solve problems of archives). colonial control, particularly in Africa (Fisher 1986; Salamone 2000). The approach of WGF was radically different. In part That Axel Wenner-Gren was a Swede persuaded by a Hun- because it was simply not as well endowed as Rockefeller, Car- garian to create a means of studying the cultures of the Amer- negie, Ford, Mellon, or the like, it could not function as an au- icas is also continuous with the deeper history of anthropol- tonomous force—an “outside” foundation with its own agenda ogy’s association with facilitating colonial control and imperial to which anthropologists needed to conform in order to receive trade networks (Anderson 2003, 2006; Kuklick 1991, 2008, 2010; funding. Yet from the beginning, WGF sought to enable anthro- Stocking, 1987). The academic practices WGF sponsored—jour- pologists to determine their relationships to the field and to nals, supper conferences, symposia, meetings, and workshops— society more broadly. The relevance of WGF derived from its were consistent with Cold War models of sociality, the personal status as an embedded resource that reflected rather than de- character and collegiality that social scientists drew on as ide- termined anthropology’s tensions, priorities, blind spots, and alized models for society in general, at a moment of geopolit- concerns. ical uncertain risk and anxiety. As Cohen-Cole (2009) suggests, The fact that historians have not systematically examined one way Cold War social critics and policy makers approached WGF is not necessarily an indication of its significance.16 We these challenges was through the cultivation of a science of in- interpret this lack of attention to the fact that the history of dividual character in such a way that it “crystallized a form of postwar anthropology remains understudied. This is, to a cer- the exemplary self that would inoculate America against the tain extent, a reflection of historiographic trends; the two lead- dangers of mass society” (219). In the networks associated with ing historians of anthropology of the last generation, George WGF, one can see how and why individuals invested in an- Stocking and Henrika Kuklick, wrote extensively in their life- thropology as a scholarly enterprise, the loyalties they brought times about methods and theories, fieldwork, ideas, and prac- to the labor, and the practical problems of negotiation and tices of anthropology. Yet both wrote less about the post-1945 compromise that shaped their interactions. The symposium program alone presents a somewhat wild and bracing tour of the intellectual and social history of an- 16. For the post-1945 period, theory and practice—including funding thropology: who was invited, who showed up, who fought sources—in psychology and sociology have been studied much more with whom and what they fought about, over cocktails or systematically. See, e.g., Herman (1995) and Solovey and Cravens (2012). S224 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 period, and Kuklick focused on anthropology in Britain Hence, it was perhaps with some frustration that current (Kuklick 1991, 1996, 2008, 2010; Stocking 1966, 1968, 1985, Wenner-Gren president Leslie Aiello contemplated 2016, which 1987). would mark the 75th anniversary of the foundation, the in- The scholarship on postwar anthropology produced by his- fluence and contributions of which had not yet been considered torians of science (including our own work) over the last decade in historical perspective. Aiello wanted a history written by or so has furthermore emphasized the development of physical historians who were trained in and familiar with the methods and biological anthropology rather than the development of and themes used to understand the post–World War II period four-field anthropology as a whole. Physical anthropology at- in general and the Cold War’s effect on science and the hu- tracted historical attention because of relationships to race the- manities in particular. We had both worked with her and the ory and connections to public health, nationalism, epidemiol- foundation as part of a 2010 Wenner-Gren symposium held ogy, blood groups, eugenics, genetics, and the rise of molecular in Brazil on the history of biological anthropology, and she biology (Anderson 2003; Braun and Hammonds 2008; Duster proposed that we undertake such a project.18 2003; Fabian 2010; Gannett 2001; Goodman, Heath, and Lin- The immediate appeal of the assignment was obvious: the dee 2003; Kevles 1986; Lindee and Santos 2012; Lipphardt opportunity to learn about the foundation would provide a 2010; Marks 1995, 2002; Paul 1995; Radin 2013; Reardon 2005; unique vantage point from which to consider the history of Schneider 1996; Sommer 2010; Stepan 1982; Wailoo, Nelson, science and philanthropy during the Cold War and beyond. and Lee 2012). In quantitative terms, however, the biologically Aiello and her staff, particularly archivist Mark Mahoney, gen- oriented subfields are a minority. In recent decades, only about erously provided us with unlimited access to the archival ma- 10% of anthropology PhDs are awarded annually in biological terials held by the foundation. WGF has carefully preserved its anthropology. Meanwhile, historians who work on the social own history in correspondence, reports, photographs, and many sciences broadly conceived often mention anthropology as one other resources. These have informed our work at every stage of the most visible social sciences in the postwar period but and are extensively cited here. Yet as we have worked through without directly engaging with its ideas, theories, key leaders, these records, we have done so with attention also to what has funding sources, or foundation support (Dayé 2014). not been preserved, which has influenced how we interpret this Anthropologists themselves have written about the history archive. Vice President of Finance Maugha Kenny and Con- of WGF and its key actors, signaling their sense of the foun- ference Program Associate Laurie Obbink shared their intimate dation’s role and influence. We have drawn on much of that knowledge of the day-to-day aspects of the foundation’sopera- work as we reconstruct this story. The most important and tions and financial organization, which helped us identify im- compelling participant history of WGF is Sydel Silverman’s portant issues and track down materials. We were graciously thoughtful 2002 account of the international symposium pro- granted complete autonomy in terms of our approach and con- gram, The Beast on the Table: Conferencing with Anthropol- clusions, and while we have sought feedback from all of those ogists.17 Silverman deftly captures the logic of the symposium involved who are still alive, our conclusions are our own. format, which privileged small groups (20 or so) insulated from Each section of this history describes an important feature distractions from the outside world during meetings up to 10 days of WGF but also uses those details to highlight more fun- long. She explores how discussions unfolded during the sym- damental features of foundations and their role in mediating posia that she oversaw as president of WGF (1987–2000) and scientific culture since the Second World War. In our telling, suggests that anthropology’s continued relevance as a discipline this means providing equal attention to shifts in domestic is due to its ability to pose “questions about the nature of our economic policy and foreign relations and the evolution of species—cosmic questions that philosophers and many others intellectual agendas about the study of human origins and ex- speculate about but that anthropology can inquire into em- periences as well as the influence of certain kinds of desires pirically” (Silverman 2002:225). Silverman’s published work and motivations—such as that of assimilation, self-fashioning, and her discussions with us have shaped our interpretations of and moral cultivation—that can stimulate investments in aca- the symposium program. demic enterprises. Given the foundation’s particular focus on In addition, most of the key players in our story have been anthropology, it has also been necessary to devote special at- the focus of some kind of biographical study or extended intention to the rituals and the kinds of spaces—be they castles terview, particularly Fejos and Osmundsen but also Tax, Aiello, or remote field sites—in which those rituals that are neces- Silverman, Fox, Kroeber, and Wenner-Gren. Published pro- sary for the social reproduction of distinctive fields of knowl- files, obituaries, personal essays, and work by practicing an- edge can be enacted, learned, perpetuated, and sometimes thropologists (as well as a spectacularly rich archival collection challenged. held by WGF) have been invaluable. But there is nothing pub- Our work can only be a starting point for understanding lished that attempts the synthetic historical portrait of the this foundation and its relationship with anthropology. The foundation that we construct here. records held at WGF in New York are broadly relevant to the

17. What were once called the International Symposia are now, as of about 2010, called the Wenner-Gren Symposia. 18. Resulting in Lindee and Santos (2012). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S225 history of anthropology—not just in the United States—and more than 2 years, and Fejos, brought in as an advisor and have amazing depth and range. The foundation has had an then quickly hired, turned the foundation to the support of a explicit international reach from its earliest programs to the field he had come to love: anthropology. There is more than present, and anthropologists around the world have partici- one account of how Fejos and Wenner-Gren met in 1937— pated in its many projects. Anyone interested in the history which we attend to in subsequent sections—but in all of them of anthropology from any dimension would do well to con- it is Wenner-Gren who suggested that Fejos should undertake sult WGF records. We hope our account demonstrates the archaeological work in Peru. Fejos had no training in archae- complex ways in which WGF has been able to serve as an ology, and apparently in his interactions later with Peruvian exquisitely and uniquely important patron for the study of scientists he “lamented his lack of training for the work in the human and, in doing so, also open up some new ques- hand.”20 But for different reasons, the two men fashioned a tions about the fortunes of postwar anthropology and other collaboration that brought them into the Andes together. related sciences since 1941. Both born in the nineteenth century—Wenner-Gren in 1881, Fejos in 1897—the two men died within 18 months of each Why Anthropology? The Conditions of Possibility other (Wenner-Gren on November 24, 1961, Fejos on April 23, for the Creation of the Viking Fund 1963) after a long, complicated, almost cinematic, relationship (see Luciak 2012). The two men had a relationship shaped The year 1941 is an anchor point for this history. This was by tensions common to recipient-donor relations. It was not when Axel Wenner-Gren, or more specifically, his lawyers, a warm collaboration involving a shared vision. Rather, it was created the Viking Fund in New York to resolve a vexing tax a back and forth negotiation of priorities, expectations, and issue regarding the sale of a boat moored in the waters off competing demands. Fejos struggled to keep Wenner-Gren in- Florida. This fiscal dilemma provided the immediate impetus volved in supporting the foundation and adding to its resources to create a foundation. Wenner-Gren’s Scandinavian heritage and assets. Privately, he mocked the wealthy Swede in corre- provided the inspiration for its name. The foundation, which spondence within his inner circle, referring to him as “Our Lord only assumed his name a decade later, came to focus on a field and Master” and joking about his “divine action.”21 Wenner- that in the 1940s and 1950s was small and in some ways in- Gren occasionally wanted more control over the foundation completely disciplined. Anthropology had porous and unset- and may have even wanted his money back after 1945. He tled boundaries, and barriers to entry could be relatively low. probably trusted Fejos, though not as much as he trusted his Axel Wenner-Gren’s own interests in anything resembling Swedish confederates, who ended up controlling and eventually what would today be recognized as anthropology had pri- losing much of his fortune after Wenner-Gren died (Wallander marily to do with the financial benefits to be gained by learning 2004:20–26).22 Fejos was able to convince Wenner-Gren to buy about the culture of Latin America, where he sought to extend both a New York brownstone (for $62,000) and an Austrian his business interests. He invested in mining and hydroelectric castle (for $26,000) but unable to close the deal for a (massive) dams, among other ventures. His sponsorship of an anthro- proposed international endowment in 1955, which Fejos hoped pological expedition provided a justification for forays into the hinterlands of Peru and other places open to possible exploi- tation. One of the Viking Fund’s first roles was to support 20. The quote is from an unsigned memo to the FBI, “Iquitos and the ” a Latin American news clipping service.19 In its early years, Axel Wenner-Gren Expedition, April 27, 1942. Copies of Axel Wenner- the fund also supported various charities, all more or less in Gren Files from NARA, OSS, at WGF. 21. He is referred to as “our Lord and Master” in file folder “Corre- direct and indirect service to Axel Wenner-Gren. It was not spondence re: grants, projects and personal, Brita Procope, miscellaneous at all obvious, except to one person, that the focus of the new correspondence file 1,” Box #DoR-7, WGF. Procope was Wenner-Gren’s foundation should be anthropology. personal secretary. This correspondence is from 1961, when Wenner- Paul Fejos had his eye on the nascent discipline. He real- Gren was sick. “I am now hoping, barring anything unforeseen, that I ized that it might be possible to transform his own rough could visit you sometime in March, though I am almost superstitiously skills as an explorer and self-trained student of avant-garde afraid of making any plans and have them canceled again by divine action filmmaking into a scientific identity (e.g., Heggie 2014; fig. 4). of our Founder.” Fejos to Dodds, February 13, 1957, folder “Dodds, J & M,” By the time the Viking Fund was created, Fejos and Wenner- Box #DoR-4, WGF. Gren had been partners in the field in Latin America for 22. Note that the Swedish foundations were created by the same industrialist but have no connection to the New York WGF. The institutions in Sweden are the Wenner-Gren Samfundet, the Wenner-Gren Center for Scientific Research, and Axel Wenner-Gren’s Foundation for International 19. Wenner-Gren’s aeronautical laboratory at the University of Ken- Scientific Exchange. In the 1970s, four members of the board of Wenner- tucky had already received about $160,000 in 1940—before the creation of Gren’s company, including his closest assistant, Birger Strid, were prose- WGF—through one of Wenner-Gren’s businesses in Panama. After 1941, cuted and jailed for their mismanagement of the fund. Fulcrum, the holding WGF took over funding this laboratory. See discussion in Karen Holmberg, company, went bankrupt 12 years after Wenner-Gren died, and by that “Report on the contents of WGF Archives,”“Confidential for RGF [Richard time his widow, Marguerite, was destitute and living in Mexico. For a G. Fox],” August 31, 2001, in Box #DoR-18, WGF. contemporaneous account of the scandal, see Folke Schimanski (1974). S226 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 4. Paul Fejos with an unidentified Uitoto-Bora informant, Peruvian Amazon, 1941 (WGF archives). to control. Together, the Swedish industrialist Wenner-Gren tity of America as an independent nation—was in its early and the Hungarian aristocrat and avant-garde artist synthesized years defined by the study of groups who had lived there before several different kinds of cultural values to create a distinctively European settlement (Hallowell 1960). The Bureau of Amer- American institution that could support the study of anthro- ican Ethnology (established in 1879 as the Bureau of Ethnol- pology as a form of internationalism. The foundation they built ogy) found use for experts who could facilitate assimilation together continues to play a critical role in a discipline neither and relocation of Indians to reservations. In the process, an- had been trained to pursue. thropologists formed collaborations with museums, such as Though it had begun to establish graduate programs, jour- the Smithsonian, that collected salvaged objects, artifacts, hu- nals, professional societies, and some public visibility, in 1941, man remains, and indigenous arts in a nationalist project of anthropology was still very much a young discipline in the American identity and conquest as part of an effort to un- United States. Anthropology, while it is sometimes traced to an- derstand the history of human development (Darnell 2001). cient texts describing human groups, is usually seen as arising The American Anthropological Association (AAA) was as a form of scientific practice in the nineteenth century in founded in 1902. The 175 members of its first year came Europe linked to the management of colonial empires. Experts largely from the ranks of the American Ethnological Society, with a wide range of training backgrounds, including marine which had been based in New York City since 1842, and the biology, the study of ferns, mammal behaviors, and so on, be- Anthropological Society of Washington, which had begun the gan to write about isolated, colonized, and “primitive” groups journal American Anthropologist in 1888. American anthro- in ways that could facilitate the control of people who were seen pology took shape as an academic discipline as practitioners as somehow problematic. moved from work for the federal government to affiliations For early practitioners in the United States, the tensions with private museums and universities, such as Harvard and first emerged between settlers and groups who were subject to the Peabody Museum, Berkeley and its eponymous museum, colonialism. American anthropology—indeed, the very iden- Chicago and the Field Columbian Museum, Pennsylvania Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S227 and its University Museum, and perhaps most importantly, in politics and industry, which since the late nineteenth cen- Columbia and the American Museum of Natural History. tury had sought access to and control over foreign markets, When the German-born Franz Boas assumed a professor- first in the Caribbean and Latin America and then in Asia. ship at Columbia in 1899, where he established connections The discipline was still small—by 1928 only 62 PhDs had been with the American Museum of Natural History, he helped to awarded—but it was nonetheless emerging from a narrower transform the stocktaking exercises of the Bureau of Ameri- nineteenth-century instrumentalist role in the management can Ethnology and the Smithsonian into a science. In the realm of Native American groups and beginning to address broader of “biology,” Boas became associated with a politically liberal questions of global relevance (Patterson 2001). scientific humanism inherited from his mentor Rudolf Vir- As his students traveled far and wide, Boas “consciously chow. This led him, during the interwar period, to reject the envisioned a social network” of university-based anthropol- genetically determinist racism being promoted by Charles ogy departments chaired by those he had trained (Darnell Davenport’s Eugenic Record Office (Marks 2008). quoted in Vincent 1990:126). The first generation of his stu- Boas also worked to turn the ethnographic field into a kind dents—a pantheon including Alfred Kroeber, Edward Sapir, of laboratory for making knowledge about the human species Paul Radin, Robert Lowie, Ruth Benedict, Ruth Bunzel, Mar- (Stocking 1966). The establishment of fieldwork as a rite of garet Mead, Elsie Clews Parsons, and A. Irving Hallowell— passage came to be an important dimension of the disci- helped to promote a vision of American anthropology as a plining of anthropology as a uniquely embodied domain of discipline united by its interests in culture and biology but inquiry (Kuklick 2011). Fieldwork and participant observa- also linguistics and archaeology (Darnell 2001; fig. 5). Kroeber tion were practices that tested the investigator’s endurance by assumed a post at Berkeley in 1901, where his ideas about cul- plunging him or her into an unfamiliar context. In the case ture as “superorganic”—transcending the actions and agency of anthropology, as Kuklick (2011) has argued, “disciplinary of the individuals who produced it—contributed to the for- change derived from the premise that witnesses were made malization of the “four-field” Boasian program as the domi- reliable by character-molding trials” (1). The reward, in other nant strain of American anthropology throughout the 1920s. words, for returning to tell the tale of the experience of im- The four-field approach, which became a hallmark of American mersing oneself in a radically different set of circumstances anthropology, would also become a source of tension within was the authority to draw comparisons between cultures and, the profession. Any patron of anthropologists would have to perhaps, to demonstrate how to tame the “savage within” one’s reckon with the very diverse demands made on resources. This own self (Kuklick 1991). American context shaped the ways that Fejos and others in- Boas’s own fieldwork with Pacific Northwest communities volved in the early years of the foundation thought about the contributed to the elevation of the practice as central to an- discipline of anthropology. thropological identity even as he sustained his investments in WGF was committed to four-field anthropology even as it collections of artifacts that could demonstrate cultural vari- engaged with anthropologists around the world who orga- ation at the American Museum in New York City (Stocking nized their discipline differently. The idea of anthropology 1985). For Boas, whose own training was in physics and ge- as a four-field domain of inquiry into the human has been a ography, culture described the relatively autonomous totality distinctive and enduring dimension of its practice in the United that distinguished groups of human beings from each other and could not be reducible to inherited biological traits or psychology. Boas’s approach became known as “cultural relativ- ism,” which held that it was possible to compare one culture with another as a way of enlarging the stock of relations and strategies through which humans could face their problems asaunified species. This was a departure from earlier efforts to use knowledge of culture to establish hierarchy. As the concept of “culture” became a central subject matter of Boas’s anthropology, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was restructured around values of cultural preservation and revitalization. These values were reflected in the best-selling books of his first students, including Margaret Mead’s Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) and Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture (1934). While Boas’s own research focused on Native American groups as well as immigrants, Mead and Benedict ’s attention was oriented to the Pacific, where America had recently an- nexed Western Samoa, had acquired Hawaii as a territory, Figure 5. Ruth Bunzel and Margaret Mead at a Wenner-Gren and had colonized Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Cuba. supper conference, “Are They Happy in the People’s Republic of This was a reflection of the expansion of American interests China,” presented by Dr. Francis L. K. Hsu, 1973 (WGF archives). S228 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

States (Segal and Yanagisako 2005).23 The extent to which this Tilley 2011; Vincent 1990). Endowed by a Swede seeking to is so is made clear when considering national anthropological climb the social ladder and conceived by a Hungarian who had traditions in other parts of the world (Handler 2000; Kuklick lost his claim to aristocracy, the New York City–based Viking 2008). In Portugal and its empire, for instance, anthropology Fund would draw on Boas’s networks to create a foundation to was built on a bipartite distinction of culture—focusing on support an anthropology suited for a new era of American people, language, and customs—and nature—focusing on race, internationalism. body, and fossils (Santos 2012). In France, the field was simi- “ ” larly divided, with anthropology referring to questions that The Courtier: Paul Fejos Boas would have classed as biological and ethnology supporting the exploration of archaeology and what today is known While Axel Wenner-Gren provided the funding to create the as sociocultural anthropology (Blanckaert 1988). foundation, the person who established and sustained the foun- From the start, WGF had an international agenda and also dation’s commitment to supporting research in anthropology powerful commitments to a particular, nationally specific way from 1941 until his death in 1963 was Paul Fejos. Restless, ad- of understanding the discipline. Recently, historians have ques- venturous, artistic (and a decidedly unreliable narrator), Fejos tioned the extent to which the four-field approach is distinctly led the foundation with confidence and energy while main- American, Boasian, or even meant to represent a claim for taining cordial relations with its patron.24 In photos he appears holism in inquiry into the human. While it has been celebrated both dashing and slightly unhealthy, particularly in his later as a declaration of the unity of anthropology, there is reason to years when pictured next to his beautiful young wife, Lita Binns believe it reflected anxieties about fragmentation that were Fejos (fig. 6). He spoke with a thick, almost indecipherable incipient even in the early years of the discipline. Dan Hicks Hungarian accent (preserved now in recordings held at WGF) has argued that Boas’s own connection to the classificatory and must have appeared exotic to the anthropological com- work of museums—a product of negotiations between Amer- munity in the United States in the 1940s. Despite his eccen- ican and British anthropologists—was part of what lead him tricities and his lack of formal education, he was an effec- to try and classify anthropology into four fields that were tive and persuasive advocate for the rapidly developing field emerging as forms of specialization; the four-field idea was “just of anthropology. one element of the classification of anthropological knowledge Fejos’s most important biographer was Stanford University in nineteenth-century museums” (Hicks 2013). English professor and dean John W. Dodds (1902–1989), who Intellectual debates were not the only factors that condi- in 1973 published an oral history of Fejos called The Several tioned the emergence of anthropology and its emphasis on Lives of Paul Fejos a decade after his subject’s death.25 Dodds fieldwork in the early decades of the twentieth century. Phil- served on the WGF board of directors from 1954 to 1982, dur- anthropic funding for anthropology had been significant in ing which time he became close to Fejos as a friend and advisor. the United States since after World War I. In many cases this He knew that many of the stories Fejos had recounted were money reached anthropologists after passing through the of- possibly fanciful and, occasionally, Dodds took the liberty of fices of the federal government. In 1919, the chairman of the commenting on inconsistencies and omissions. Yet the por- National Research Council—largely funded at the time by the trait that emerges from this affectionate study is valuable for Carnegie Institute—had declared that anthropology should re- how Fejos saw himself and what he imagined his roles to be direct its attention from Native Americans to American inter- in the discipline of anthropology and the management of the ests overseas. In 1925 support for research in anthropology foundation. became a part of the agenda of the Social Science Research Born in Budapest January 24, 1897, Pál Fejős grew up in Council (SSRC), which was largely funded by Rockefeller money. the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a child of the Hungarian In addition to supporting fieldwork abroad, these funders en- gentry, the landed aristocracy. He reported winters in Buda- couraged research into “practical problems” of race and im- pest and summers at the family estate at Szekszard. He did not migration at home, which Boas’s students were well trained to remember his father, who died when he was 2 years old, but undertake (Vincent 1990:25). family legends Fejos told later seemed to suggest a dramatic Anthropology was enmeshed with the management of ab- personality, a man who cut off his own little finger to prove original communities within its territories but also served the his devotion to his future wife and who set fire to his fields of foreign service by training those who would serve America’s ripe wheat on the brink of harvest in order to entertain guests industrial and diplomatic interests overseas in places such as the Philippines, Liberia, Oceania, Africa, and Latin America 24. Fejos, like Galileo in the Medici court (Bialgioli 1993), was a creative (Kuklick 2008; Mitman and Erickson 2010; Patterson 2001; agent indebted to a wealthy benefactor with whom he did not always agree. 25. John W. Dodds’s (1973) biographical study of Paul Fejos, aptly titled The Several Lives of Paul Fejos: A Hungarian-American Odyssey, 23. Borofksy has recently argued that over a 100-year period, only 9.5% relies extensively on Fejos’s own words (there are many pages of direct of the articles in American Anthropologist bring the discipline’s subfields quotes from the 1962 taped interviews held at the Oral History Collec- together in significant ways (Borofsky 2002). tion of Columbia University). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S229

with a close family member, and he wrote again with darker news. “The widow should know only as much as necessary and we should not offend P.F.’s memory” he warned, but his discussion with this relative suggested that Fejos had failed the fifth grade and been asked to leave the school. “The family had to promise that he does not return.” He was again suspended in the eighth grade for disciplinary reasons, and at still another school, he completed the ninth and part of the tenth grades (the fifth and sixth grades of gymnasium), at which point his education took a significant break. “When he was attending the tenth grade, a provincial theater came to Kecskemet. He had some affair with one of the actresses and he played the main role in ‘Cyrano.’ For this he was forced to leave the school immediately.” After a year or so he enrolled at the Technological High School, where he studied chemistry for a year and a half. He was then called up for military service. And here, as far as the Figure 6. Paul Fejos and Lita Binns Fejos, taken by Nikolas Muray, 1958 (WGF archives). family and institutional research in Hungary could determine, his formal education ended.27 His military service in the First World War resulted in Bronze and Silver medallions, though leaving a party. Dodds (1973:7) calls it “grand gestures,” but it he was either common infantry, as his family said, or a member could also be seen as the desire of a child who never knew his of the Seventh Hussars cavalry, who learned to fly reconnais- father to elevate him to the status of myth or, more darkly, a sance, as he told Dodds. kind of madness. Discharged when the war ended in 1919, he returned to After his father’s death, Fejos moved with his mother and Budapest and began making films (his first was Pan). Com- brother to live with his great uncle, his grandfather’s brother, munists had seized power in Hungary (Bela Kun’s March 1919 someone Fejos called “grandfather.” The later death of his revolution), and his mother had invested unwisely during the grandfather, when Paul was still in school, moved control of war. Fejos was therefore no longer a future country gentle- the estate to his father’s brother, his real uncle, a man who he man. He had to earn a living. He attempted to do so as a film- reported had always disliked Fejos’s father and who therefore maker. Between 1919 and 1921 he made seven short films in treated the son, his nephew, with contempt. When Fejos an- Budapest—“we made those pictures in a week,” he told Dodds. nounced to the family his desire for a career in the theater, he In 1921, he began staging plays as well, in Budapest and also in was ordered to earn a degree first, and then, he was told, “if you Paris. One of his Parisian productions was titled “L’homme,” have one and you are still crazy, then you can go ahead and and featured 64 scenes. do what you want” (Dodds 1973:6). These family stories, re- Fejos was married five times—Lita Binns was his last wife— counted by Fejos and repeated by Dodds, suggest a family his- and many of these marriages were relatively short.28 His first tory that was—if nothing else—chaotic and challenging. marriage lasted from 1921 to 1925, and he reported that it Fejos may have enrolled in medical school, at Royal Hun- resulted in five duels fought with men with whom he believed garian Medical University in Budapest, as he told Dodds and his wife had flirted. She got fed up with the jealousy and sus- others, but there is no record of his attending the medical picion and the marriage ended. According to Dodds, Fejos was school. After his death a Hungarian source hired by the foun- inordinately jealous all his life with all his wives. Fejos moved dation tried to retrieve the records of his education but found to New York in the midst of this first difficult marriage (in that such records did not exist. “I [e.g., Dr. Nemesk’eii] made 1923) and as Dodds (1973:11) wryly observes, “one notices inquiries, but I was not able to find any evidence for his ex- throughout his career, indeed, how frequently a change in that aminations at the Medical School of the Pazmany Peter Uni- career was tied in with the collapse of a love affair. There were versity. It is possible that he was enrolled, but there is no trace of his further studies. According to information received from his family, he never studied at the Budapest University and 27. Ibid. ”26 never received a Doctor degree or diploma. – – ’ 28. 1921 1925, Mara Jankowsky in Budapest; 1925 1929, Mimosa In a follow up letter a day later, Nemesk eii revealed that Pfaltz in New York (the divorce was in Nevada); 1936–1942, Inga Arvad in fi his insights had been signi cantly bolstered by a discussion Copenhagen, Denmark (the divorce was in Nevada); 1942–1957, Marianne Arden in Baltimore (the divorce was in Alabama); and 1958 until his death in 1963, Lita Binns. The wives and places of divorce are listed in “Outline of 26. “P. Fejos and L. B. Fejos Portraits,” Nemesk’eii Report, July 4, 1963, Dr. Paul Fejos’ Life,” in “P. Fejos and L. B. Fejos Portraits,” Nemesk’eii in Box #DoR-10, WGF. Report, July 4, 1963, Box #DoR-10, WGF. S230 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 always other, more or less logical, reasons for the shifts, but an orchard, stealing oranges for food. He wrote a Western somehow they often coincided with matters of the heart.” screenplay. And then, to his good fortune, he was picked up Once in New York he scrambled about doing day labor hitchhiking by someone who wanted to be a producer (Ed- for a few months and worked for a while in a piano factory ward M. Spitz, heir to the Quackenbush Department Store before landing a job as a research technician in Simon Flex- chain in New Jersey). During the ride Fejos allegedly con- ner’s laboratory at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Re- fessed that he wanted to be a director, and Spitz confessed search in New York (Dodds 1973:20–21). With his year of his interest in film. After a long discussion, Spitz gave Fejos training in chemistry, Fejos had the good fortune to be hired $5,000 to make a film. by Simon Flexner (who had himself begun his medical career Fejos is considered a major figure in early film, called one with only a seventh-grade education).29 Fejos told Dodds that of the most original film directors in Hollywood in the late he had come to encounter Flexner after he chanced to attend 1920s and early 1930s (fig. 7). “Today, Paul Fejos’s films stand a public lecture at the Chemists’ Club and there noticed an out even in this group, but exactly how they came to be made office called “Employment Bureau of the Chemists’ Club.”30 has never been entirely clear” (Koszarski 2005:235). He is es- He worked in the Flexner laboratory for almost 3 years and pecially remembered for The Last Moment, funded with the recollected toward the end of his life, “I think I was never so money he got from Spitz but now lost, the story of the ex- happy in my life as in the Rockefeller Institute. It was a job periences of a person committing suicide, showing his life where I liked what I was doing. I was doing research. It was flashing before his eyes. In Fejos’s account the details of the tremendously exciting. I had no worries, no responsibilities. remembered life were shaped by the after-hours availability It was gentlemanly and scholarly work. I really think it was of a variety of sets for other films—if a set showing a hos- the happiest period of my whole life” (Dodds 1973:22). Fejos pital corridor was not being used at a time when Fejos and his had lost his claim to the landed gentry but had gained a taste crew were able to film, the life included a moment in a hospital of what it meant to have a scientific vocation (Weber 1922 corridor. This was a kind of bricolage, a modernist convention [1919]). elevated to a form of epistemology by Fejos’s contemporary If he was happy he was also restless. A part-time oppor- and later epistolary friend, Claude Levi-Strauss (in his 1962 tunity in 1924 to consult on a Hungarian theatrical presen- The Savage Mind). According to film historian Richard Ko- tation (Ferenc Molnar’s Glass Slipper) at the Guild Theatre zarski, The Last Moment is now regarded as the first feature- stirred his interest again in theater and film. His English was length American avant-garde film. It was also a great critical improving, he reported. “You see, one of the great difficulties success. with my English learning was that at the Rockefeller Institute, Two local film critics persuaded film star Charlie Chaplin where I hoped to learn English, everybody was a foreigner. Hi- to see it and helped arrange a preview screening at the Beverly deyo Noguchi was Japanese, [Alexis] Carrel was French, [Karl] Theater in Los Angeles. This produced a review titled “Intro- LandsteinerwasAustrian...everybodyspokewithadifferent ducing You to Mr. Paul Fejos, Genius” (Koszarski 2005). Fejos accent.” He found that the group at the Guild both understood was soon popular in Hollywood and had a contract at Uni- his English and valued his ideas. “I thought maybe it was time versal. His 1928 film for Universal, Lonesome, has been pre- for me to try to break into theater or films in the United States. served in the Library of Congress National Film Registry and And once this idea lodged in my head, I couldn’tgetridofit” is recognized as a highly novel film contribution. It employed (Dodds 1973:24). In the summer of 1926, he bought a car and “color tinting, superimposition effects, experimental editing, drove across the United States to Hollywood. It took a month. and a roving camera (plus three dialogue scenes, added to sat- Again in Hollywood he was unmoored. He worked briefly isfy the new craze for talkies).”31 at a lab, directed a play at the Egan Theater, and even tried Along with the American economy, this string of success out professional boxing (which he claimed gave him cauli- ground to a halt in 1929 when he directed a major failure, flower ears for the rest of his life). He said he lived brieflyin Broadway, which barely earned enough to cover the cost of production (it was one of the most expensive films made up to that time). Fejos own comments about his next big production, called King of Jazz, had an almost anthropological 29. The biographical summary that is part of the Simon Flexner Pa- tone: “the script we are working on goes into Mr. Whiteman’s pers held at the American Philosophical Society describes Flexner’s early life as if he were a total stranger. That is what we want to do. fi struggles after he dropped out of school at the age of 14. See pro le at You people know all about him. So you take a great deal for p http://amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId ead/Mss.B.F365-ead.xml (accessed granted. We want to fill in the background” (quoted in Ko- August 7, 2016). – ’ szarski 2005:237 238). Like an anthropologist from Mars, Fejos 30. The Chemists Club was organized in November 1898 by 154 fi chemists who had been meeting collegially in empty classrooms and lecture proposed to produce in his lmgoers a sense of estrangement halls. Today, the NYC Chemists’ Club is located physically at the Penn Club, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, at 30 West 44th Street in New York City. See account at http://www.thechemistsclub.com/ (ac- 31. From the Criterion Collection website, https://www.criterion.com cessed August 7, 2016). /films/28212-lonesome (accessed August 7, 2016). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S231

Figure 7. Paul Fejos (smoking) and Mary Philbin with crew of Last Performance (1929; courtesy of Richard Koszarski archives). from the familiar, in this case a study of jazz orchestra leader to direct the Swedish film industry’s Ethnographic Expedition Paul Whiteman. This film also failed, and after an abortive start to East Indies and Siam from 1936 to 1938 and then became on another film, Fejos never worked for Universal again. He the director of the Wenner-Gren Scientific Expedition to His- moved to MGM, where he directed the French and German panic America from 1939 to 1941. Thus, over a period of about versions of The Big House in 1930. Fejos then returned to 11 years, Fejos transitioned from a Hollywood film director Europe, ending his Hollywood career after four highly pro- to an ethnographic filmmaker, collector, and field scientist.32 ductive and successful years. He first found himself in Peru, he said, because in early Fejos made two films in France in 1931 and 1932 and then 1937, the Swedish Film Industry, which had seen some film two in Austria in 1933 and 1934. In 1934, he left Europe to work he had done for Nordisk in Denmark, invited him to make ethnographic films in Africa, the East Indies, and the Stockholm to talk about a possible project. The board asked Far East. It was at this juncture that he began to see a way of him whether he would go on an expedition to produce films merging his interest in science with his skill behind a cam- for them. “I was somewhat worried about tying myself down” era and his passionate interest in the human experience. He and “not being able to get back to the United States,” Fejos found support for this new form of knowledge-making in said, but the offer was very attractive and involved “quite a lot Scandinavia, where he now directed not Hollywood stars but the Danish Ethnographic Expedition to Madagascar and Sey- 32. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0270838/. IMDb lists Fejos as fi chelles Archipelago from 1934 to 1936. While making lms, the director of 44 films (his last is 1944, Yagua) and also lists 11 screen- he also accumulated cultural artifacts that he had shipped back writing credits, five production design credits, three art direction credits, to the National Museum of Copenhagen. Soon after, he came and one producing credit. S232 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 of money.”33 The film board, he proposed, had no particular a bit, with some details that are in neither the oral history nor location in mind, and Fejos was not sure where to go. He had the Dodds biography and with Inga Arvad replaced in his already been collecting for the Copenhagen museum, so he recollection by a Swedish assistant. According to Osgood, while went to visit a different museum director (at the Göteborgs working in Malaya, one of Fejos’stechnicalassistantswasSwed- Naturhistoriska Museum) for guidance. This director suggested ish, and seeing Wenner-Gren’s magnificent yacht, the Southern that he should go to South America and mentioned the mu- Cross, moored in the harbor of Penang, he wanted to visit it. ’ seum s own benefactor, Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner- This was arranged through one of the ship’sofficers and “ ’ Gren. And I was invited for a weekend to Wenner-Gren scas- Paul went with him. Somehow the story of his activities ’ tle in Sweden and he talked about this, that he s worried about spread to the ears of WG himself and shortly thereafter, the museum and all that, and told me that he would have Paul and his assistant received a formal invitation to dinner ’ interests in Peru and why don t I go to Peru. The reason be- on board. Paul, not having dress clothes with him, sent a hind it was that he wanted to send to Peru a geological group note of apology in return, and he had his party started back fi for certain minerals and this out t could go with me. So I said for the interior. They had not gone far, however, before a fi ”34 ne. messenger who had been sent speeding after them arrived fi This description of the rst meeting with Wenner-Gren with a note asking that they appear in whatever they hap- comes from the 1962 oral history with Fejos. But when Dodds pened to be wearing. They returned, and at the party that fi came to write his pro le of Fejos in 1973, the story was some- evening, Wenner-Gren stated his desire to go hunting. Paul, fi ’ what modi ed. Dodds s account begins quoting word for word having a camp, from which he was taking pictures of the much of the 1962 oral history discussion just cited above, from various wild beasts of the area, invited WG to join them. A pages 74 to 75 of the oral history, but it leaves out the refer- hunt was arranged in due course and a tiger or some large ence to Fejos meeting Wenner-Gren in Sweden, which is on feline beaten out of the bush, approached the hunters. Paul ’ page 75. Instead, Dodds s account tells the story of a thwarted told WG that the shot was his, and the latter, ordinarily an ’ tiger attack in which Fejos saves Axel Wenner-Gren slife.In excellent rifleman, hit the animal too high only a short dis- this story, commonly repeated, Wenner-Gren and Fejos met tance away. Paul was supporting his guest with a double- when Fejos was in Singapore with his then-wife Inga Arvad, barrel shotgun. At ten feet he fired both rounds and the dead and Wenner-Gren and his wife Marguerite arrived in the cat practically slid to their feet. Both men suffered scars and fi yacht Southern Cross ( g. 8). Fejos and Arvad were invited to WG took the position from then on that Paul saved his life.36 dine on the yacht, and some time later Wenner-Gren wanted to go hunting, so Fejos arranged an expedition. According to There are other versions that involve a snake (see Luciak 2012). Dodds, The various accounts do converge in one way. They portray that first meeting as a moment of intersecting destinies, both They flushed a tiger and Paul, always the perfect host, stepped oriented away from the Old World and toward the New. Cer- back to let the visitor have the kill. Wenner-Gren fired, but tainly meeting Wenner-Gren had significant consequences for only wounded the animal. Then Paul noticed that Wenner- Fejos, as Wenner-Gren provided the means for his third or Gren’srifle was shaking violently, as was the man himself. fourth professional transformation. Whether they met on a He had bad buck fever. Paul moved in and shot the charging weekend visit in Sweden or a tiger hunt in Singapore some- tiger about 10 feet away, just as it was ready to leap. (Dodds time in 1937, the two found reason to join forces (fig. 9). 1973:62–64) Dodds drily proposed that Fejos’s own account of this The agile Hungarian, in this telling, had saved the life of one meeting and of his other fabulous experiences reflected his of the richest men in the world. From then on, for the next subject’s “deep sense of what is fundamentally true,” but “in 20 years, Paul’s life and that of Axel Wenner-Gren touched details ...hehasneeded to be corrected on some points” (in each other’s frequently in a relationship that became strangely Dodds 1973:viii). A historian of film writing about Fejos early frustrating at times but that bent Paul’s career into new and film work commented on Dodds’s biography that “in 1973 productive channels.35 the WGF published an authorized account of Fejos’s career In his own memoir, Cornelius Osgood (1905–1985)— which, to put it mildly, lacks the expected degree of scien- professor of anthropology at Yale, active fieldworker in the Arc- tific objectivity” (Koszarski 2005:240). Fejos unquestionably tic, and curator at the Peabody Museum from 1934 to 1973, invented some elements of his personal history and seems to who became a sort of mentor to Fejos—expanded on this story have in some ways underplayed his importance in film history—perhaps viewing it as less scholarly than his role as

33. Interview by John T. Mason Jr., April 23, 1962, in “Oral History Transcript, Paul Fejos,” p. 74, WGF. 34. Ibid., 74–75. 36. From pp. 136–141 of Cornelius Osgood’s unpublished memoir, 35. “Buck fever” is a hunter’s term for the equivalent of “stage “Fallen Leaves.” Quoted with permission of Jessica Helfand, who retains fright”—the adrenaline ﬁght-or-ﬂight rush that can undermine perfor- a copy of the memoir and lives in the Hamden, Connecticut, home in mance at a crucial moment. which Osgood lived until he died in 1985. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S233

Figure 8. Paul Fejos, Marguerite Wenner-Gren, and Axel Wenner-Gren on the deck of Wenner-Gren’s yacht, Southern Cross, 1941 (WGF archives). leader of WGF. It is difficult to sort out fact and fiction in his 6 feet of slender Nordic height, a tanned, handsome face, and stories, a problem also relevant to Axel Wenner-Gren. pale, brilliant, ‘sea-faring’ eyes, strikingly illustrate the fact that he comes from ancient Viking territory.”38 This publicist furthermore claimed Wenner-Gren for the United States: “He The Ambivalent Patron: Axel Wenner-Gren has an optimistic belief in the future, quite typically American ”39 The Viking Fund—renamed the Wenner-Gren Foundation in spirit, rather than narrow, defeatist, and European. after 10 years in 1951 to please and reengage the donor—was One of the wealthiest men in the world between the decades created in 1941 as a way to address the tax problems in the bracketed by 1920 and 1960, Axel Wenner-Gren made a series United States of Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren (1881– of investments toward the end of his life (1961) that unraveled 1961).37 The original name reflected Wenner-Gren’s Swedish his fortune after his death. These included his grand devel- “ background and probably his looks (fig. 10). As one publicist opment scheme in 1957 for a 2.5-million-acre tract almost (hired by Wenner-Gren) said, “his personal appearance—over 38. Warren R. Lightfoot, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, in “facts about Axel Leonard Wenner-Gren,” in file “Wenner-Gren, Dr. Axel LM,” Box #DoR 7, 37. The name change was probably not Fejos’s idea. In a January 10, WGF. This document is undated, but the content suggests it was written 1951, letter to R. C. Hunt, he thanks Hunt for telling him about the name during the war and was probably aimed at burnishing his reputation as change. This is mentioned in the Holmberg Archive meeting, August 15, fears about blacklisting sharpened. 2001, Box #DoR-18, WGF. 39. Ibid., 18 (probably 1941). S234 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 9. Paul Fejos, picture signed to Nikolas Muray: “To Nick with esteem, affection and friendship. Paul. NYC, March 21, 1942” (WGF archives). the size of Ohio” in British Columbia, nicknamed “Wenner- died in relative poverty, and today he has been virtually for- Grenland,” that would involve mines, pulp mills, hydro dams, gotten except as a namesake to the foundations he created in and “10 to 15 towns” tied together with a 180-mph monorail Sweden and the United States. that would cost $1 billion (about $8.5 billion in 2016). The During his lifetime, however, Axel Wenner-Gren was widely Canadian government turned the land over to Wenner-Gren known as an “international man of mystery” who traveled in for a bargain, as Wenner-Gren committed to invest his own elite social circles with presidents, cabinet ministers, royalty, funds in development. The deal enraged the opposition, and and film stars. He built his first fortune with vacuum cleaners, the plan collapsed, as had a costly development project in South- and his investments came to include refrigerators, lighting, com- ern Rhodesia (after 1980, Zimbabwe).40 His widow, Marguerite, munications systems, dams, mining interests, airplanes, computers, and monorails. His family of birth was prosperous, but he leveraged his deal-making and sales skills to new heights of wealth. He had elegant, massive homes in Sweden, Mexico, 40. See http://thetyee.ca/Life/2013/04/22/BC-Mega-Project-Dream/ and the Bahamas, and he owned what was at the time the (accessed August 7, 2016); “A Tycoon Who Wants to Tame a Wilderness: world’s largest private yacht, the Southern Cross, which had Wenner-Gren, Swedish Financier, Sets Sights on British Columbia,” De- fi 41 cember 9, 1957, Life, December 9, 1957, p. 60. The Peace River Power been previously owned by Howard Hughes ( g. 11). Project later resulted in the construction of a major dam on the river, but Wenner-Gren played no role by then. Wenner-Gren’s initial commitment 41. He purchased the yacht from Texas-born investor and aviator was apparently less than $6 million, a sum that would not have bankrupted Howard Hughes. Originally called the Rover when it was built in 1930, him. Life magazine pegged his net worth in 1957 as $100 to $200 million. Hughes renamed it the Southern Cross when he bought it in 1933. Later, Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S235

ing company, AB Lux (for which Wenner-Gren obtained a large order of incandescent lamps that were used to illuminate the Panama Canal during its 1915 inauguration; Luciak 2012:14–15). He built the Swedish Electrolux company into a global empire of both vacuum cleaners and (later) Swedish- designed refrigerators (fig. 13). By 1924, he was wealthy enough to purchase a palatial home on Stockholm’s Diplomatstaden, the Laboratoriegatan 10. His business successes continued unimpeded through the stock market crash of 1929 and the worldwide Depression that followed. American intelligence agents in the late 1930s— when he had come under suspicion as a possible Nazi sympathizer—estimated his net worth as one billion dollars. He was a flying enthusiast, which later led him to sponsor the development of the MAWEN (Marguerite Wenner-Gren) airplane engine at the University of Kentucky in the United States. He also worked with the Krupp family in the postwar period on the development of an ultimately ill-fated monorail system, ALWEG (Axel Leonard Wenner-Gren monorail system).42 Later, he developed a digital computer, the Alwac III-E, which lost out to IBM (Luciak 2012:17–19). His tax and political problems in 1941 were implicated in the donation of $2,362,500 in Electrolux and Servel stock to create an American foundation. The original bequest was 300,000 shares of common stock of Electrolux and 50,000 shares of common stock of Servel. He later invoked his wife’s status as an American to explain the gift to create a foun- Figure 10. Axel Wenner-Gren (date unknown). Bachrach Studio, dation in the United States rather than in Sweden, but tax New York City (WGF archives). problems with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relating to his American company provide a more direct and obvious explanation. The Viking Fund was a legal response to a prob- Wenner-Gren was born in Uddevalla, Sweden, into a farm- lematic boat sale that attracted IRS attention and a quick so- ’ ing family and to a young mother and a father 27 years her lution created by Wenner-Gren s legal team. Initially, it had senior (Luciak 2012:13). In 1909 he married Kansas City– no larger purpose. born Marguerite Gauntier Liggett—abuddingoperastarheen- While later in his life Wenner-Gren seemed to be quite countered on an ocean liner passage from New York to South- interested in his philanthropic legacy, this particular founda- ampton, England. This marriage endured until his death in tion was not the result of a thoughtful plan for philanthropy. “ 1961. Through much of their life together they shared their As John Dodds told Lita Osmundsen in 1972, Wenner-Gren homes with Marguerite’s sister Gene Gauntier, who had been had not yet been put on the blacklist, the IRS who had been fi an important and well-known screenwriter and actor in the watching his nancial activities for some time, began a mul- silent film industry (Luciak 2012:15; fig. 12). The married cou- timillion dollar suit against him. Wenner-Gren decided to ple did not, however, always share a bedroom, and they had very use the proceeds of the business transactions that the gov- different styles, Axel favoring Spartan simplicity and Marguerite ernment was challenging to found the Viking Fund, which gold and brocade. The young Wenner-Gren saw his first vacuum cleaner in a shop window in Vienna in 1908—it was a model developed — 42. Surviving examples of the ALWAC monorail include the Los in Philadelphia, the Santo Vacuum Cleaner and promptly Angeles Disneyland monorail system, which opened in 1959, and the invested in the sale and distribution of this machine in Europe. Seattle Center monorail, which opened in time for the 1962 Century 21 In 1919, he formed the Electrolux corporation—a fusion of Exposition. The Disneyland monorail was declared a Historical Me- a vacuum cleaning company, Elektromekaniska, and a light- chanical Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 2004, and a plaque commemorating this dedication can be found in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland monorail station (http://alweg.de after Wenner-Gren sold it to the Mexican Navy, it was called the Zara- /disneyalweg/thealwegphenomenon.html, http://www.saturdayeveningpost goza and Orizaba. It was scrapped in 1960. See the full description of .com/2012/06/26/archives/clippings-curiosities/monorail-onetrack-controversy the history of this yacht in Wisner (1975). .html). S236 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 11. Axel Wenner-Gren’s yacht, Southern Cross (courtesy of Örjan Lindroth). he endowed with Servel Corporation stock. It took some ex- was a formal address of an agent who fulfilled the requirement plaining a little later.”43 that a Delaware corporation have a Delaware address. The From such beginnings, the Viking Fund was incorporated as first actual space rental for the corporation involved a lease a Delaware corporation, having “perpetual existence,” begin- dated January 23, 1941, on the ninth floor of 10 Rockefeller ning on Valentine’s Day, February 14, 1941, at 9 a.m. Only two Plaza, in Rockefeller Center, New York. That lease ran through incorporators were present: lawyer Richard C. Hunt and Wil- April 30, 1943.45 liam K. Dupree (both of New York and both already Wenner- The first appropriation supported the news clipping ser- Gren employees; fig. 14). Wenner-Gren was at his home in vice, Publishers Reciprocal Program, which exchanged news Nassau in the Bahamas and signed the documents via no- and feature material bearing on the Western Hemisphere tary public. Hunt was promptly elected chairman, Dupree was through newspapers in the United States and in Latin Ameri- elected secretary of the meeting, and together they elected Axel can countries. The program had tax-exempt status in the United L. Wenner-Gren to be a director of the corporation and to States, and the group asked the new foundation for more than hold office for the ensuing year. By the next meeting, Wenner- $100,000 in support. The Viking Fund allocated half of that for Gren was both chairman of the board and president, and Dupre the initial 6 months and at the same meeting also approved was both treasurer and secretary. Shortly thereafter, Wenner- $30,000 to support the already in-process Wenner-Gren Sci- Gren resigned as president, and Hunt took his place.44 entific Expedition to Hispanic America, where Fejos had been The original purpose of the fund was described rather in the field at Cuzco with the geologist G. J. Lowther for more broadly as the support of “scientific, charitable, literary, edu- than a year.46 cational or religious purposes.” A principal office in the city of In retrospect, the decision to support the clipping service Dover in Delaware was located at 19–21 Dover Green, which and the archeological dig seem linked. Wenner-Gren was in-

43. Dodson to Osmundsen, December 29, 1972, letter, mentioned 45. Ibid., 38 (all the page numbers are from Viking Fund, vol. 1). and quoted in “Archive Project Meeting with R. Fox,” August 15, 2001, 46. Ibid., 47. Wenner-Gren loved airplanes and designed several (and K. Holmberg, folder “Conﬁdential to RGF,” Box #DoR-18, WGF. survived one major crash), and he created an Aeronautical Research 44. See meeting minutes in Viking Fund, vol. 1, for 1941 and 1942, Laboratory at the University of Kentucky. There was also a smaller grant, WGF. of $5,675, to this laboratory. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S237

Figure 12. Jack J. Clark and Gene Gauntier on location in Ireland in the 1914 film For Ireland’s Sake, produced by Gene Gauntier Feature Players and distributed by Warner’s Features. It was directed by Sidney Olcott with himself, Gene Gauntier, and Jack J. Clark in the leading roles (courtesy of Irish Film Institute archives). vesting in Latin America and needed to keep track of press Value in Consequence: The Blacklisting of coverage and business news. The archeological dig gave him Axel Wenner-Gren reasons to spend time in Peru, exploring mining opportunities. In the first round the Viking Fund also supported the creation In January 1942, less than a year after the creation of the Vi- of a new chair of archaeology at the University of Cuzco (for king Fund, Axel Wenner-Gren was blacklisted by Allied gov- $15,000; the letter of award called Cuzco the “archeological ernments, his name added to the Proclaimed List of Certain capital of the Americas”), and other anthropological initiatives Blocked Nationals under the Enemy Alien Control Program followed in 1942 and in 1943. In December 1941, when Fejos authorized by President Roosevelt just after the December 7, returned to New York City, the Viking fund made a decision to 1941, bombing of Pearl Harbor. The questions raised by this employ Fejos at a salary of $500 a month as the scientific direc- blacklisting have had an effect on WGF that continues even tor of the fund. His formal title was Director of Explorations today. This, in part, has to do with ambiguity surrounding why and Archaeological Activities for the Corporation.47 He thus it was, exactly, that Axel Wenner-Gren was deemed a threat to became the key person who advised the Viking Fund about the United States government. What was it about this glam- who and what research to support. Fejos’sinfluence only es- orous Swedish industrialist that made him a subject of suspi- calated the following year, when Wenner-Gren was essentially cion during World War II? Was he a Nazi? A spy? A threat to ’ trapped in Mexico for the remainder of the war and Fejos the American government s own ambitions? All three? systematically and enthusiastically turned the fund’sattention The blacklisting of Axel Wenner-Gren has been a stain on ’ to anthropology. the foundation s reputation that has generated rumor that over time has swelled into myth. It is also a historical black hole. While our investigation clarifies important details about the circumstances leading to Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting, discussed 47. Ibid., 66–68. below, others remain shrouded by the opacity of the classified S238 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

agencies, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, as spies, informants, advisors, and trusted sources. Anthropologist David H. Price (2016) has documented the devastating effect of these political engagements on the discipline in his studies of what he calls “dual-use anthropology” (see also Price 2004, 2011a). Indeed, rumors of Wenner-Gren’s Nazi ties played a role in anthropological responses to the Viking Fund from the beginning. His friendships with the Duke and Duchess of Wind- sor (who were pro-Nazi and lived near him on Nassau) and his business dealings with German industrial interests (which were certainly significant in the 1930s) were invoked to identify him as sympathetic to the Nazi cause. The blacklisting has been generally taken as proof of his financial and political involvements, though the blacklisting alone (see below) is relatively uninformative. Luciak has repeated (in order to ridicule them) the claims that German U-boats were refueled at his estate on Nassau and that the reason his yacht could rescue so many survivors of a particular U-boat attack was because he knew that the attack was coming in advance (Luciak 2012). Some sources that focus on the practice of “cloaking” investments in Nazi Germany see Axel Wenner-Gren as having been centrally involved. For example, a relatively sensational account by Charles Higham (1983) places Wenner-Gren deeply withinthe(largeandinfluential) banking networks in the United States and Mexico that were supplying funds and arms to Ger- many during the war. William Manchester (1964), sometimes with very limited evidence, tracks Wenner-Gren’s ties to the Figure 13. Electrolux vacuum cleaner advertisement (courtesy of Electrolux Group archives). archive and wartime secrecy. What emerges as immediately relevant to the present case study, however, is how the reputation of WGF’s patron has caused discomfort for anthropologists. The field has overt commitments to justice and openness, but its practitioners have sometimes played complicated and dubious roles in the enhancement of state power in colonial and Cold War contexts. In this sense anthropology was almost “born” into a kind of cognitive dissonance, as a discipline linked to nationalism and racism but sustained by ideals of justice and equality. Any connections between Axel Wenner-Gren and the fascist and murderous Nazi state threaten the discipline precisely because of preexisting internal tensions around spying, loyalty, and state power. The field of anthropology has faced controversies over political commitments, loyalty or disloyalty, and possible spying since at least World War I, when Franz Boas, in a December 1919 letter to the Nation, charged that four (unnamed) Amer- ican anthropologists were engaged in wartime espionage in Central America. Boas identified this as an abuse of professional position and a threat to the legitimacy of anthropology as a discipline. These anthropologists had, he said, “prostituted ” science by using it as a cover for their activities as spies (quoted Figure 14. Portrait of Richard C. Hunt by Sidney E. Dickinson, in Price 2000). Over the next century many other anthropol- 1951. This portrait currently hangs in the offices of the Wenner- ogists and social scientists worked with military or surveillance Gren Foundation in New York (WGF archives). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S239

Krupp family and his roles in various wartime business deals German industry. Full-blown Nazi sympathies—a commitment with the Krupps.48 In general these texts and others are lightly to the Nazi cause—might have been there, but they are not sourced—dependent on wartime newspaper accounts, for ex- necessary to explain either the blacklisting or the probable fi- ample, which seemed to generally identify him as engaged in nancial ties to wartime Germany. trade with the Nazis during the war, or on records from J. Edgar It is important to understand the nature of the blacklisting Hoover’s FBI files, which are notorious for their sensational program. J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and other law enforcement content. FBI records often include letters from the public con- agencies arrested thousands of suspected enemy aliens, mostly taining accusations. of German, Italian, or Japanese ancestry, living in the United Wenner-Gren’s own 1938 book Call to Reason is antifascist States. The program also targeted pro-Axis sympathizers living in style. But it is difficult to assess. Wenner-Gren’s draft speech in Latin America “on the basis of hemispheric security” and in 1955 (for the WGF-sponsored Princeton conference “Man’s offered to intern such sympathizers in the United States if Latin Role in Changing the Face of the Earth”) stated that the book American countries wished to deport them. was primarily intended to encourage “Nordic solidarity.” Nazi Fifteen countries accepted the offer and eventually deported racial hygiene theory emphasized the superiority of the Nordic a total of over 6,600 individuals along with some family mem- races. But in the interwar period “Nordic solidarity” could re- bers to the United States for internment. Some 2,000 businesses fer to cooperation between the Nordic states—Sweden, Den- and business leaders were identified in Mexico, which did not mark, Iceland, Norway, and Finland—as they tried to navigate participate in the deportation. Wenner-Gren, then living at his “neutrality” by the late 1930s.49 home in Cuernavaca, was therefore one of thousands of people Wenner-Gren did sustain some business relationships and identified as having Nazi sympathies and ties in Latin America. social ties that linked him to Nazi Germany (as did many In the United States, by the end of the war, over 31,000 sus- other Swedish business owners). Most significantly, he did not pected enemy aliens and their families had been interned at speak out against Hitler. He probably did not sever his long- Immigration and Naturalization Services internment camps standing ties to German industry during the war. Wenner- and military facilities throughout the United States (Higham 1983; Gren was also a self-appointed private emissary between Field Manchester 1968). These numbers provide a sense of the scale Marshal Hermann Göring and Prime Minister Neville Cham- of the program. berlain in the summer of 1939, which implicated him in the Generally, the interest in Latin America was grounded in appeasement of Hitler. He visited with Göring once more in fears that Axis sympathizers would use the region as a staging March 1940 after the Nazis invaded Poland, at the very mo- ground for an attack on the United States or for a disruption ment when US Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles was of the Panama Canal or other sites of critical strategic inter- in Germany on a peace mission at the request of President est. Historian Max Paul Friedman (2000) describes a moment Roosevelt. These events, too, have been the subject of rumor when FDR warned that “Hitler’s advanced guards” were ready- and unsourced claims about Wenner-Gren, his relationship ing “footholds, bridgeheads in the New World, to be used as with Welles, and his relationship with Göring. soon as he has gained control of the oceans,” asserting that there At the same time, Wenner-Gren looked like a threat in were “secret air landing fields in Columbia within easy range Latin America to authorities in the United States whether he of the Panama Canal” (563). These words provoked a frantic Co- helped Hitler or not. He had the resources and interests to be lombian denial that such fields existed or that there were influential in Mexico, Peru, and other places that were critical Axis sympathizers in the region. The incident ended with a to sensitive US hemispheric priorities. Luciak (2016) exoner- formal apology by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, but the ep- ates Wenner-Gren entirely. We think Wenner-Gren was prob- isode echoed broader patterns (Friedman 2000:563). United ably sympathetic to Germany (where he had spent some years) States officials “disposed to believe the worst” often “took ac- and almost certainly continued his financial relationships with tion based on their own, often mistaken, sources of information” and their lack of faith in Latin American governments (Friedman 2000:563). 48. An online overview of the available US archival records can be found German residents in Latin America looked like a fifth col- at http://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens-overview umn of spies and saboteurs, and they seemed to present a threat .html (accessed August 7, 2016). “out of all proportion to their numbers.” In the eyes of US ob- 49. Karen Holmberg cites documents in “Settlement of estate of Paul servers, they were gathering intelligence on ship movements, ” Fejos, Box #DoR-11, relating to this draft speech, which Fejos edited. See tracking publicly available war production figures, and reading “ ”“ fi Holmberg, Report on the contents of WGF Archives, Con dential for newspapers and conveying what they learned to German RGF [Richard G. Fox],” August 31, 2001, in Box #DoR-18. See also ex- leaders (Friedman 2000:567). Meanwhile, the New York Times tended discussion of the political meanings of Nordic solidarity, 1923 to the present, in Carl Marklund, “Neutrality and Solidarity in Nordic Humani- reporter Russell B. Porter traveled through Latin America in “ ” tarian Action,” Humanitarian Policy Group Working Paper, Humanitarian 1940 writing overexcited dispatches on the Nazi threat, re- Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute, London, January 2016 porting that Germans had smuggled armored cars disguised as (http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion tractors into Colombia and that there were paramilitary units -files/10227.pdf). training in the forests (cited in Friedman 2000:570). S240 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

As Friedman’s careful study suggests, the official response The FBI was also watching Paul Fejos’s wife at the time, to Latin American risks had some elements of hysteria. It ex- journalist Inga Arvad, who was sexually involved with at least panded the economic warfare campaign, and while it was two other men, the journalist Nils Bloch and a young naval technically concerned with the domestic regulation of US intelligence officer Ensign John F. Kennedy, son of the pow- firms (who were prohibited from trading with listed firms), erful industrialist Joseph Kennedy, then United States am- in practice, any Latin American firm that did business with any bassador to the United Kingdom. Arvad, a Danish journalist, listed firm would itself be listed and thereby frozen out of trade had ties to Nazi leadership—she had interviewed Hitler and had with the United States (Friedman 2000:575). In Mexico, his- been invited to Hermann Göring’s wedding. She was therefore torian Jurgen Buchenau (2005) argues, the list “ushered in a US a suspicious person for US security officials (who knew she witch-hunt . . . that ruined many legitimate small businesses” was involved with the young Kennedy). Hoover had her phone (100–101). tapped and the conversations with Kennedy transcribed.52 This perspective on “hemispheric security” provides some Others were watching Wenner-Gren, Arvad, and Fejos. A context for understanding the blacklisting of Wenner-Gren. letter sent to Hoover on January 26, 1942, by Marion Hart of By 1943 the blacklist was a 361-page document listing thou- the eastern regional office of Friends of Democracy, a “non- sands of businesses and business owners around the world but sectarian, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization supported by with a strong emphasis on Latin America. Wenner-Gren was voluntary contributions” based in New York, accused Wenner- listed under both Mexico and Peru, on pages 194 and 223, Gren of using the Fejos expedition as a cover for spying. The rather than Sweden, but there were more than 300 Swedish note was sent, the writer said, because “I believe that the as- businesses and business owners listed as well.50 We mention sociation under the protecting cloak of science of two men these numbers not to suggest that they exonerate him but to like Fejos and Wenner-Gren down in South America might point out that blacklisting alone—taken without any further be worth a little investigation. An archaeological expedition fur- evidence of “trading with the enemy” or Nazi sympathies— nishes an excellent alibi for almost any sort of secret coming provides a weak signal of guilt. As several careful historical and going, and the fact that Pres. Prado of Peru is reputed to accounts have demonstrated, many companies and individuals be an appeaser makes the setup about perfect for Axis espio- on those lists were unfairly targeted. nage and sabotage.”53 It is likely that Wenner-Gren’s business activities in Latin This letter is in FBI files collected by WGF, and like many America, rather than any rumors of his Nazi affiliation, were sources collected by the FBI during the war, it is best un- most relevant to US concerns.51 Axel met Manuel Prado, derstood as a measure of public fears and beliefs rather than president of Peru, in February 1939, during a trip around Latin as a strictly factual account of activities or risks. It suggests at America while he was exploring investment opportunities, least that to some people, both Fejos and Wenner-Gren were including mineral interests in Latin America (Luciak 2012:20). suspicious characters during the war. The blacklisting trapped By December 1939, he was supporting Fejos on a Peruvian Wenner-Gren in Mexico for the remainder of the war, when archeological expedition. J. Edgar Hoover was carefully watch- the Bahamas refused him reentry (fig. 15). The Proclaimed List ing Wenner-Gren, and the FBI tracked his travels in the program was dismantled 1946–1948, so the blacklisting ended, Southern Cross in ports from Latin America to the Pacific but not because Wenner-Gren was “cleared” in any adminis- coast of North America. trative sense. Meanwhile, Fejos began to be embedded in the anthropological community and in US academic and military circles. He began to consider himself to be a scientist, with the help of Yale anthropologist Cornelius Osgood. 50. The 1944 list is posted and searchable online at https://catalog .hathitrust.org/Record/001118083 (accessed August 7, 2016). The Cultivation of Expertise and Patronage 51. Luciak cites in full a 1960 FBI memorandum that suggests that Wenner-Gren was feared because of his influence in Mexico. “In a mem- While Fejos had apparently mastered the rough-and-tumble orandum from Ladd to the Director [of the FBI] dated 3/6/42 it was pointed of fieldwork—the documentation of archeological sites and out that the Bureau SIS reports since 12/1/1941 had covered activities of Wenner-Gren. During December 1941, information was developed that negotiations were under way leading up to the creation of an Export 52. Inga Arvad’s romance with the young ensign John F. Kennedy Control Board in Mexico which was to have an official status yet was to be from 1941 to 1942 coincided with her marriage to Fejos 1936–1942. It financed exclusively by Axel Wenner-Gren. If the Board had been created was the subject of a farcical play, Inga Binga (JFK’s nickname for her), in the form discussed, Wenner-Gren would have become the economic written by Julian Wiles and based on FBI documents. In 1991, it was also Czar of Mexico and it was determined that the information furnished the the subject of a documentary film, John F. Kennedy and the Nazi Spy. State Department relative to Wenner-Gren’s plans in Mexico finally con- This film is described at http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/26353 vinced them to recommend Wenner-Gren for the black list. Accordingly, /John-F-Kennedy-and-the-Nazi-Spy/overview (accessed August 7, 2016). just as Wenner-Gren’s Export Control Board plan was about to receive the 53. Marion Hart to J. Edgar Hoover, in Axel Wenner-Gren file from written and official approval of the President of Mexico, Wenner-Gren was the National Archives and Records Administration, January 26, 1942, placed on the American black list.” Box #TK, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S241

Figure 15. Shangri-la, the Wenner-Grens’ Paradise Island home, Nassau, Bahamas (courtesy of Örjan Lindroth).

the engagement with isolated groups—he did not have the China in 1963.55 Osgood claimed, in his extensive personal expertise to turn these experiences into a passable scientific memoir, to have contributed to molding Fejos into a respect- text, the coin of the realm in the academic world of an- able member of the anthropological community and, in turn, thropology. He believed that publishing his fieldwork expe- established a funding relationship between Yale and the na- rience was an important rite of passage that would allow him scent Viking Fund. to cultivate his own reputation and make inroads into the It is difficult to assess the accuracy of Osgood’s self-reports; discipline.54 For that, he needed a culture broker, a mentor. in his memoir, he is frequently self-aggrandizing, a person- One such figure was Yale anthropologist Cornelius Osgood. ality trait that has been acknowledged by those who knew him Osgood was a Yale University scholar of cultures of the Arctic when he was still at Yale. He was, at best, an unreliable nar- and East Asia and curator of the anthropology department of rator, at worst a fabulist. This unpublished memoir, held in a the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale from 1934 private collection in New Haven, may well be as fanciful as to 1973 and the museum’s associate director (fig. 16). He Fejos’s own accounts of his life, yet it provides some tantaliz- published work on Athabascan tribes of northern Canada ing perspectives on the early years at the Viking Fund. and Alaska and wrote a well-reviewed memoir, Winter, about It is, however, uncontested that Osgood embraced the new his experiences as an unprepared ethnographer on his first Viking Fund and its inexperienced scientific director and winter in the field in the late 1920s. His books included The played a formal role in its early efforts to establish its legiti- Koreans and Their Culture in 1951 and Village Life in Old macy as an anthropological foundation. According to Osgood, his relationship with Fejos began in June of 1942, when the Viking Fund attempted to donate to the Peabody Museum

54. Historians and sociologists of science have written extensively on publication as a form of credibility and authority. See, e.g., Latour (1987), 55. “Dr. Cornelius Osgood Dies: Ex-curator of Yale Museum,” New Lenoir (1997), Gieryn (1999), and Baldwin (2015). York Times, January 7, 1985. S242 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

support anthropology, “in a matter of seconds, I could see that I had merely struck like a fish at the spinner that Paul Fejos had dangled in front of my eyes. His eagerness to develop the idea made his intentions obvious.” Osgood claimed, in his memoir, that the idea for the Vi- king Fund Publication Series emerged at that lunch, inspired by a prototype already in production at Yale.57 Osgood reflected that “The opportunity to find an outlet to dissemi- nate one’s research is irresistible to anthropologists. Anyone who will provide it will in large measure reap the reward of the great investment that goes into the training of the scholars and the implementing of their research.” What also emerged at lunch were Fejos and Hunt’s own anxieties about their affiliation with Axel Wenner-Gren. Osgood recalled that “Before we were through the question of Axel Wenner-Gren’s sympathies with the Nazi’s came into the conversation, especially involving his entertainment of Göring in Sweden.” Osgood claims that Fejos and Hunt took pains to make clear that the finances of the Viking Fund were autonomous from the donor, Figure 16. Cornelius Osgood (courtesy of Jessica Helfand). that the money was not tainted. For Osgood, this was an unnecessary exercise: “It was obvious they were trying to give me security of a kind that I did not need. I responded by say- ethnographic materials from Fejos’s upper Amazon River ex- ing that if the money we had available could be expended pedition. Richard C. Hunt, then the president of the Viking without any direct influence, I would not care if it came from Fund, had used his Yale connections to contact the university’s the devil.”58 president, Charles Seymour, who reached out to Osgood.56 Shortly thereafter, the Viking Fund pledged $15,000 to Yale Osgood was in charge of such acquisitions and was eager to for its Caribbean Anthropological Program and appointed expand Yale’s collections of South American material culture. Osgood editor of the new Viking Fund Publications in An- Fejos, Hunt, and Osgood met at the Viking Fund offices in thropology (VFPA). He promptly became an active mentor to Rockefeller Center, where Osgood was quickly brought up to Fejos, providing entree to elite academic circles at a critical speed about the new Viking Fund. Osgood recollected that, moment in the history of the Viking Fund. Osgood shep- “except for the fact that I immediately liked him, [Fejos’s] role herded Fejos’s Peruvian fieldwork into publishable form (in was by no means as clear as Richard Hunt’s.” It was at that legitimating publications roughly comparable to a doctoral dis- meeting that Osgood learned that Fejos had drafted a manu- sertation), signed Fejos up for membership in the relevant script of his fieldwork among the Yagua, about which he felt professional societies, and introduced him to key leaders in insecure. Osgood believed that Fejos saw in him someone who the anthropological community. Later he withdrew almost en- might be able to transform his undisciplined reflections into tirely (for a long list of reasons recounted in his unpublished a scholarly text. memoir, including a number of personality conflicts). Osgood recognized this as an opportunity to fulfill his own When Osgood arranged for Fejos’s membership in the Amer- ambitions for cultivating the anthropology department at ican Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Society for Yale. He claims that at that initial meeting, he “expressed the American Archaeology (SAA), he knew that these professional wish that the Viking Fund money would be channeled toward “introductions” were not particularly remarkable or difficult to a rising profession with exceptional need.” He also shrewdly obtain, but in his memoir he said that to the novitiate Fejos, assessed Fejos as the key player in this discussion. Hunt, Os- they were “symbols of belonging.” Osgood characterized their good observed, was merely “interested in preserving his lu- relationship as one of friendship and mutual professional ben- crative role as Wenner-Gren’s attorney,” while he sized up efit: “He not only liked me, but I was cutting a wide road over Fejos as the one who “actually made the decisions.” When which he could move into that segment of the academic world Osgood expressed his hopes that the new foundation would to which he had become wholly devoted.”

56. In the memoir, Osgood describes his first meeting with Hunt: “Although I did not know it at the moment, he represented a line of rich and 57. This is the Yale University Publications in Anthropology, begun eminent New Yorkers who belonged to the socially elect summer colony in 1936. See http://peabody.yale.edu/scientific-publications/yale-university with houses at Newport. Besides being the senior partner of a distinguished -publications-anthropology-titles (accessed August 7, 2016). metropolitan New York law firm, he was also an alumnus of Yale who called 58. The quotations in this section come from vol. 14 of “Fallen Leaves,” its dignified President ‘Charley’ with the uttermost assurance.” Osgood’s unpublished memoir. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S243

The landmark on the wide road was the publication of Fejos’s fieldwork among the Yagua as part of the newly created VFPA (Fejos 1943, 1944). On his first Wenner-Gren expedition in Peru, Fejos and his group of workers had started at Machu Picchu (described by Hiram Bingham in 1911) and then went south along Incan roads until they encountered two new Incan cities, Phuyu-Pata-Marka and Sayaq-Marka, “in one of the most inaccessible regions of the Eastern Andes” (fig. 17).59 Later Fejos spent a year with the Yagua, a group in northeastern Peru, documenting their practices and cultures. Osgood helped Fejos transform his field notes into two separate scholarly documents, both published under the imprimatur of the VFPA in its first years. These two publications by the anthropological neophyte Fejos bracketed “another of the most con- servative kind of scholarly work,” Stanley Newman’s (1944) “Yokuts Language of California.” The publication of Newman’s linguistic analysis in between the more descriptive work by Fejos helped legitimate the series as a whole in the eyes of anthropologists. By choosing to publish a very traditional study of Native American linguistics in this series, Osgood was placing Fejos in unimpeachable company. (Tellingly, Osgood ordered only 300 copies to be printed of the Yagua monograph but 1,000 of all subsequent VFPA publications.) Newman had been a student of Edward Sapir, and he collected his data on the Yokuts from 1930 to 1931, completing his doctoral dissertation at Yale on the subject in 1936. The VFPA volume was basically his dissertation, which, with the support of the Viking Fund, Osgood had sent Figure 17. Paul Fejos in the Andes during the Wenner-Gren free to 302 institutions and libraries around the world and to expedition to Hispanic America, 1941 (WGF archives). 242 individual anthropologists, only 151 of these based in the United States. Osgood was thinking internationally and trying to use his existing connections to Yale to make the Viking Fund painstaking care that has so obviously been taken to produce generally known in major centers of anthropological research. a well-designed and wholly accurate typographical job, will be The strategy worked. In his enthusiastic review of the New- welcomed by linguists in the American field, who often find it man volume, Harry Hoijer of the University of California, Los difficult and expensive to get their work into print.” He specif- Angeles, said that “mention should also be made of the Viking ically called out Osgood, “the editor of the new series,” who he Fund, the publishers of this volume, who are new to the field said should be “congratulated on this and others of the pub- of anthropological publication. This book, by reason of the lications sponsored by the Fund” (Hoijer 1944:537). Osgood’s next author was Fejos (1944), again, this time for the archeological explorations in Peru. Osgood was defensive ’ 59. Fejos’s confusion about what he was seeing as he encountered about the necessity of twice featuring his patron in the VFPA s fi ’ spectacular Incan roads and tunnels is intriguing. “Evidence from native rst years, remarking that he would not have published Fejos s guides is not always trustworthy,” he reported. “For instance we have two volumes if he had not considered them “intrinsically to received the information that the road was used by cattle rustlers, who be of real value.” Publishing Fejos’s first book on the Yagua had reconstructed the ancient road, but none of the peons of the Ex- required a lot of work, not least because Fejos did not speak pedition could give any information of drilling or blasting in modern English “with anything like perfection, as it was perhaps his times. . . . There is some evidence which suggests that the holes may have fourth or fifth language. Furthermore, he was not sophisticated been drilled by the megalithic race who built the highway of which this as a publishing scientist.” Osgood claims he actively managed ” tunnel is an integral part. Report, September 1941, p. 1, Box #MF33, the problem of Fejos’s inexperience with scientific writing WGF. “Camp #61 on the southern shore of the Vilcanota,”“The Wenner fi ” and poor English language skills by hiring a research assistant Gren Scienti c Expedition to Hispanic America, Fejos to the board of ’ the Viking Fund, September 5, 1941, Box 72, File GR #4. “Wenner-Gren to rewrite Fejos s drafts. The Viking Fund was able to offer “ ” Scientific Expedition to Hispanic America—to uncover and servey [sic] generous and immediate payment to this research assistant “ pre-Oclumbian [sic] ruin sites in Cordilleras of Rio Vilcabamba, SE as well as certain advantages that might indirectly accrue by Peru,” June 19, 1941 (report, p. 6; report, September 1941, p. 1), Box his association with the Fund.” While it is difficult to judge #MF33 (stored at Iron Mountain). the quality of the Yagua monograph (Fejos 1943)—it did not S244 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 receive any encomiums similar to Newman’s volume—it continues to be cited by anthropologists, as do his archaeological explorations (Fejos 1944). To bolster the reputation of the VFPA, Osgood secured a contribution from Alfred Kroeber, “a man who was well on his way to being recognized as the greatest living anthropologist in the Western Hemisphere, or for that matter anywhere.” After this volume came out, the VFPA would have provided “contributions in the three main fields of the discipline and, if Paul’s work was considered something less than the profession’s best, it would be offset by those of the other two authors,” Osgood wrote. Ironically, in Osgood’s telling, Kroeber “introduced a new note to the complications of a publisher,” initially hesi- tating to publish with the series because “he was afraid that his reputation might suffer from having one of his volumes printed in a series financed by Axel Wenner-Gren, a man to whom pro- Nazi sympathies had been attributed.” Osgood was able to persuade Kroeber that the money was completely out of the control of Wenner-Gren, boasting that, “also, Kroeber could see that I had a first-class train of publications under way. He climbed aboard.” Kroeber’s (1944) study, Peruvian Archeology in 1942,asum- mary of the 2 months he had recently spent in Peru, was well Figure 18. Paul Fejos and Alfred Kroeber at Burg Wartenstein, received. For Osgood, bringing Kroeber into the Viking Fund 1960 (WGF archives). orbit proved to be a savvy move. Kroeber remained engaged with the Viking Fund/WGF for the rest of his life. He was one of “ ” the organizers of symposium 14, Anthropological Horizons, Osgood’s mouth. “More important” than Fejos’s opinion of at Burg Wartenstein from September 18 to 24, 1960, and then Osgood, however, was Osgood’s observation of an emerging died in Paris on October 5, age 85, on his way home from this dynamic between Fejos and Axel Wenner-Gren that he found fi meeting ( g. 18). distasteful. He had observed Fejos’s “desire to undertake ac- In 1947 Osgood withdrew from the Viking Fund and the tivities that would personally impress, and therefore please, “ publication series, declaring in his memoir that he had ac- Axel Wenner-Gren.” Chief among them was Fejos’s decision fi complished the dif cult things by starting the series and by to purchase “an expensive stone-fronted residence at 14 E ’ publishing Paul s monographs while at the same time es- 71st street as a permanent home for the Fund.” This gratu- fi tablishing a precedent for putting out rst class monographs itous use of funds for what Osgood called “appearances” offi in the diverse elds of anthropology. ...Ihadgiven what I fended his WASP sensibilities. He predicted—incorrectly— ” fi had to give and I was tired. Osgood, a notoriously dif cult that the brownstone would not draw scholars to Viking Fund ’ individual, may have also exhausted Fejos s generosity in events. – every sense of the word (Coniff 2016:232 233). With a note Despite this more formal parting of the ways and Osgood’s of bitterness, Osgood expressed frustration for having been private bitterness, the two men continued to meet socially. sidelined as the Viking Fund gained prestige, alleging that Fejos “always pressed money” on Osgood for projects at Yale, Fejos had misled him about the role he would be able to play. and Osgood, in return, “gave him the same frank advice when “ Fejos, he griped, had not known any anthropologists at the he asked for it even though it often hurt him.” Feeling this to beginning; now he had an enlarging coterie of contacts and be a fair exchange, Osgood concluded, he “remained my most ” was seeing his road open to the future, and Osgood would intimate friend.” Osgood even helped Fejos negotiate a teach- no longer be needed to pave the way. ing post at Yale in 1950–1951 (Bidney 1964). Osgood also complained that his research assistant, David After Osgood’s departure, the VFPA continued with great Bidney (by this time listed as research associate at the Viking success. Later editors were almost a roundup of key members “ ” Fund) had become ensconced on the [VF] payroll and had of the WGF network, including Ralph Linton (1948–1951), spoken ill of Osgood to Fejos.60 This left a “bitter taste” in

Indiana. His papers are preserved at Indiana University. He became a 60. Bidney, who had a PhD when he ﬁrst arrived at the Viking Fund, scholar of Spinoza and wrote a book called Theoretical Anthropology stayed on as research associate until 1950. He was then hired as an as- (http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/ﬁndingaids/view?brandpgeneral&docId sociate professor of anthropology at Indiana University in Bloomington, pInU-Ar-VAA2661&doc.viewpprint). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S245

A. Irving Hallowell (1951–1955), Sherwood L. Washburn (1956–1961), Sol Tax (1962–1970, while he was also the editor of Current Anthropology), Colin M. Turnbull (1971–1976), and ﬁnally Arthur Jelinek (1976–1979). By 1979 the VFPA had produced 57 volumes, including Walter Dyk’s (1947) still admired ethnographic “autobiography” of a Navaho and Sher- wood Washburn’s (1962) The Social Life of Early Man. The Spuhler (1967) volume on genetic diversity and human behavior captured the state of human behavior genetics at a critical moment, and other volumes on ethnomusicology, linguistics, and archaeology had a similar effect (Braidwood and Willey 1962; Greenberg 1957; Heizer and Cook 1960; Hoijer and Os- good 1946; Merriam 1967; Slobin 1976; Watson 1979). The series ended in 1979 because of budget pressures and a changing publication landscape for anthropology.61 Meanwhile, the brownstone that Osgood considered so ill advised had become a critical resource for the anthropological community, an experimental site, and a key node in the fund’s social and intellectual networks.

Headquarters: The Brownstone at 14 East 71st Street In April of 1945, the Viking Fund established its headquarters off Fifth Avenue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side at 14 East 71st Street. The cost did not come out of the endowment: Axel Wenner-Gren provided special funds to purchase the home for the Viking Fund, so in effect it constituted a second gift of a significant asset to the foundation. Though the space is often casually referred to as the “brownstone,” it was, more accurately, a mansion. Built in 1911 by a William W. Cook, a Figure 19. Wenner-Gren offices at 14 East 71st Street, New York wealthy lawyer, the approximately 17,500-square-foot home City (WGF archives). had been designed by architects York and Sawyer for occu- pancy by Cook and his staff of servants. It was purchased “for $48,000 plus an additional amount for legal and other expenses in connection with the purchase, for an aggregate out- Side. Its luxurious interiors gave shape to the lofty aspirations lay of $62,000.”62 of those who passed through its gilded doors. The brownstone became an important symbol of the One of the new assistants hired to help with setting up foundation, its grandeur and location a signifier that it had the brownstone was Lita Binns. Binns, later Fejos and then joined the pantheon of foundation headquarters in ornate Osmundsen, was to become one of the most important leaders mansions on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. A photograph at WGF, eventually director of research and then president. of its beautiful street view—with upper balconies, ornate front She was not yet 20 years old, a mathematics and anthropology gates, and decorative columns and porticos—appeared as a major at Hunter College, when she took a job at the Viking full page at the beginning of every annual report of WGF for Fund unpacking books and washing walls at the new head- 30 years from 1946 to 1977 (fig. 19). It was “the New York quarters (just a few blocks from Hunter). According to a pro- headquarters,” a place for anthropology on the Upper East file written many years later by Mary Douglas, “she was hired in spite of the Director’s [Fejos’s] fears that she was too good- looking to be serious” (Douglas 1986:521). In 1954 a reporter from the New Yorker visited the mansion, 61. A complete list of all VFPA volumes is available at http://www noting that it was one of a number of gilded age “imitation- .wennergren.org/history/journals-publications/viking-fund-publications Renaissance palazzi” in the neighborhood that had been re- /list-vfpa-volumes (accessed August 7, 2016). “ ’ 62. “14 E. 71st St Building—Historical Background,” in “The Wenner- modeled for use by foundations. We don t know how many . . . ” Gren Foundation Headquarters, 14 East 71st St” folder, Box #BoT-6, WGF. [foundations] are currently in residence on the East Side, the “ This would be about $840,000 in 2016, but the real estate site Zillow in visitor wrote, but there must be a couple dozen at least, and March 2016 estimated the value of 14 East 71st Street at $12.7 million, with the old houses seem to suit the Foundation spirit to a T, or several other houses on the block closer to $16 million. maybe a $. And why not, since the getting of fortunes and S246 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 spending of them are in certain respects as alike as inhaling the foundation as not only a patron but also a site of inquiry and exhaling.”63 and erudition; it was to be a space to display works that were With the acquisition of this space, Fejos prepared to breathe hard to find but considered fundamental to the anthropo- life into American anthropology, remarking in his year-end logical canon. Built-in bookshelves lined the walls, though the report that the organization had acquired the “facilities which holdings were vast enough that many more of them were will enable it to take its place as a major institution for an- stored in stacks on the third and fourth floors and in the thropological research and as a meeting place for scientists basement, the latter of which was the site of a large kitchen as and scholars interested in the discussion of problems bearing well as sound and photo laboratories, formerly the laundry. on the integration of the science of man. It is expected that the Fejos’soffice was watched over by a large photo of Axel Fund will gradually assume the functions of a central clearing Wenner-Gren (still on display in an office at WGF offices in house, so to speak, for all those who are either actively en- New York today). A visitor who intended to make a pitch for gaged in anthropological research or are concerned with the funding or discuss a scheme would visit with Fejos in his of- practical applications of anthropology to contemporary social fice. They might sit on overstuffed leather couches, a massive problems.”64 world map indicating all the places the foundation had funded Fejos set about repurposing the impressive architecture of research (now hanging in the foyer of the Park Avenue South the mansion (including retrofitting it with an air conditioner offices; fig. 20). This took up most of the wall behind Fejos’s manufactured by Servel, of course) to enable it to fulfill its po- desk. Viking Fund medals (facsimiles of which are now dis- tential as a clearinghouse, but also a home, for anthropology. Its played in the front of the foundation’s current offices) rested five floors, basement, and subbasement—the site of machine, on the mantle of still another fireplace (fig. 21). Designed by carpentry, and paint shops—were refurbished with exacting Mexican artist and anthropologist Miguel Covarrubias, these care while maintaining much of the grandeur that character- 3-inch-diameter medals in heavy bronze depict four dancers ized the original construction. The house was highly orna- meant to represent human groups in their biological unity and mented and luxurious, each aspect of its décor and arrange- their cultural diversity. Until 2016, Covarrubias’s design served ment carefully considered by the foundation to cultivate an air as the logo of the foundation, and between 1946 and 2005, the of gravitas and glamour (fig. 20). A reception area led to a medal was awarded for distinguished research and publication waiting room tastefully adorned with carefully selected artifacts to leading anthropologists including Kroeber, Alfred Kidder, and two carved chairs flanking a fireplace. There was a vaulted and George Armelagos.66 ceiling and marble inlaid floor. The wood-paneled meeting Executive offices on the third floor were complemented by room featured an especially ornate fireplace opposite a por- space for archiving important foundation-related documents, trait (eventually) of the foundation’s first president, Richard C. archives having apparently been a priority very early in the Hunt, personal lawyer to Axel Wenner-Gren and a director of foundation’s history. Guest offices on the fourth floor con- Electrolux Corporation, USA, who had helped Wenner-Gren tained a reproduction of fragments of a mural found during create the fund in 1941 (he served as president until his death excavations at Teotihuacan near Mexico City, which had been in 1954, when Fejos took over). The former wine cellar was partially subsidized by a foundation grant. The reproduction, turned into a mail room and, as the visitor from the New Yorker installed on the fourth floor landing, was painted by Mateo A. observed, “numerous pantries” had become “just-the-right- Saldana in 1947 and acquired the following year from the size repositories for tape recorders, oscilloscopes, and audio- Museo Nacional de Antropologia e Historia in Mexico City oscillators, which anthropologists require for linguistic re- (fig. 20).67 search and musicology.” One such long-term guest at the 71st Street offices was the There was a grand main staircase, with marble and hard- Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wood finish, that occupied a third of the floor space on each who had been exiled from the Church in Europe for his he- of the first to the fourth floors.65 There, on the second floor, was the main conference room with a capacity of 75 people, the site of the invitation-only supper conferences. It adjoined 66. In 1946, the board of directors of the Viking Fund instituted an a wood-paneled conference room used for smaller receptions annual award for distinguished research or publication. The prize quickly and meetings. There was also a library and reading room with became the most prestigious anthropological honor in North America, massive windows overlooking 71st Street and a table running with Alfred Kroeber, Alfred Kidder, and Franz Weidenreich being the fi the length of the room. This library was meant to cultivate rst cohort of recipients. Until 1961, the recipients for the prize were selected by their respective societies: the AAA, SAA, and AAPA. After 1961, associates of Current Anthropology elected the awardee. Later, WGF 63. These included the Mellon, Sloan, Rockefeller, and Ford founda- appointed a special international committee to reflect the four subfields tions. of anthropology to intermittently confer the prize on a single individual. 64. “Annual Report on the Fund’s Activities for the Year Ended The last medal was awarded to George Armelagos in 2005. January 31, 1946,” WGF. 67. “30 Nov 1979. Sale of 14 E 71st St, NY, NY to Thomas S. Weary, 65. “14 E. 71st St Building—Historical Background,” in “The Wenner- Trustee for Delphic Trust,” in folder “Sale of 14 E 71st St. All Corre- Gren Foundation Headquarters, 14 East 71st St” folder, Box #BoT-6, WGF. spondence with Buyer,” Box #BoT-6, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S247

Figure 20. Brownstone interior montage: upper left, fourth-floor staircase; upper right, fifth-floor “skull” closet; middle left, third floor, director of research office; middle right, third floor, “gals Friday” workstation; bottom left, first-floor waiting room; bottom right, first- floor staircase (WGF archives). retical views about evolution and arrived in New York City in nearby Jesuit church, Teilhard considered himself intellec- December of 1951.68 Though he slept at the clergy house of a tually “temporarily lodged at the WGF, which, on Fejos’ invitation, opened wide its arms when I arrived here in November 68. Fejos to George B. Barbour, December 3, 1951, in folder “Teilhard from South Africa.” He could meet “all the interesting Amer- de Chardin—1950–1963, Misc No 1,” Box #MF 103-B, WGF. ican people” and use the time to “profit from my stay here to S248 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 21. Viking Fund Medal front and back, designed by Miguel Covarrubias in 1948. The foundation paid Covarrubias $500 for the design (WGF archives). clarify and propagate my ideas on the subject” of humanism drafting room, an X-ray and ultraviolet viewing laboratory (for- and anthropology.69 mer bathrooms), a chemistry lab, and a physical lab equipped While at the headquarters in New York, Teilhard helped to with microscopes for examining bones and other artifacts (for- establish the “Early Man in Africa” program for the foundation mer servants’ quarters). The former chauffeur’s closet had also (Aiello 2011; Schultz 1961). Not only did the foundation pro- been transformed into a storage space for skulls (fig. 20). The vide him with office space, it supported him logistically. Fejos New Yorker reporter, who in 1954 got a rare glimpse of this helped him with extensions of his visa and paid for travel particular space, described it as “a grisly array of skulls. Dr. expenses while he was in the United States, including round trip Fejos told us that a few of them were real and that the rest were rail journey to Berkeley, California, in 1952. When Teilhard mostly reproductions of the skulls of such celebrated anthro- died in April 1955, he was identified in the New York Times pological discoveries as the Solo man and the Tepexpan man” obituary as a “research aide of Wenner-Gren Foundation” in its (since proved to be totally modern). “We use the real skulls headline, and the text of the obituary was copied verbatim from to practice our skull-measuring technique on,” Dr. Fejos said. the press release prepared by WGF.70 “When it comes to measuring skulls, you can’t afford to get While Teilhard was one of the more illustrious long-term rusty” (Gill and Bunzel 1954). Here, at the distinguished head- occupants of the offices at the brownstone, most days of the quarters of the brownstone, began the supper conferences, infor- week the house was filled with the small but industrious foun- mal meetings, and seminars that helped make the foundation a dation staff—those who coordinated grants and conferences, central node in a vast and international network of scholars with managed the library, and so forth—who occupied an additional investments in anthropology. The foundation quickly emerged as eight offices on the fifth floor. These staff members used a a resource for organizing anthropologists who wished to reinvent second, back stairway that linked all floors from the cellar to their field after serving in the Second World War. the roof. (An elevator, installed shortly after the building was fl acquired, went from the basement to the fourth oor.) Also Reorganizing Anthropologists: Supper Conferences fi fl on the fth oor was a suite of technical spaces, including a and Summer Seminars In anthropology, as in many scientific disciplines in the United 69. De Chardin to A. C. Blanc, February 28, 1952, ibid. States, the war years interrupted the normal arc of profes- 70. This arrangement served the foundation as much as it did sional life.71 Anthropologists served actively in the armed Teilhard; the headline for his April 15, 1955, obituary in the New York Times read, “Father Teilhard Scientist, Was 73. Co-discoverer of Peking Man is Dead—Research Aide of Wenner-Gren Foundation.” This text 71. This section is drawn largely from the work of Little and Kaplan had been reprinted verbatim from a press release prepared by WGF. (2010). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S249 forces and also worked on projects relating to scientific mo- particular gleam by the privations of the war (fig. 22). In this bilization through the federal Office of Scientific Research and way, the dinners created a justification for drawing people to- Development, run by the indefatigable Vannevar Bush.72 They gether from around the region and cultivating conversations were brought in as experts for the analysis of the culture and that the organizers hoped would serve an agenda-setting func- personality of the enemy (e.g., Ruth Benedict analyzed the tion for the field. By virtue of providing the structure, WGF Japanese in a book published in 1946, The Chrysanthemum would come to be linked with the content. Fejos said in his 1944 and the Sword, which became required reading for occupation annual report that the monthly supper conferences began with forces in Japan). Or they were sent to the Western internment a view to “broadening” the Viking Fund’s “contacts with ac- camps to help manage Japanese American prisoners held there. credited anthropologists” and encouraging discussion and re- Some of the most prominent ethnographers of the era worked search among them. The following spring, after the brownstone in the camps, including Robert Redfield, Conrad Arensberg, became the new home of WGF, it provided a highly suitable Edward Spicer, and Solon Kimball (Starn 1986). setting for these suppers. Like many other scientists, anthropologists even worked on Early on, the foundation demonstrated an awareness of the problems unrelated to their own special expertise. Linguists power of posterity; it could enhance its authority as a key pa- helped with censorship and translation but also with planning tron of anthropology by also cultivating an archive of its early programs at the Board of Economic Warfare. Biological an- activities. In the fall of 1946, some of the monthly talks and thropologists developed psychological testing programs. Cul- question sessions began to be recorded, and these tape record- tural anthropologists worked as planners for the Strategic ings now constitute a critical resource for developing an un- Bombing Survey. And archeologists worked in military intel- derstanding of the people and ideas of postwar anthropology. ligence or in the Chemical Warfare Service. Some anthro- One can listen to the recorded voices of Raymond Dart, Clif- pologists, including Gregory Bateson, even joined the Office of ford Geertz, and Ashley Montagu. In one recording from 1947, Strategic Services (Price 2008:29–39). Fejos himself made a now posted on the WGF website, Ruth Benedict discusses “direct contribution to the war effort, upon request of the War studying “civilized nations” instead of the “primitive popula- Department,” in his lectures at the Far Eastern Area and Lan- tions” that had been seen as the natural province of anthro- guage School of Stanford University.73 pology. Teilhard de Chardin speaks in a 1948 recording of the One American Association for the Advancement of Sci- quiet ways of human socialization, and in a March 1962 re- ence report found that about one-half of all anthropologists cording, Raymond Firth discusses culture while disavowing any in the United States were engaged full-time in the war effort, interest in the popular C. P. Snow notion of “two cultures” that and “most of the rest are doing part time work” (cited in Price was then reverberating through academic circles.75 L. S. B. 2008:25). When the war finally ended, the academic commu- Leakey’s 1962 discussion of his findings at Olduvai Gorge is nity had been disrupted for at least 3 years. Networks were riveting history of science, as he anticipates objections to his frayed and scholars were out of touch. Research programs had ideas and explains the uncertainties of his data.76 been set aside to do war work. Some anthropologists had even Cultural anthropologist Richard Fox, later WGF president, experienced the trauma of frontline and classified service.74 It attended one of these supper conferences in 1966 when he was in this context that WGF and its beautiful brownstone be- was “wet behind the ears,” and he recalled the intensity of the came a critical social and professional space, a place for plan- debate that night. Evans-Pritchard was the speaker, and the ning, thinking, and reconnecting. Suddenly the war was over, collected anthropologists “began to get after him like crazy . . . and anthropologists had an opportunity to think about what really badgering him about the anthropology he had done shape they wanted their discipline to take. and what he had missed with the Nuer and half a dozen other One of the first WGF programs, begun during the war in things. He was not very young and not in good health and they 1944 (and before the purchase of the brownstone), involved did not show him any mercy. I got the feeling that was the way nothing more novel than a visiting speaker and an elegant it was supposed to be—I thought it would be this chummy dinner, conventional activities in academic life but given a thing but it was not. It was intense.”77 It was at one of these supper conferences that planning began for one of the new Viking Fund’s most important ini- 72. The best study of Bush and his critical role in American science tiatives, the Summer Seminars in Physical Anthropology. These, policy is Zachary (1999). Note that Zachary discusses Bush’s fondness for an even more intense extension of the supper club concept, the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC, an important watering hole for the built on the idea of bringing together professionals and stu- DC anthropology community. dents to discuss and explore new ideas in the profession. In- 73. Described in “Report of the President, January 31, 1945,” in “Report on the Fund’s Activities for the Year Ended January 31, 1945, Viking Fund,” p. 8, WGF. 75. On the C. P. Snow debate, one helpful essay is Burnett (1999). 74. Price’s (2008:xi–xix, 18–26) study of anthropologists during the 76. All accessed on the WGF website (http://www.wennergren.org Second World War finds both frontline and classified service, and some /history/conferences-seminars-symposia/supper-conferences, accessed Au- anthropologists later chose not to speak about their experiences during gust 7, 2016). the war. 77. Phone interview, Richard Fox with Susan Lindee, August 28, 2015. S250 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 22. Left, Alfred Kroeber giving a supper conference at the brownstone in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Right, Francis L. K. Hsu giving a supper conference, “Are They Happy in the People’s Republic of China,” in 1973 (WGF archives). deed, they began with a modest proposal for a single seminar cent developments and in providing stimulating contacts with presented by Sherwood Washburn at a Viking Fund supper colleagues.” He also suggested that the seminar be an annual conference in October of 1945.78 Later that month invitations affair, proposing that “The next summer session could provide were sent to 22 leading members of the field to see whether they an opportunity to present the results for discussion and inte- would be interested in participating. “At present,” Washburn gration, with the ultimate aim of publishing an annual volume and Fejos wrote in their invitation, “physical anthropologists on selected aspects of physical anthropology. During the same are too isolated for a cooperative attack on important issues session, the research program for the next year could be or- to be possible. The aim of the seminar will be to deliberate, to ganized.”81 do research and to publish.”79 This is precisely what happened, with the seminars imag- The responses were overwhelmingly enthusiastic and high- ined as physical anthropological analogs to the famed and long- lighted the need for such a program to help remake the field running Woods Hole summer sessions for biologists (Pauly following a war that had not only posed real challenges to the 1988). Instead of a seaside retreat, members of the first seminar racial essentialism that had characterized the field before but would meet twice a week for 6 weeks at the foundation’s also left its members scattered and out of touch with each comfortable headquarters on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. other. For instance, Joseph Birdsell, who had been serving in Among the 36 attendees, collaborative fieldwork was encour- the air force, responded to the query with the observation that aged, and incipient critique of racial classification took hold. “many of us in the armed forces have been more or less Subsequent seminars, also held at the brownstone, followed completely removed from our natural fields of research for a 2- this pattern of reviewing older traditions and providing in- or 3-year period, and a professional seminar of this type would structioninnewermethodsandconceptual approaches. Add- be extremely valuable to those of us who will have recently ing to the spirit of innovation was the fact that all of the returned to our academic fields of investigation.”80 Al Damon, instructors had earned their PhDs no more than 10 years ear- writing from his post at the Headquarters for Air Technical lier, though more senior luminaries in the field made periodic Service Command of the US Army in Dayton, Ohio, agreed, guest appearances. pointing out that “the seminar could be extremely valuable, The success of the first summer seminar led to a huge spike especially to men who may have been out of the professional in enrollment in subsequent years: 93 in 1947, 84 in 1948, and current during the war, by allowing them to catch up with re- 116 in 1949. The 1950 seminar followed almost immediately on the groundbreaking “Cold Spring Harbor Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Quantitative Biology on the Origin and Evo- lution of Man” (Warren 1950), which was jointly organized 78. Emoke Szathmary (1991) provides a comprehensive review of the by Theodosius Dobzhansky and Washburn. This important contributions of Viking Fund/WGF to bio anthro in their 50th-anniversary fi report. symposium, which helped inaugurate the eld of human pop- 79. LetterfromFejosandWashburntopotentialparticipants,October25, ulation genetics, was also made possible through funding from 1945, in folder “Grant 141—Summer Seminars in Phys Anthropology & Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1945–1948,” Box #MF-2, WGF. 80. Birdsell to Washburn and Fejos, November 5, 1945, ibid. 81. Damon to Washburn and Fejos, November 13, 1945, ibid. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S251

WGF. Human evolution was an enduring concern, though yearbook until 1953, at which point it became shared by the through the years participants brought a range of perspectives AAPA, the Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas at the Un- to bear on the subject. niversidad Nacional Autónoma, and the Instituto Nacional de There were ultimately six summer seminars held in New Antropologia e Historia in Mexico. With the exception of the York City between 1946 and 1951 that set the stage for the years 1972–1978, the yearbook has since been produced growth of physical anthropology during the second half of the without the support of WGF and is currently published by John twentieth century. Attendance at the summer seminars tracked Wiley & Sons on behalf of the AAPA. very closely to the American Association of Physical Anthro- pologists (AAPA) annual meetings during those years. How- Scaling Up: Internationalizing Anthropology ever, in contrast to the AAPA annual meetings, the summer seminars attracted many younger members of the field who Fejos quickly recognized the need to build an international were interested in newer approaches to physical anthropology. community for anthropology. He found his international Washburn, probably more than anyone else in the postwar pe- organizer in an energetic anthropologist named Sol Tax, who riod, was responsible for the transformation of physical an- was based in Chicago (fig. 23). The two met in 1946, when thropology from a descriptive, typologically oriented science they were both invited to participate in a US National Re- into one in which modern scientificprincipleswereapplied. search Council Committee on Latin American Anthropology, The summer seminars helped to define this transition and clar- “formed in response to what was perceived as a critical lack of ified and enriched ideas that were published in Washburn’s American specialists in Latin American society and culture.” (1951) field-defining paper on the “New Physical Anthropol- When the committee chose not to endorse Tax’s recommen- ogy.” Accordingly, the last summer seminar to be held in New dations, he reached out in frustration to Fejos for the Viking York City, in 1951, focused on defining the scope of physical Fund to support a seminar for anthropologists working in Cen- anthropology, which foreshadowed contemporary subareas: evo- tral America. Fejos proposed a conference to prepare a “status lution, fossil studies, primate studies, anthropometry and mea- of research” report on the region to be presented at the Twenty- surements, genetics and typology, human ecology, human Ninth International Congress of Americanists in New York growth, constitution, and applied physical anthropology. in 1949. Two additional seminars were held outside of New York City in 1953 and 1955, in Boston at the Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children and in Washington, DC, at the Smithsonian, re- spectively. (In 1952, the foundation and Washburn were pre- occupied with the International Symposium on Anthropology.) WGF continued to provide funding for these two seminars, the first of which focused on the relevance of physical anthropology for medical and dental research. The latter Smithsonian seminar, which was perhaps the most “applied” of all, emphasized the role of physical anthropology in the field of human identification. It came at the end of the Korean War, when physical anthropologists were involved with the identification of those killed in the conflict. Given its location in Washington, DC, it attracted representatives from the FBI, the US Public Health Service, and the National Institute of Dental Research. From the beginning, Washburn, believing that the field needed a means of learning about the insights of the summer seminars, appointed Gabriel L. Lasker—who had served as a conscientious objector during the war—to summarize the state of physical anthropology and reprint important papers that had been published in the preceding year. This became the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, founded in 1946. In this way the summer seminars and the yearbook were linked, as it was thought that the latter would inform those who had been unable to attend. In general, the yearbook included a summary of the seminar, a review of the year’s contributions to physical anthropology, and reprints of relevant papers not easily accessible, and it was distributed to interested anthropologists at no charge during these years. The Viking Fund/Wenner-Gren Figure 23. Sol Tax, founding editor of Current Anthropology (WGF was the sole funder of the production and distribution of the archives). S252 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

The resulting conference and edited volume, Heritage of Con- usual combination of features, such as its coverage of a whole quest, would become a model for the future Wenner-Gren discipline-wide internationalism, tight planning to insure co- symposia series. “A committee set out the major topics they ordination of individual efforts in a general scheme, maximal felt should be treated; papers were written, copied, and dis- time for discussion, and speedy publication.”83 tributed to all the other contributors and attendees; participants The ISA covered a huge range of topics that attended both met in person to discuss what they had read beforehand; the to questions of method and subject area. This included issues authors rewrote their contributions in light of the seminar dis- of language, culture, and biology—past and present. Together, cussion; and finally a book was compiled and published.” Dustin the planning committee agreed on 48 topics for “inventory” Wax notes that this system was an “almost textbook example papers that would be used as the basis for discussion and began oftheareastudiesapproach...(perhapsnotcoincidentally) to assign each topic to the appropriate expert. The profession providing the seminar’s funders, Viking Fund—as well as other may have been small (Kroeber estimated that the “number of funders of anthropology—with a set of criteria with which to active professional anthropologists in the world is probably un- evaluate future research proposals” (Wax 2008b; see also Wax der rather than above two thousand”), “but the subject matter 2008a). is enormous. As well as unusually varied” (Kroeber 1952:xiii). Around the same time, with Kroeber’s leadership, the Vik- The “inventory” papers were defined by Kroeber as pro- ing Fund hosted a symposium (its first symposium) that took viding a “systematic overview of the methods deployed and stock of anthropology worldwide as a discipline. The Inter- substantive results obtained by research along a particular . . . national Symposium of Anthropology, or ISA, for short, was a subject . . . or field. . . . Each inventory paper takes stock of world survey of the status of anthropology. It was an oppor- the methods gradually defined and refined in this subject or tunity to discuss “gaps in knowledge that require plugging; field and the principal findings made. At the edge of these new techniques and new theoretical approaches for investi- findings, just beyond, loom the unresolved problems whose gation that have been developed; the cooperative inter- or mul- solution will bring the advances of the coming years. The dis- tidisciplinary investigations that have been undertaken; and cussion of these problems constitutes the Symposium” (Kroeber the new textbooks or symposia, stressing integration of known 1952:xiii). Such problems stretched from the deep past, in- data that have been published” (Wax 2008b). A press release cluding “The Idea of Fossil Man,” treated by Pierre Tielhard announced the grand ambitions of the organizers: de Chardin, “Paleopathology,” by Erwin H. Ackerknecht, and “ ” The modern anthropological point of view is no less than Evolution and Process, by Julian Steward, to contemporary “ ” “ an integrated “Study of Man.” It is true that anthropology life such as Social Structure by Claude Levi-Strauss, National ” “ calls for proficiency in a wide range of skills, but its phil- Character by Margaret Mead, and The Relation of Language ” osophical framework stimulates an awareness of a common to Culture by Harry Hoijer. intellectual adventure enabling a scholar to move freely in Feedback from symposium participants stressed the unique thought over the established methodological barriers cus- combination of the personal and professional that would come ’ tomarily used to define the divisions of knowledge into the to be the foundation s hallmark. Kroeber himself wrote to ’ biological sciences, the social studies, and the humanities.82 the foundation s president, Richard C. Hunt, to declare the ISA “an extraordinary success, at once a landmark and an Though Fejos had originally had his doubts about the idea influence on our lives—for which we are grateful.”84 He em- of this symposium, the ISA was seen as a huge success. Held phasized the level of conversation made possible by having from June 9 to 20, 1952, at the brownstone, it is widely regarded circulated the papers in advance. This feature, applied to both “ ’ as a turning point for anthropology. It was a veritable who s Tax’s Heritage of Conquest symposium and to the ISA, would ” fi who of mid-twentieth century anthropology ( g. 24). become a key dimension of all subsequent WGF symposia. Preliminary planning for the ISA was conducted by means Kroeber succeeded in editing a half million precirculated of a small group of prominent American anthropologists un- words into a volume that marked the beginning of a new era der the chairmanship of Professor Alfred Kroeber. The plan- for the discipline (Bennett 1999). Anthropology Today: An En- ning group consisted of Kluckhohn, Wendell C. Bennett, Harry cyclopedic Inventory was published in 1953. In a separate pub- Hoijer, S. L. Washburn, W. Duncan Strong, and David L. lication, Sol Tax and others (Loren C. Eiseley, Irving Rouse, and Mandelbaum. Later, Ralph Linton joined this group. Kroeber Carl F. Voegelin) edited the record of 2 weeks of discussion explained in a dispatch following the symposium, published of these papers by scholars from 21 countries as An Appraisal of “ in Science, that this selection was made partly on the basis of Anthropology Today. It was no small task to edit some 1,900 general professional distinction, partly on the basis of special- pages of discussion and written addenda to the inventory pa- fi ized competence in particular elds, partly to assure the pos- pers into a comparatively modest volume of 395 indexed pages. sible maximum of international participation.” He also added that “it is apparent that the Symposium presented an un-

83. Ibid. 82. Kroeber press release, August 29, 1952, in folder “ISA Press 84. Kroeber to Hunt, June 21, 1972, in folder “RC Hunt,” Box #DoR-5, Releases,” Box #MF-1, WGF. WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S253

Figure 24. International Symposium on Anthropology, Wenner-Gren ofﬁces, New York City, 1952. Left, Carlton Coon and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Right, Floyd Lounsbury, Irving Rouse, Carlos Monge, José Cruxent, William Caudill, and Sherwood Washburn (visible faces from the left; WGF archives).

In the preface to this volume, the authors praised WGF in terms and perspectives. It is still often referenced as one of the first that implied that WGF was anthropology, that the two were elaborations of what today is called the anthropocene. inextricably linked: “In the circumstances of the case it seems a Held from June 16 to 22, 1955, in Princeton, New Jersey, little ridiculous to make a polite acknowledgement to the “Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth” rivaled ISA Wenner-Gren Foundation—for to the foundation, including its in its scale. Carl O. Sauer, who would later become the co- board and officers, its director of research, and all its staff, this chair of “Man’s Role,” remarked upon reading the proposal, book owes whatever it is that a proud and hopeful newly “Your . . . enclosed documentation has left me aghast, excited, hatched chick owes to the hen that laid the egg” (Tax et al. 1953). and somewhat scared.”86 Having confronted his fear, Sauer The ISA symposium, together with its publications, served helped conceptualize the scheme of the event as containing to further international exchange among those who attended, three parts, “Retrospect, Process, Prospect,” and that the expec- building momentum toward one of the most important con- tation of him was to “ride herd on . . . the history of man from ferences and volumes, in historical terms, that the recently Adam to the AEC in modifying the face of the earth” (our renamed Wenner-Gren Foundation (1951) had sponsored up emphasis).87 to that time. This conference was a self-conscious coming to- The symposium was widely publicized and was attended gether around issues of environmental change and how hu- by 75 participants from 21 different disciplines across the man beings were producing it. We can only briefly summarize sciences and humanities and across the world (fig. 25). There what happened at this conference here, but we would suggest was also a mix of participants from academia, private in- that further, serious scholarly attention to the arguments and stitutions, industry, and government. Once again, WGF, with ideas elaborated there is more than warranted. their mixture of hospitality and vision, managed to attract some of the most prominent thinkers of the age. In a 1955 Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth report to the board of directors, Fejos described the mood of the symposium as “relaxed, uninhibited, and sharply fo- As early as 1950, before ISA had come to fruition, Fejos was cused.”88 While 53 background papers—similar in form to sending inquiries about the possibility of a symposium in the those of ISA—were prepared and circulated before the meeting, “form of an interdisciplinary collaboration of geographers and none were presented there; all sessions were focused on dis- anthropologists. The intent of the symposium would be to cussion (and were audio recorded and stenotyped). “Man,” explore those areas of man’s knowledge about himself that Fejos explained, “the ecological dominant on the planet, needs have been and could be profitably undertaken by joint research the insights of scholars in nearly all branches of learning to between geographers and anthropologists, or by persons with knowledge of the methodology and techniques of both disciplines.”85 While this brief description seems relatively mild, 86. 1954 report to the board of directors, “Personal Historical,” Box the resulting conference was revolutionary in its approaches #MF-3, WGF. 87. For a discussion of Sauer’s role, see Williams (1987). 85. Fejos to Kimble, October 9, 1950, Box #MF-3, WGF. 88. “Personal Historical,” Box #MF-3, WGF. S254 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 25. “Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth.” Left, Carl O. Sauer (organizer). Center, meeting venue. Right, Charles Galton Darwin (participant; WGF archives). understand what has happened and is happening. The Sym- ciplinary scientific research. This new endowment was in the- posium was the first attempt to provide an integrated basis ory, in Fejos’s plan, to be allied with the existing foundation in for such an insight.”89 It was, in an important sense, an early New York and modeled on its practices. But it was not to be. effort to address problems that have since been conceptualized Wenner-Gren changed his plans and left most of his fortune to in terms of environmental history (Crosby 1995) and, more allies in Sweden. For Fejos, it was a terrible blow (these events recently, the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen 2002). are explored in more detail in Luciak 2016). William J. Thomas, WGF’s assistant director of research, In 1954 Fejos began building up to what he hoped would wrote and received an National Science Foundation (NSF) grant be the creation of a new Wenner-Gren endowment. This en- of $12,000 to defray the cost of publishing the proceedings, dowment would inherit, in theory, the entirety of Axel Wenner- which he edited (fig. 26). The massive tome, published as Man’s Gren’s fortune. That fall Wenner-Gren seemed to be thinking Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, appeared in 1956 from about his legacy, and he announced the creation of the Wenner- the University of Chicago Press. Lewis Mumford provided a Gren Center for Research in Stockholm. In their correspon- forward-looking comment that emphasized the need to move dence, Fejos told Dodds, “this is you will remember, the house away from the reductive tendencies of modern science toward which he promised which the Swedes wanted [fig. 27]. It will a “common philosophy of human development . . . until we be 20 stories high; the building of it starts now. What will hap- have that, we cannot make enlightened choices and project ap- pen inside it is rather uncertain. The plan only announced that propriate goals” (Thomas 1956:1149). 100 scientists are to be kept in constant residence and they shall The essays include one focused on a now-riveting collection be selected from all the existing disciplines. To make it funnier, of 48 midcentury aerial photographs of cities, landscapes, and it is also announced that the enterprise will be self-supporting. ancient and modern monuments. The airplane, the author I wish we could be clever enough on this side of the ocean to said, was “the instrument which has introduced this new scale be able to work so economically.”90 Dodds was amused: “The as an inescapable reality, bridging the gap between the smallest picture of a 20 story building full of scholars who are able to social unit, the individual human being, and the largest unit, make the whole enterprise self-supporting is one of the most the universe—between, as it were, the social microscope and imaginative philanthropic conceptions the world of scholarship the social telescope” (Gutkind 1956:3). Sauer’s essay, “The has ever encountered!”91 Agency of Man on Earth” proposed that “we present and Meanwhile, Fejos was working to persuade Wenner-Gren to recommend to the world a blueprint of what works well with create a different kind of endowment. In November 1954 he us at the moment, heedless that we may be destroying wise and arranged for Axel Wenner-Gren to have lunch at the founda- durable native systems of living with the land. The modern tion with the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr said he would industrial mood . . . is insensitive to other ways and values” be willing to serve as a trustee of the not yet created Wenner- (Sauer 1956:68). Gren international endowment; Julian Huxley said the same, There was one announcement at the 1955 meeting that as did Yale School of Law professor F. S. C. Northrup. These Fejos must have come to regret: that Axel Wenner-Gren was about to fund a new international endowment for interdis- 90. Fejos to Dodds, in folder “Dodds, John and Marjorie,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. 89. Ibid. 91. Dodds to Fejos, November 22, 1955, ibid. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S255

Figure 26. William L. Thomas in his fourth-floor office at 14 East 71st Street (WGF archives). luminaries of law and science had become personal friends of public announcement.” Fejos wanted the steel mills, real estate Fejos, presumably brought in to help persuade Wenner-Gren in the Bahamas, and the “milk companies in Mexico South that the new endowment would be in good hands. America and the East” included in the bequest. “It’s all in a Wenner-Gren returned to his Bahamian home in Nassau ferment,” he wrote to Dodds, “but I hope within a week I can in late November 1954, having left the impression that he did send you more news.”94 But the news was very shortly bad. indeed plan to create this endowment with his estate and As described in our introduction, by January the plan for the under Fejos’s control.92 It would be “an international orga- endowment had been abandoned by Wenner-Gren. nization for interdisciplinary research” based in the Bahamas After the 1955 endowment proposal tanked, and Wenner- and modeled on the New York foundation.93 Fejos wrote ex- Gren made the other promises to his allies in Sweden that citedly to Dodds, “As to his Majesty [his nickname for Wenner- ended so badly, Fejos continued to work to persuade Wenner- Gren], immediately upon his arrival I got my orders that the Gren to invest further in the New York foundation. His most Endowment is on and that I shall move immediately about the significant and final success was Wenner-Gren’s purchase and gift of an Austrian castle, to be the “European Headquarters” of WGF. This purchase coincided with some critical changes in the funding structure of anthropology in the United States, as 92. Fejos to Northrop, December 3, 1954, in file “Wenner-Gren En- the US NSF began to support the social sciences in the late dowment: correspondence, re: in Dalman and Wenner-Gren, Stockholm 1950s (see below). As the foundation purchased a European Sweden,” Box #DoR-11, WGF. 93. Fejos, “Prospectus concerning the Wenner-Gren Endowment,” p. 14; Fejos to Northrop, December 3, 1954, in file “Wenner-Gren Endowment: correspondence, re: in Dalman and Wenner-Gren, Stockholm Sweden,” Box 94. Fejos to Dodds, November 30, 1955, “Dodds, John and Marjorie,” #DoR 11, WGF. Box #DoR-4, WGF. S256 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

In this rewriting of history, Wenner-Gren reminded Fejos of conversations long ago “concerning the establishing of the European headquarters for the WGF for Anthropological Re- search” and urging him to take action that very summer. He had in mind, he said, not an administrative office but a center for science, and he asked Fejos to select a site remote from the noises and distractions of a city atmosphere, with ample space for accommodating scholars, pleasantly situated with a scenic background conducive to meditation and quiet thinking. “The place for which you should look also must have dignity. It should not be simply a shelter or a square box building but should provide the proper aesthetic setting for the conferences and must stimulate interest in historic cultures.” With such an assignment, it was Fejos’s great good fortune, so to speak, to find a bargain castle in Austria almost immediately.99 The property in Austria, near Vienna, could “offer all the necessary requirements for the institution envisaged, being conducive to meditation, and stimulating interest in historical cultures.”100 Figure 27. Paul Fejos (left) and John Dodds (right), by Nikolas Indeed, the castle conformed perfectly to Wenner-Gren’sap- Muray, 1958 (WGF archives). parent stated desires, and Fejos had known that it was for sale for at least 3 years. headquarters, it signaled intensifying commitments to inter- The massive, 800-year-old Burg Wartenstein contained ap- national anthropology. proximately 40 usable rooms together with (eventually) an auditorium and a farmhouse dairy complex of six buildings. New European Headquarters In the foothills of the Austrian Alps, it was about a 75-minute drive from Vienna. It was also less than 50 miles as the crow In October 1957 Fejos persuaded Axel Wenner-Gren to pur- flies from the Hungarian border. For Fejos, displaced from the chase a twelfth-century Austrian castle for WGF at a bargain landed aristocracy of Budapest, it was almost home (he chose 95 price of $26,000 ($217,180 in 2015 dollars). Burg Warten- for his ashes to be buried there, and they stayed there years 96 stein quickly came to epitomize the foundation. It had 15 acres later when the castle was sold, with a special request from Os- of steep woods with verandas and gardens, Gothic arches, court- mundsen that the rose bush at the grave site be carefully yards, wrought iron gates, rathskellers, and romantic if mis- maintained).101 The haunting portrait of Fejos that hangs in fi matched sections built over the centuries ( g. 28). Its purchase the WGF offices today features the castle in the background, was a victory for Fejos, who had been trying to persuade Axel Wenner-Gren that it should be the European headquarters of the foundation. “I’m still marveling at the dexterity with which you maneuvered the purchase of the European headquarters 99. “I have some three years ago heard of the availability of Burg by Axel!” Dodds told Fejos late that year. “It was a great stroke; Wartenstein. It seemed to me an ideal location for such an enterprise.” it takes the pressure off in every direction.”97 Fejos to Wilhelm Koppers at the Institut für Völkerkunde in Vienna, The purchase was framed in the December report for 1957 November 11, 1957. Koppers had heard about the October purchase and ’ as though it had been engineered by Axel.98 There was a thought that the foundation was moving to Austria full stop. Fejos s letter “ June 1, 1957, letter from Axel Wenner-Gren to Fejos, a letter to him is a long explanation of the actual plan. In WGF European Headquarters: Minister of Education, Vienna & Correspondence with that seemed to foresee the castle and its charms and that was Haekel, Koppers & Drimmel,” Box #BW-2, WGF. almost certainly written by Fejos after the successful purchase. 100. 1957 annual report, WGF, pp. 1–4. 101. Given that a very good range for the limits of the horizon is about 77 miles and that the castle clocks in at 50 straight miles or per- 95. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator of inflation haps a little less from this border (based on inaccurate Googlemaps (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). measurements), perhaps he could actually see the mountains of Hungary. 96. In this way, WGF parallels he Rockefeller Foundation’s acquisition of Fejos chose to be buried on the grounds of Burg Wartenstein, so it must Bellagio in Italy in 1959 (http://rockefeller100.org/exhibits/show/evolution have felt as close to home as he was ever likely to be. Lita Osmundsen, in -of-a-foundation/1928–1963/bellagio-center, accessed August 7, 2016). negotiating the sale in 1980, asked the new owners to take care of the 97. “I was amused by the hunting episode you described.” John W. grave. The foundation would “appreciate it” if “the rose bush set within Dodds to Paul Fejos, December 26, 1957, Dodds to Fejos folder in five weeping birches on the eastern side of the castle be maintained; that “Dodds, John W,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. is the resting place for Paul Fejos’ ashes and thus has particular signifi- 98. Report on the foundation’s activities for the year ended January 31, cance for Lita.” See Wadsworth to Raymond Rich, May 22, 1980, “Burg 1958. Wartenstein Appraisal,” Box #BW-7, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S257

tions, and was finally, in April 1945, in the firing line of op- posing forces. It was then occupied by a foreign army and suffered great deterioration and extensive damages” (Eheim and Winner 1958:49). It had a drawbridge at the main entrance and a series of small, asymmetrical courtyards inside. Perched at the top of a low mountain in the foothills of the Alps, it had commanding views of the tranquil woods, fields, and valleys that surrounded it. One of its most appealing garden vistas was from a turret- shaped circle, made into a seating area, in an older section of the structure. Lodging was either in the “newer” sections, built in the nineteenth century, or in the separate large dairy with its underground dining and drinking area. It was a charming place—however incongruous might be the intersections. Burg Wartenstein brought together the soaring aspirations of peace and human equality that suffused postwar anthropology with the enduring physical legacies (carved in stone) of a medieval feudal system of land, serfdom, and everyday violence. It brought activist anthropologists to lounge on the grounds of a royal preserve (fig. 30).103 When Fejos and Dodds examined the castle in the summer of 1957, it had been shorn of furniture and regular domestic inhabitants for almost 20 years, subjected to the depredations of various occupying military forces, used as a training center by a Nazi organization, and caught in the cross fire of an active military front. A brief occupation by Russian troops resulted in fi Figure 28. Burg Wartenstein, Semmering, Austria, 1960. Photo signi cant damage. Its plumbing and electricity were useless. by Nikolas Muray (WGF archives). Fejos and his staff began to work immediately on renovations for the castle, including the installation of 16 bathrooms. By February 1958 Fejos could report that the “electric lines are all and beyond that, in the distance, the mountains of Hungary in (over 10 miles of them!) And so are hot and cold water pipes (fig. 29). It was as though he had come home. to all bath and guest rooms.” The courtyard had been paved The site had a grand and romantic history, which the foun- with flagstones, and there was a new stone stairway to the dation showcased in a booklet it printed almost immediately chapel. An auditorium had been created by taking down a and distributed as a souvenir to visitors (Eheim and Winner wall. Electricity had been run to the kitchen. There was cen- 1958). Fejos proudly sent a copy to John and Marjorie Dodds tral heating.104 Fejos felt the summer “breathing down my in spring of 1958, highlighting the castle’s Hungarian origins: neck” and worried that Axel might generate “adverse public- “As you see, the place was stolen from the Hungarians in 1042 ity” in light of his continuing tax problems.105 The cost of re- (but our Matthias Corvinus beat the tar out of them 400 years pairs also troubled him enough to inspire him to donate $5,000 later and got the castle for Hungary even if only for a year). of his own funds to the effort.106 And as was appropriate for It may also interest you that the Austrian government has now a castle purchased by Axel Wenner-Gren, the castle was sent declared Wartenstein to be a national monument.”102 While its earliest sections had been constructed around 1100, the castle was by 1957 a bricolage of construction dating 103. The opening ceremony in August 1958 included attendance by the from 1180, 1250, 1650, and 1878. Owned by the Lichtenstein Archbishop of Austria, addressed as My Lord Archbishop and “Your family for about a century, it had been under the possession Magnificence” the Rector of the University of Vienna, who “speaks in the of various family princes. Prince Franz Josef II von und zu Liech- majestic plural as ‘we, the Rector of the University, etc.’”Fejos letter to Axel tenstein controlled it at the time of the Austrian Anschluss Wenner-Gren instructing Wenner-Gren in the niceties of address and titles “ (March 1938), when he ordered all the furnishings of the castle for the upcoming event, August 7, 1958, in Correspondence with AL ” removed. “During the subsequent turbulent years, the castle Wenner-Gren re WGF European Headquarters, Box #BW-4, WGF. 104. Fejos to Dodds, February 23, 1958, in “Dodds, J. M.,” Box #DoR-4, had been requisitioned by diverse state and army organiza- WGF. 105. Paul Fejos to John W. Dodds, April 24, 1958, in “Dodds, JW,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. 102. Fejos to Dodds, April 24, 1958, in folder “Dodds, J and M,” Box 106. Fejos to Dodds re castle, January 3, 1958, in folder “Dodds, J and M,” #DoR-4. Box #DoR-4, WGF. S258 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

wife Marianne went through in the state of Alabama. He was ready to marry Lita Binns—his young assistant and close colleague—immediately, but he had to wait 60 days.110 The wedding joining the 61-year-old Fejos to the 31-year-old Binns was held in New York later that year. After this marriage her influence and role at WGF expanded. She was inside the leadership circle and involved in every key decision either directly or as his spouse and close advisor. Her status in the profession grew, and Fejos depended on her more. She was now known to those closest to her as “Minx,” addressed this way in warm, intimate correspondence and seemingly welcoming the nickname. She herself sometimes signed her letters “Minx,” and Paul called her Minx in correspondence. The nickname was not used publicly, but it was widely used in her inner circle, and it provides a way of measuring her social ties and calibrating her friendships. Those who knew her best called her Minx, defined in the Funk and Wagnall’s New Practical Standard Dictionary as a name for “a saucy, forward girl, often used playfully” (Funk and Wagnall 1959:850). Joining the Wenner-Gren family that summer was an employee of the castle, Frau Maria Haupt, the “castellan,” or manager of the castle, who had lived there for some years before the foundation purchased it. In the WGF years she was photographed, in her Austrian dress, with famous anthropologists such as Alfred Kroeber (fig. 31). She also produced a Burg Wartenstein cookbook that included a colored pencil drawing of her (on the cover) and a rather carnivorous recipe, “Klau- senburger Krauttopf a la Dr. Fejos,” which we cannot resist describing. This dish required bacon, beef, pork, and veal to Figure 29. Portrait of Fejos with Burg Wartenstein in the background, painted by Robert Fuchs, 1962 (WGF archives). be layered with sauerkraut and sour cream, weighted down overnight with a heavy cutting board, and then baked for 4 hours.111 Frau Haupt—apparently a very strict manager of the fl two refrigerators, a freezer, two vacuum cleaners, and one oor shifting, mostly female, castle staff—became a critical part of 107 polisher, all from Electrolux. the support team for the Burg Wartenstein symposium se- In his opening comments at Burg Wartenstein on August 17, ries.112 Lita Osmundsen later called her “the beating heart of 1958, Fejos invoked its potential to double expectations for our castle family,” and she was permitted to live at the castle “ ”108 high-level thought, what he called Cloud 18 ideas. At the after her 1974 retirement “so long as ownership of the Burg castle, he proposed, the foundation would bring together cre- remains in the foundation’s name, and you are capable, as fi ative minds and create a ne library, a laboratory, and a place in the past, of occupying the domicile provided.”113 As things “ ” for thought in hitherto taboo areas. He had found, he said, turned out, she stayed at the castle even after it was sold, living “ in past symposia best contributions not from formal ses- in the gatehouse until her death (see below). sions. After-hours, whiskey-soda, cocktails, leisure time. Tongues loosen. No one is recording every word. Inhibitions fall away. ’ ”109 One is not ashamed for one s imagination. Thus, Fejos es- 110. Fejos to Dodds re castle, January 3, 1958, in folder “Dodds, J and tablished the cocktail hour as an institutional priority at Burg M,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. Wartenstein from the very beginning. 111. It also includes recipes for various soups and desserts. “From the That first summer at the castle was a happy time in a Kitchen of Frau Haupt At Burg Wartenstein” is in Box #BW-7, no folder, happy year. In January 1958, Fejos’s divorce from his fourth WGF. 112. Ibid. 113. Lita Osmundsen to Maria Haupt, November 22, 1974, “BW 107. Fejos to Elon Ekman in Broma, Sweden, letter of thanks, October 2, Expenses by Year & A/C 1958–1975,” Box #BW-7, WGF. The contents 1958, in “Ekman, Elon,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. of her apartment are mentioned in correspondence with the buyer as 108. “Outline of Speech of Dr. Fejos Given at Burg Wartenstein August 17, things that did not come with the sale: “The contents, including furni- 1958.” This is a typescript outline of notes. In “Opening Ceremonies— ture, in the castellan’s apartment under the main office which belong to Working Papers; Historical Record 17 August 1958,” Box #BW-2, WGF. Frau Haupt,” in Frank W. Wadsworth to Mr. Raymond Rich, May 22, 109. Ibid. 1980, in “Burg Wartenstein Appraisal,” Box #BW-7, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S259 The Beast on the Table: The Burg Wartenstein Model posia format stabilized into what became known as the “Burg Wartenstein model.” Sydel Silverman’s (2002) book described From its purchase in 1957 until its sale in early 1981, Burg one of Osmundsen’s favorite metaphors, which had been bor- Wartenstein was the site of 86 symposia that involved more rowed from Gregory Bateson, who used it at a Wenner-Gren than 2,000 scholars. It was here that the international sym- symposium in the 1960s:

Figure 30. Burg Wartenstein. Clockwise from top left: castle kitchen and waitstaff, north tower seen from interior courtyard, battlement patio, dining room, second ﬂoor of entrance hall, kitchen, historic map of Burg Wartenstein additions (WGF archives). S260 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

penters in the nearby town of Gloggnitz built the table to his specifications, and they added a seamless green felt tablecloth, 15 feet in diameter, that would become a conference trademark. Gloggnitz was home to a factory that made felt fezzes marketed in the Middle East, and the wool felt made there was considered of a particularly high quality.114 This tradition of a meeting around a green felt tablecloth has continued into the present, though it must sometimes now be arranged on a square or rectangular table. Another tradition, which continues today, also began that first summer at Burg Wartenstein in 1958. At the meeting’s first session, a large, leather-bound signature book is presented to participants, and they are asked to sign it. Each meeting has its own page, with the title of the meeting inscribed, and all participants sign on that page. The signatures are fascinating to examine, and participants often flip back through to see famous names and famous symposia (figs. 33, 34). Cur- rent president Leslie Aiello jokes that she always explains the history and tells participants that “I won’t reimburse expenses unless their signature is in the book.” The original book begun in 1958—with a formal cover title “Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, European Headquarters, Burg Wartenstein”—is still being signed, page by page, as new sym- Figure 31. Frau Haupt and Alfred Kroeber, Burg Wartenstein, posia are held. It has room perhaps for another decade of meet- 1960 (WGF archives). ings. Having signed this book ourselves, we can testify to the feelings of historical consequence the ritual can produce: one joins one’s name to the assembled greats and signs the sacred A conference of this kind is a beast. It is gestated during the text. long period of planning and given its collective birth when The critical secular rituals of the “Burg Wartenstein model” the participants come together. When a conference jells, the thus quickly took form with symbolic physical arrangements, beast comes to life; it settles down at the center of the table, materials, and practices. Social bonds were engineered around growing and growling, only to slink away when the con- the table, and participation was a sign of a particular status: ference ends, never to return. (ix) an insider. Membership was performed through a set of agreed Growing such a beast involved small, interdisciplinary groups on conventions, including the structured use of alcohol (at of about 20 people who would be brought together for a week the cocktail hour) to liberate ideas. The castle was a seques- to 10 days of intense interaction and also generous free time tered space, isolated from the ebb and flow of everyday ac- for informal discussion and social bonding (fig. 32). More ademic life, like a chapel, and interactions there were bound by senior scholars stayed in rooms in the castle itself, while more strict rules (no reading of papers, no local outsiders). Learning junior ones stayed in rooms in the repurposed dairy, known the rules of the Wenner-Gren symposium was a form of ini- as “The Stables.” The rooms were generally relatively simple, tiation into the elite ranks of internationalistic anthropology. but the setting was lovely, and the meals, entertainment, and One of the most skilled overseers of this ritual was Lita general style of the symposia were elegant. Scholars were ex- Osmundsen, who after Fejos’s death in April of 1963 be- pected to read the papers before arrival and to come prepared came a “prime master of conference dynamics,” as Silverman to talk. There was always significant free time for discussions, (2002:ix) put it (figs. 35, 36). Osmundsen understood that a bonding, and social relaxation, often with high-quality wines or conference can never be perfectly controlled, that it has a life local brews and local entertainment. People attending an in- of its own and is more than the sum of the participants in ternational symposium were placed in a setting conducive to their particular interventions. She was attuned to the ebb and emotional and intellectual connection but disconnected from flow of a symposium over the course of a weeklong retreat the stresses and demands of everyday life. They were given a and to the nature of the social dynamics that make for success significant challenge and expected to address it, and they were in the outcome. She actively sought insights from her net- also sent out to lounge in the sun, have a glass of champagne, works on what made conferences work and what made them laugh, and talk. Anticipating that social arrangements would be critical to themeetings,Fejoshadalargeroundtablemadesothatevery- 114. This factory may still make felt: http://www.leathermag.com/features one could see everyone else, with no one at the head. Car- /featuremaking-a-superior-tannery-felt (accessed August 7, 2016). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S261

directed comments to whom, paying attention to the rate of exchange, and particularly noticing the danger signs when someone was becoming marginalized. One of her observations was that a person who said nothing for the first day of the conference was unlikely to speak much for the rest of it, so Osmundsen introduced protocols that required everyone to speak on the first day. She also learned to watch for signs of an incipient rebellion and to intervene when necessary. As Os- mundsen and others recognized, keeping this week-or-more- long conversation on track, engaged, civil, and productive involved skills that could challenge even an experienced student of human behavior. The format and style of the Burg Wartenstein symposium had to be managed hourly, with awk- ward issues brought to the table for open discussion and awk- ward social interactions controlled. Spouses began to be excluded at Burg Wartenstein, perhaps as a part of this social control, only after Fejos died. Most academic conferences permit scholars to bring along spouses and families, but as any conference goer knows, this can some- Figure 32. Sherwood Washburn, Paul Fejos, Henrietta Washburn, times result in less than perfect attendance at conference events. “ ” and Lita Fejos at the African Ecology and Human Evolution In the first few years Fejos seemed to be encouraging spouses symposium, Burg Wartenstein, 1961 (WGF archives). to attend. Meetings in the summers of 1959 to 1961 included spouses, mostly wives, who often wrote thank you notes them- falter. “If you ever feel like sending us a confidential report on selves to Fejos.118 Fejos scolded Sherwood Washburn’swifefor ‘where it went wrong,’” she told a friend who had organized a failing to come to the summer 1959 conference at Burg War- SSRC conference that failed miserably, “we would find it tenstein on the social life of early man: “All of us here send our worth its weight in gold. We do pride ourselves on trying to warmestgreetingstoyou,HenriettaandStanley...particularly understand how conferences work and how best to structure warm regards from Minx and me. Tell Henrietta that it is still them to do so.”115 She considered a 3- or 4-day conference to hard to forgive her for not coming.”119 have “little chance of being more than a ritual conference,” But after 1963, when Fejos was gone and Osmundsen began and she said that “there are always at least two conferences to run the program, invitations went only to individuals, who happening simultaneously—the declared one and the real were expected to focus their entire attention on the conference one.”116 She was famous for her diagrams of the interchanges while they were there. If they asked to bring their spouses, they that took place around the table and their timing. As one were discouraged. As early as 1964, the first summer after Fe- participant recalled in his note to her, “I hope you are not jos’s death when conferences were held at Burg Wartenstein embarrassed by compliments, but you run your magic moun- (there were none in the summer after he died), this policy was tain [a reference to the 1924 Thomas Mann novel, Der Zau- in place. In 1964, when population geneticist Luca Cavalli- berberg, which is itself an exploration of the roles of science in Sforza asked whether his wife could come along, he was told modern life] like a magus, manipulating the conference’s politely by Osmundsen that wives were not allowed to be moods and sense of themselves in a manner which is most present during the 10-day conference at the isolated castle. “Un- likely to get it down to profound business. You and the castle fortunately we are not able to accommodate wives of symposia have been the most important participants in both of the participants due to space and budget limitations. However, conferences I have attended.”117 there are a number of places in Semmering which is a quarter Indeed, Osmundsen was probably the most important par- hour away, and, of course, there is Vienna, one and a quarter ticipant at all the conferences she ran. She was watching who hours away. A tourist agency would probably have more information for you on accommodation in the area.” With this note she informed Cavalli-Sforza that there was no room for wives (clearly they cannot share a room with their husband 115. Osmundsen to Roger D. Ambrahams, July 12, 1972, Box #DoR-3, at the castle!) and furthermore that WGF staff would not help WGF. 116. Ibid. 117. The quote is from Roy A. Rappaport of the University of Michigan, and it appears on p. 9 of the report based on a questionnaire survey sent to 118. See files in Wenner-Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. 465 participants at Burg Wartenstein conferences (303 replies received) in 119. Fejos to Washburn, July 15, 1959, in “Social Life of Early Man, 1977. “Report on the Results of the Burg Wartenstein Conference Program Organizer: Washburn, June 22–30, 1959,” Wenner-Gren Foundation Files, Questionnaire,” Box #BW-7, WGF. Box #MF-20, WGF. S262 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 33. Signing the symposium book. Left, Stefan Helmreich and Karen-Sue Taussig in 2011 at the 144th symposium held at Hotel Rosa dos Ventos, Teresopolis, Brazil (“The Anthropology of Potentiality: Exploring the Productivity of the Undefined and Its In- terplay with Notions of Humanness in New Medical Practices”). Center, the signature book. Right, Amanda Henry in 2015 at the 152nd symposium (“Fire and the Genus Homo”) held at the Tivoli Palacio de Seteais, Sintra, Portugal (WGF archives). by providing a list of nearby lodgings or facilitating arrange- amine something held at the castle were welcomed. Swedish ments.120 employees of Axel Wenner-Gren’s empire were encouraged to Osmundsen probably invented this rule, presumably because come by. Many letters to her mention that “when we met at she recognized that the demands of spouses could interrupt the flow of a conference. Because the vast majority of those attending symposia in the early years were male scholars (the vast majority of scholars in general were male), the rule meant that she was one of very few women around the table.121 Also excluded were local or regional or passing-through scholars who had not been on the official guest list. In considering this policy and why it existed, it is perhaps important to recognize that the castle was almost a kind of academic tourist stop (e.g., welcoming in the summer of 1960 a group of 30 undergrads from the College of Wooster for 2 days of visiting and touring, feeding and housing them at Wartenstein). There were visits from Harold Dodds (John W.’s brother and the president of Princeton) plus his family (10- and 8-year-old children), family relations of Osmundsen and others on the staff, and visits by people Paul or Lita met at conferences or meetings. Even on days when scholars were arriving for a symposium, Lita and Paul and later just Lita would welcome people whose only real business there was to enjoy the view and the ambiance. Her letters in response to requests for visits were commonly warm, friendly, even insistent that people should come to Wartenstein for lunch or stay overnight. Art historians who wanted to ex-

120. Lita Binns Fejos to L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, May 26, 1964, in “Spuhler, — J.N. Behavoural Consequences of Genetic Differences in Man, Septem- “ ” ber 16–26, 1964,” WGF Papers. Lita’s own handwritten note on his letter Figure 34. Symposium 15, Social Life of Early Man, participant signatures: Williams S. Laughlin, Sherwood L. Washburn, A. Ir- requesting that his wife be allowed to join him said in the margins, “Vienna ” “ ” ving Hallowell, Iago Galdston, Michael R. A. Chance, Kenneth or Semmering only, with only underlined twice. Cavalli-Sforza to P. Oakley, Francois Bourliere, Carl O. Sauer, Ernst W. Caspari, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, May 18 1964, David A. Hamburg, Henri V. Vallois, Luis Pericot, Adolph H. ibid. Schultz, Sol Tax, Alberto Carlo Blanc, Jean Piveteau, Freric M. 121. A factor that had epistemological and not merely sociological Bergounioux, John W. Dodds, F. Clark Howell, Paul Fejos (WGF implications for anthropological theory as described in Milam (2015). archives). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S263

derstand your reasons for wishing to do so and we are aware that it has been traditional to read papers in person. However, the policy under which all Burg Wartenstein symposia function is an innovation in that papers are never read in entirety at the sessions, but, at the most, only reviewed briefly in order to refresh the minds of the scholars who have already read the papers under quieter and less pressing circumstances. All our conferences are organized on this basis and we always inform the participants at the very start because we know they are not accustomed to this practice. Admittedly it is a new method but our purpose is to free the time for discussion of common issues.”123 The rough outlines of these rules have persisted into the present, and participants at a Wenner-Gren symposium today still read papers in advance, come without partners or family members (even newborns are forbidden), meet in isolated and beautiful settings, and spend a lot of time enjoying cocktails, hikes, or other relaxing activities. At first the anthropological community was not sure what to think of Burg Wartenstein. University of Chicago anthropologist Sol Tax—an insider at WGF—told Fejos that invitees were worried about what to wear. “Several people are worried about how formal the openings of the Wartenstein conference may be. They would like to know whether to bring formal clothes. I have told them that we shall be informal at the Cas- tle but they are not convinced. If you really think that no formal dress will be required, I think it would ease their minds if you would yourself drop a note to each of the persons Figure 35. Lita Osmundsen (Hussein Fahim and Alberto Villa coming.”124 Rojas in background) during break at symposium 67, “The The- Very soon, however, any such concerns disappeared. Par- oretical and Methodological Implications of Long-Term Field ” ticipant reviews of the early conferences at Wartenstein were Research in Social Anthropology, Burg Wartenstein, 1975 (WGF “ archives). enthusiastic, glowing. As I think back on the castle, I think the great green round table impressed me the most—a sort of 20th century Round Table that a modern King Arthur might [wherever] you kindly invited me to visit you at the castle.” She well preside at.”125 A 1959 conference organized by Sherwood seems to have invited many people to visit Burg Wartenstein.122 Washburn (“Social Life of Early Man”) was called by one par- Emphatically not welcome, however, were local or regional ticipant, “the inspiration of a genius—a far and penetrating scholars with relevant expertise who wanted to sit in on the vision.”126 Raymond Firth invoked the soul: Fejos had described symposium proceedings. The strict rules prohibiting it—the the furnishings as “simple” and Firth said, “if we did not have meetings were closed to all but the chosen—were well estab- luxury of the body—and we certainly had very pleasant treat- lished by 1961 or 1962. Wartenstein was both a public space ment—we did have luxury of the soul. The beauty of the Castle and a scholarly sanctuary. The critical space that had to be pro- itself and its surrounding I think can help to contribute a great tected was the sacred space around that green felt tablecloth. Osmundsen was also the enforcer of other rules, such as about reading papers in advance and about the sequence of 123. Lita Binns Fejos to G. Kurth, Göttingen, April 1, 1964 (English discussions. She was the resident expert on the wishes of Fejos version, which was translated into German to send to Kurth), in “Spuhler, — and someone who had been privy to his decision-making pro- J.N. Behavioral Consequences of Genetic Differences in Man, Septem- – ” cesses in many ways. She could invoke him when necessary and ber 16 26, 1964, WGF Papers. 124. Paul Fejos, July 1958, in “Burg Wartenstein Symposium #1 Or- with some authority. Her diplomacy in all such interactions – ” “ ganizer Sol Tax, Current Anthropology, August 18 23, 1958, Wenner- was exemplary. We gather by your letter that you would prefer Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. to read your paper in person at the symposium. We can un- 125. To “Minx Dear” (Lita Binns Fejos), and with an illegible signature, July 13, 1959, in “Social Life of Early Man, Organizer: Washburn, June 22– 30, 1959,” Wenner-Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. 122. The range and number of letters from visitors to the castle, filed 126. New York Academy of Medicine psychiatrist Iago Galdston to in a packed notebook, capture the responses, Box #BW-2, WGF. Fejos, July 13, 1959, ibid. S264 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

altercation” (Nye 1997). “At a particularly heated moment in the discussions, they grabbed weapons off the walls, leapt onto the conference table, and went at each other.” There was the more comical occasion when Phillip Tobias was knocked out in a ferocious ping-pong game and passed out on the table. His fellow conferees rushed back to their rooms not for emergency aid but to get their cameras. Silverman herself participated in a 1978 symposium at Burg Wartenstein and recalled it as “a magical place—in many ways ideally set up for conferences of this sort—and invitations were always highly coveted” (Silverman 2002:xiv). However, she said, not all guests appreciated the studied formality, the regimented program, or the geisha-like role assigned to the foundation staff, which was overwhelmingly young, female, and attractive (fig. 37). Aware of this perception, these young staff members jokingly referred to themselves as the Wenner-Grenettes (a reference to the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes). There was also a general perception in the profession, a perception we ourselves heard in our research and that Silverman mentioned, that invitations to the Wenner-Gren symposium program were controlled by an elite in-group and were in some sense unfair, biased, “fixed.” The sense of being left out could be acute. Certain fields were believed to be favored, especially physical/biological anthropology, and certain institutions were more likely to be represented, especially elite institutions in the United States. Re- sentment about the symposium program usually focused on not having been invited to a particular meeting in one’s own — Figure 36. Lita Osmundsen with her dachshunds, Burg Warten- special area a slight that could be remembered decades later stein, 1978 (WGF archives). with a sting (Silverman 2002:xiv). Such feelings provide perhaps a metric of how important the symposia were seen to be by the anthropological profession. Being excluded from a deal to that feeling of intellectual well-being that is such a very symposium that focused on one’s own research expertise was ”127 important part of harmonious conference proceedings. a serious professional blow. “There was some basis in fact for Even the sound of guns (in 1968) could acquire a romantic edge those perceptions,” Silverman herself concluded, “but they at Burg Wartenstein: “I will always remember the marvelous time at the Castle (with Russian guns sounding over the Czech border, do you remember?)”128 When Sydel Silverman later wrote about the symposium program she oversaw at Wenner-Gren, having taken over in 1987 after the castle was gone, she noted that the lore of the castle, like all lore, was a mixture of reality and legend. “There was Julian Pitt-Rivers seizing a coat of armor displayed on the main staircase, putting it on and clanging into the dining room, where he calmly asked the server, ‘Are the pigeons young?’” “There was the story of the sword fight staged in a symposium on human evolution—a story with a particularly masculine message, reminiscent of the nineteenth-century duel, in which scientific disagreement could lead to physical

127. Raymond Firth to Paul Fejos, August 25, 1958, in “Burg War- tenstein Symposium #1 Organizer Sol Tax, Current Anthropology, Au- Figure 37. Lita Osmundsen and Maria Haupt (second and third gust 18–23, 1958,” Wenner-Gren Foundation Files, Box #MF-20, WGF. from left) with the “Grenettes,” Burg Wartenstein, 1965 (WGF 128. Fox to LO, November 1, 1985, untitled folder, Box #DoR-6. archives). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S265 were not entirely accurate for the symposia as a whole, especially in the later years” (Silverman 2002:xiv). Concerns that the wrong people were being invited to the castle—or that some people were being left out—may even have been shared by Axel Wenner-Gren himself. After Axel and Paul were both gone, Marguerite Wenner-Gren complained to Lita Binns Fejos (she had not yet married John Osmundsen) that “Axel was very disappointed about Wartenstein—the fact that scientists of the Scandinavian countries were never invited to partake in the various symposiums held there” (fig. 38).129 Osmundsen provided counterevidence: “Since the inauguration of Burg Wartenstein in August 1958, 22 international symposia were held there over four and a half summers. Of these, many were attended by one or more Scandinavians at each meeting. Therefore, it comes as a great surprise to me to learn that Dr. Wenner-Gren was disappointed about Wartenstein in that scientists of the Scandinavian countries were supposedly never invited. We now have conferences planned for 1964 and 1965 and several Scandinavians have been invited to these as well. I am enclosing a list of those who not only attended conferences but who were invited and declined.” Scientists could not be invited based on nationality, she said, but “it was never necessary to make a special effort to include Scandinavians as they frequently excel among world scholars.”130 Silverman identified the most important conferences as those that solidified or changed the direction of a field (fig. 39). Her listing included Sherwood Washburn’s 1959 “The Social ” ’ Figure 38. Marguerite Liggett Wenner-Gren. The inscription ap- Life of Early Man and in the same summer Julian Pitt-Rivers s “ ” “ ” ’ pears to read, Dear Paul, To my protector, from his protectoress Rural Peoples of the Mediterranean. Dell Hymes s 1962 sym- (WGF archives). posium on “The Use of Computers in Anthropology” crystallized systematic perspectives on an emerging technology already important in the natural sciences into the social sciences few early meetings organized by female scholars. Around this and has been widely recognized as a pathbreaking conference. time the gender dimensions began gradually to shift. Jane Goodall In the 1960s, physical anthropology did seem to be favored, and David Hamburg organized a critical conference on the be- and many of the conferences focused on human evolution. havior of the great apes in 1974, which brought together major “Man the Hunter” in 1966 was not held at the castle (it was ape researchers and provided state-of-the-art assessment of a at the University of Chicago) but was widely recognized as rapidly growing field. In 1976, Ernest Gellner used a Wenner- an important and field-changing meeting. As historian Erika Gren symposium to bring together Soviet and Western sci- Milam has suggested, these discussions reflected the profes- entists to talk about anthropology in the Cold War. While there sional dimensions of masculine networks of US philanthropic was significant federal support for anthropological research and academic authority in the 1960s and 1970s. Anthropol- relating to the Cold War in this period, Wenner-Gren funding ogists and popularizers turned to questions of aggression and had the advantage of not requiring security clearance and not “men in groups” as ways of understanding social change and having an expectation that the anthropologists involved would political uncertainty (Milam 2015).131 produce a classified report about their Soviet colleagues (as was Nancy Lurie and Eleanor Leacock’s1967“Theory and Method so often the expectation in other state-funded “east-west” sci- in American Indian Ethnological and Ethnohistorical Research” entific exchanges; Price 2011b). was a pathbreaking meeting—incorporating historical meth- The first all-female conference, which included a large num- ods with attention to contemporary politics—and one of the ber of (what was then called) Third World scholars and explored women’s work in an international framework, was held — “ “ ” in August of 1980 the last summer of Burg Wartenstein. The 129. Report, Wenner-Gren Foundation Status, October 29, 1963, ’ ” Mrs. Wenner-Gren Correspondence and General Misc., Box #DoR-7, WGF. Sex Division of Labor, Development, and Women s Status, 130. Ibid. organized by Helen Safa and Elinor B. Leacock, signaled the 131. Conferences relating to human evolution were held at Burg War- emerging power of feminist theory in anthropological thought. tenstein in 1961 and 1962 and on populations and genetic change in 1964, All participants were female, and they came not only from the 1966, and 1969. established centers in the United States and Europe but also S266 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 39. Burg Wartenstein symposia (starting bottom left, counterclockwise). 58, “Stratigraphy and Patterns of Cultural Change in the Middle Pleistocene,” July 2–11, 1973, front row, J. Desmond Clark, N. J. Shackleton, M. Leakey, D. Pilbeam, O. Bar-Yosef, G. Isaac, L. Freeman, L. Osmundsen; back row, P. Bout, H. Deacon, K. Butzer, E. Butzer, H. De Lumley, B. Isaac, K. Brunnacker, G. Kukla, V. Maglio, J. J. Jaeger; doorway, B. Gladfelter, C. Turner, D. Janossy. 62, “The Behavior of Great Apes,” August 20–28, 1974, seated, J. Van Orshoven, J. Itani, L. Osmundsen; front row, M. Konishi, R. Fouts, D. Horr, R. Davenport, D. Hamburg, J. Goodall, R. Hinde, E. McCown, D. Bygott, B. Galdikas-Brindamour, P. McGinnis, T. Nishida; back row, P. Rodman, W. Mason, I. Devore, E. Menzel, W. McGrew, D. Fossey, J. MacKinnon. 70, “The Place of Anthropology amongst the Sciences: The Soviet and Western View,” July 17–25, 1976, front row, E. Gellner, L. Drobizheva, J. Petrova-Averkieva, C. Humphrey, T. Dragadze, N. Ermakova, V. Basilov, A. I. Pershitz; second row, J. Goody, V. I. Kozlov, J. Pouillon, L. Krader, M. Fortes, T. Shanin, J. Woodburn, L. Osmundsen; third row, Y. V. Bromley, Y. I. Semenov, S. Arutiunov, M. Godelier. 85, “The Sex Division of Labor, Development, and Women’s Status,” August 2–10, 1980, kneeling, L. Beneria, M. Leon de Leal, S. Shahshahani, L. Mullings, E. Leacock (organizer); standing,D. Bell, V. Stolcke, M. P. Fernandez, W. Minge-Klevana, A. Weiner, H. Safa (organizer), L. Tilly, A. Wong, L. Arizpe, M. Hammam, K. Young, S. Afonja, E. Eviota (WGF archives). from Nigeria, Mexico, the Philippines, Colombia, Iran, Spain, more egalitarian way, providing venues for the exchange of and Singapore. It was perhaps a fitting end to the staging of in- knowledge that were explicitly broad and international in ap- tellectual programs of equality and justice in a medieval castle. proach. Initially, WGF had toyed with the idea of producing a biannual compendium of key scholarship as the Yearbook of Conjuring the Beast on the Page: Current Anthropology. William Thomas Jr. edited the sole issue, which Anthropology as “Social Experiment” was published in 1955 with a circulation of 1,200. Finding the publication of books by foundation staff not flexible enough a Just as WGF created opportunities for anthropologists around form of communication and too great a drain on its facilities the world to meet together to discuss ideas and create new al- and human resources, Fejos approached Sol Tax with the pro- liances at its New York and Austrian headquarters, it also es- posal that he take over the project. Tax tentatively envisioned tablished and supported publications that did the same in a an annual or biannual publication examining the latest trends Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S267 in various areas of the discipline oriented toward the publica- Tax 1988). As Tax later stated, “I wanted CA to be a free mar- tion after 10 years of a single “encyclopedia” of anthropology. ket, I didn’t even want a group of advisory editors. Given good The following year, Tax edited a partial republication of the people, everyone was equal, and policy advice would come from yearbook under the title Current Anthropology (Bennett 1998). the whole community” (Rubinstein 1991:177). By this time, around 1957, Tax had begun to envision Over the next few years, with full WGF support, Tax em- something more ambitious and fluid. In October of that year, barked on a round of 44 meetings across 30 countries in- he wrote to Fejos that what he had in mind represented, volving nearly 650 individuals, including the symposium at “both the ‘coming of age’ of the Foundation as the recognized Burg Wartenstein. He went everywhere except Australia and world center of anthropological activities and the culmina- the Pacific Islands, an incredible feat under any circumstances tion of the Foundation’s own publication interests.”132 It was let alone at the height of the Cold War. The diplomatic di- perhaps fitting that very first event held at Burg Wartenstein, mensions of the enterprise were not lost on him. In May of in August of 1958, was a conference regarding the journal 1960, after having attended an international conference on the that would become known as Current Anthropology (or CA as “Reduction of World Tensions,” Tax took 5 minutes to explain it is known to insiders). In the ennobling setting of Burg CA. Though he said little, he reported that “the Bulletin of Wartenstein, Tax recalled, an international group of 14 Atomic Scientists could not match it anywhere. So Current experts (including himself and Fejos) “finally decided to stop Anthropology became the only operating example of genuine asking what anthropology was and agree that it was the sum of communication that we have as a pattern. Later many people what the people who called themselves anthropologists wrote” spoke of it.”133 Such experiences validated Tax’s determination (Tax 1965:242). In the spirit of this emphasis on action and to connect with as many of the 3,000 anthropologists that he practice, the group set aside initial calls for an encyclopedia of estimated existed around the world as possible. anthropology and began to explore what they imagined as a The initial list of associates was culled from membership “social experiment,” to create a truly international anthropol- lists of professional organizations and directories. Tax also con- ogy (Silverman 2009). sulted with editors of other leading academic journals. Each in- The proposal they produced had three key elements: (1) that vitation to become an associate included a request for names the enterprise be as broad and open ended as the changing sci- of possible additional associates or of students. The primary ences of man require, with the widest variety of relevant ideas qualification was the ability to make a meaningful contribution and data, facilitating communication throughout the world; to anthropology, broadly defined. “An Associate,” Tax believed, (2) that it be unitary (rather than divided by fields or special- “clearly must be one whose scholarship and reliability are un- ties), with a single set of crosscutting materials to be available to questioned, and who has knowledge that we value. Nothing else all; and (3) that it provide timely communication about the should matter” (Tax 1965:242). field. Current Anthropology would be addressed to the world All associates were obligated to pay a small membership fee audience of the anthropological sciences. It would publish re- and encourage the libraries of their home institutions to sub- views of broad scope as well as current news, reference mate- scribe, to submit responses to queries from the editor, and to rials, and “want ads”—a kind of proto-LISTSERV where scholars respond to requests published in CA. With these obligations could request a hard-to-find article or instrument. came the privilege of receiving CA “free” and receiving Viking Much as Fejos had imagined the New York headquarters Fund Publications at nominal cost as well as voting on the as a clearinghouse for those who visited, Tax envisioned that recipient of the Viking Fund medal.134 In September of 1959 CA could perform a similar kind of function for those who Tax sent out a “preissue” of CA to 3,000 initial associates, and might not be able, by dint of Cold War politics or lack fund- the first formal issue was published in 1960 (fig. 40). As Sydel ing, to gather in person. It would be an invisible college for Silverman observed in her assessment of CA at the time of its people who did anthropology. The faculty of this college would 50th anniversary, Tax’s genius was that “he was able to sort be known as “associates,” a “community of scholars” that would the huge range of responses he got into coherent plans while grow through engagement with the journal and in turn deter- seeming to accommodate most opinions, even contradictory mine the policies of the journal. This communitarian ethos was ones (he also seems to have been quite willing to have his own areflection of Tax’s personal intellectual and social agenda, opinions overruled)” (Silverman 2009:950). which he called “action anthropology.” Action anthropology, Perhaps the most distinctive contribution of Tax’s stew- in so far as it was oriented toward groups struggling with self- ardship of CA was the innovation of what he termed the determination, viewed the role of the anthropologist as some- “CA☆ Treatment.” The aspiration was to create the effect of a one who could not only document the human experience but Wenner-Gren symposium without the travel, to conjure “the also facilitate communication and decision making among mem- beast” on the page instead of on the table. It would be an op- bers of cultural groups (Blanchard 1980; Rubinstein 1991:175;

132. Yearbook of Anthropology, October 7, 1957, in folder “Current An- 133. May 13, 1960, in folder “Current Anthropology—Corresp. With thropology—Corresp. With Ofﬁce of the Editor, 1957–1960,” Box #CA-2, Ofﬁce of the Editor, 1957–1960,” Box #CA-2, WGF. WGF. 134. Tax to Fejos, March 28, 1959, ibid. S268 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 40. Current Anthropology, volume 1, issue 1, January 1960 (WGF archives). portunity for scholars to debate issues of cutting-edge impor- be chosen in one of three ways: on the basis of individual in- tance in the field even if they could not meet face-to-face. In terest data cards (the so-called roster cards completed by each its earliest instantiation, the CA☆ Treatment proceeded as associate and on file in the CA office); from the authors of follows: reviewed articles would be first set in type and galleys works quoted by the author of the review article; and through sent for comment to a number of associates who were expert, recommendations by the author, the editor, the assistant edi- who were clearly interested, in the field or who had worked on tor, or someone who has read the manuscript before its ac- the problem or in the area in the past. Commentators would ceptance for publication. The solicited comments were then Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S269 sent to the author of the review article, who would then write and reality that their literature reveals among cultures un- a reply (Nurge 1965:239). The topics given the CA☆ Treat- dergoing rapid change.” The new structures of funding for ment were as broad and searching as those taken up at sym- science, she said, exemplified Max Weber’s forms of bureau- posia and are still relevant today. Take, for instance, the 1967 cratization. They enacted a shift in authority. Denich also in- CA☆ Treatment of Laura Thompson’s “Call for a Unified An- voked Parsonian terminology: “the collegial relationships of thropology,” which was subjected to both serious praise and earlier anthropologists were functionally diffuse, affective, and criticism by 12 scholars from the United States and Europe personalistic. The bureaucratic opposites to relationships of (Thompson et al. 1967). this type are functionally specific, instrumental, universalistic Tax spoke of CA as a “new species of scholarly institu- (impersonal and objectively standardized)” (153). The striking tion”—not a “formal institution” but one “permitted to evolve expansion in the number of anthropologists since 1950, she after the fashion of a ‘natural institution,’ like the family or a noted in a later paper (1980), “was financed by governmental hunting party, with which anthropologists are so familiar.” agencies and private foundations as part of a general policy that Current Anthropology did evolve over time, eventually assum- absorbed educational institutions into the expanding corporate ing a more conventional role as a journal, as the papers in- sphere.” The “rich new sources of funds” constituted a “se- cluded in a 50th-anniversary issue made clear.135 Yet from the duction” of anthropologists who could expand departments beginning, Tax set a tone for CA as a forum that could ac- and do more traveling and global research. “The new funds commodate critique and dissent. For instance, in the spring glittered indeed.” And to get them, anthropologists “had only to of 1960, Rodney Needham (1923–2006), then a young social learn to formulate research problems in categories established anthropologist at Oxford, wrote to Tax to ask for his name to by the Foundations and government agencies in the bureau- be withdrawn from the list of associates. Needham was con- cratic mode of rational procedure. The research proposal, and cerned that CA was taking valuable funds away from impor- the thought processes required to successfully fulfill it, therefore tant fieldwork. “The Foundation is supposed to support an- superseded the older more individual approaches to the pur- thropological research, but a number of persons I know have suit of knowledge” (Denich 1980:173). These changes she said been told that very little or no money can be spared for field constituted just one small part of a wider process in which research. This is . . . why I feel forced to dissociate myself from government funding, tax-exempt foundations, and grant appli- it.”136 Tax did not shy away from the criticism, and, in keeping cations permeated all levels of American academe, with their with his determination to make CA into a forum for open de- “abstract formulas to which applications must either conform bate, responded to Needham by proposing a public response in or die” (173). its pages.137 While Denich was indisputably expressing a romantic nos- Tax’s openness to a critique on the possible misallocation talgia for a simpler past—for the glory days of a small coterie of resources to support CA suggests an unusual comfort level of acolytes basking in the glow of Papa Franz—she was also with reflexivity. It might also have signaled deeper concerns capturing very real changes in the discipline. In 1901, Alfred about a quickly changing funding terrain that WGF was strug- Kroeber received the first PhD awarded by Franz Boas at Co- gling to navigate in the late 1950s and early 1960s and that lumbia. This was only the second awarded in the United States. would come to a head by the time Tax stepped down as editor In the next decade, Columbia awarded only six more PhDs, in 1974. and the entire profession of anthropology could, as the AAA website states, “hold its annual convention in one small meet- ” 138 Money and Power ing room in the 1920s. Even in 1940, the Columbia department had awarded a total of only 51 doctorates, while the In a critical 1980 essay (Denich 1980) on the “bureaucratiza- Berkeley department, under Kroeber’s leadership, granted just tion of scholarship” in American anthropology, the anthro- 25 PhD degrees between 1908 and 1946 (Murphy 1972 cited pologist Bette Denich, then at Barnard, proposed that certain in Denich 1977:11). In 1950, 22 PhDs in anthropology were “structural changes have profoundly altered the nature of the awarded by US institutions. In 1974, that number was 409. That intellectual life of the discipline” (153). Anthropologists, she was the year that PhD production exceeded 400 for the first said, “now suffer the same kind of disjunction between image

138. The Laura Spelman Rockefeller Trust provided the financing for 135. For the 50th anniversary of the foundation, all of the surviving the new SSRC in 1923, and anthropologists including Margaret Mead editors (and the long-serving copy editor, Barbara Metzer)—provided were among the very first scholars supported by SSRC. But the SSRC was their perspectives on the journal and its culture. See http://www.wenner devoted to political science. Anthropologists were granted about 16% of gren.org/history/journals-publications/current-anthropology (accessed Au- all SSRC funding 1991–1999, and the SSRC also supported projects that gust 7, 2016). engaged with anthropologists in sociolinguistics and international mi- 136. Rodney Needham to Tax, April 22, 1960, in folder “Current gration. See Osgood et al. (1965) and Kenton Worcester, Social Science Anthropology—Corresp. With Office of the Editor, 1957–1960,” Box Research Council 1923–1998, available online at http://www.ssrc.org #CA-2, WGF. /publications/view/1F20C6E1–565F-DE11-BD80–001CC477EC70/ (ac- 137. Fejos to Tax, June 20, 1960, ibid. cessed February 23, 2015). S270 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 time. Things then seemed to stabilize, and about 400 PhDs were also on Long Island, where Koenigswald was working. When awarded every year for the next 20 years.139 they met, Urey expressed “more than casual interest in early Other social sciences also saw growth in the postwar period. man” and asked Koenigswald for a piece of the original Pithe- From the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s, as Mark Solovey has canthropus skull (Marlowe 1999:17). Urey then explained that observed, the social and psychological sciences in the United the chemists at Chicago were trying to make it possible to de- States gained new members and new funding sources. The termine the age of fossils, though it would be possible only if American Psychological Association, for example, had 4,661 they were no older than about 40,000 years. Koenigswald im- members in 1947 and more than 25,000 by 1967. Similarly, mediately wrote to Fejos about this encounter. The Java fossil the American Sociological Association grew in the same period material was too old for carbon-14 dating, but it could be very from 2,218 to 11,000 members (Solovey 2013:1). The same useful with many other collections. expansion reshaped anthropology, with the post-1945 creation Fejos recognized the importance of this possibility, and of new departments, graduate programs, journals, and spe- he mobilized Ralph Linton, who had moved from Columbia’s cialized societies for the field and subfields. By the 1990s, the department of anthropology to Yale, and Koenigswald to pull field divisions in anthropology were relatively stable: about together a symposium and a supper conference on “early man” 50% of PhDs in anthropology were awarded for studies in cul- in the fall of 1947. A report of new human fossils collected near tural anthropology; 30% in archaeology; 10% in biological an- Mexico City that September led Fejos to travel himself to thropology; and 3% in linguistic anthropology. The remain- Mexico to examine the site. A fossil elephant in the same layer ing 7% were in applied anthropology.140 of the excavation seemed to have the potential to be analyzed Unlike the federal agencies and some other foundations, with carbon-14 dating, and Fejos himself wrote to Urey of- WGF operated flexibly with fewer formal demands and fewer fering to send this fossil. rules about the structure and format of applications. Exem- Fejos, Linton, and Koenigswald did not understand that plifying this flexibility was critical WGF support for new ini- carbon-14 dating was not yet possible. Fejos wanted to send tiatives that led to the scientific use of carbon-14 dating, a grant support to Urey right away, as he would be “the first story that has been well told by Greg Marlowe in his 1999 es- Nobel Prize Laureate among the fund’s grantees.” But in a de- say in American Antiquity. As Marlowe notes, the University tailed letter to Fejos, quoted by Marlowe, Libby explained that of Chicago chemist Willard Libby had worked on applying Harold Urey was not the scientist running the research pro- carbon-14 to chronological problems in archaeology. Libby gram. Rather, Urey was helping Libby by talking to anthro- told James Arnold about this plan in December 1946. Arnold, pologists and reaching out to other scientists. In addition, the on his way to accept a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard carbon-14 technology was not yet ready to go. It would take, University, in turn told his father about Libby’s plans. The Libby estimated, at least a year to complete the research needed senior Arnold was interested in archaeology and was secretary to measure unknown materials. By this Fejos understood that of the US branch of England’s Egypt exploration society. Ar- bringing this technology into use would require “a rapid in- nold arranged for samples from the Department of Egyptian fusion of finances,” and the Viking Fund was ready; within a Art at New York’s Metropolitan Museum to be sent to Libby few weeks the group at Chicago had obtained $5,000 plus an for possible testing (Marlowe 1999:9–12). This may have been additional $13,000 grant with “no limitations or conditions” premature—Libby simply took the package and placed it on consistent with the fund’s policy of relying “upon the integrity the shelf of his desk—and was apparently not ready yet to en- and scientific ability of its grantees” (Marlowe 1999:19). gage with archaeologists. The grantees made good. By 1960 there were more than The 1934 Nobel laureate Harold Urey, who was working 20 active carbon-14 laboratories around the world, and Libby with Libby on isotope fractionation at the University of Chi- had received the Nobel Prize. The Viking Fund’s critical role cago, also connected serendipitously with the Dutch paleo- in supporting this research at a time when no other equiva- anthropologist G. H. R. von Koenigswald, then being sup- lent funds were available with such rapid and effective dis- ported by the Viking Fund, in the summer of 1947. Urey was patch played a role in increasing the visibility and scholarly visiting the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, respect. The sequence of events makes it clear that Fejos was which was very near to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a shrewd tactician who saw an opportunity to contribute and knew exactly how to leverage the resources of the Viking Fund to maximum effect. By 1951, as it transitioned from the Viking Fund to the 139. These numbers are from a report, David B. Givens and Timothy Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, it Jablonski, “Survey of PhD Recipients, 1995,” which is posted on the AAA was explicitly and exuberantly devoted to the discipline of an- website at http://www.americananthro.org/LearnAndTeach/ResourceDetail .aspx?ItemNumberp1499. More recent data for 2012 are in a report that can thropology. Fejos favored the name change partly because he be downloaded at http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production hoped to extract more funding from Axel Wenner-Gren and /public/FileDownloads/pdfs/resources/researchers/upload/Graduates-2012 partly to make the focus on anthropology an explicit part of -Report.pdf (both accessed August 7, 2016). the name of the foundation. But the resources of Wenner-Gren 140. http://www.aaanet.org/resources/departments/SurveyofPhDs95.cfm. were being eclipsed by federal opportunities at the very mo- Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S271 ment of this transition, and this enhanced its increasing em- and remained modest. In 1967, WGF provided $172,719 in phasis on anthropology as an international endeavor. grants to anthropological research and spent a little more The single most important change in the funding landscape than $80,000 on symposia and conferences. In 1992, the same was the creation (in 1950) of the NSF and its turn (in 1958) to figure was a little more than $3 million. Wenner-Gren support the social sciences. This new federal agency, when it finally was growing, but NSF funding in 1992 for anthropology was emerged, satisfied almost none of the players who had debated more than $11 million. In 2012, WGF allocated $6.5 million its proper form and function since West Virginia senator Har- to programs and research grant support to anthropologists vey Kilgore’s first proposal in 1942. Its level of funding in the compared with NSF’s $26.8 million.144 early years was paltry—not approaching the amounts origi- Meanwhile, changing legislation relating to nonprofit foun- nally proposed. The question of whether it would include the dations was reshaping WGF’s policies and options in terms of social sciences was contentious, and the final wording in the spending to support anthropologists. New financial and pro- bill left it vague, with specific mention of the natural sciences fessional realities—with a rapidly growing discipline of an- and room for unnamed “other sciences.”141 But into this vague thropology, new federal funding sources, and emerging debates terrain the NSF gradually migrated, at first with small steps. about tax and legal requirements for tax-exempt foundations— The original budget in 1951 was for administrative start-up were reshaping the foundation and its roles. Axel Wenner- costs ($225,000), and NSF’s first science research grants were Gren, his global investments about to implode, died in 1961 disbursed only in 1952. None of these early grants were to an- (Wallander 2002). Paul Fejos, after a sudden decline in health, thropologists. In 1953 the sociologist Harry Alpert was ap- died in the spring of 1963. And WGF came gradually under pointed as study director for the social sciences, and later that the management and control of that attractive undergraduate year a new Anthropological and Related Sciences program was who helped wash the walls of the new brownstone in the sum- added to the Biological and Medical Sciences division. The first mer of 1945. Lita took over. grants to anthropologists were awarded only in 1956, with five small awards totaling $40,000. Social Mobility: Lita In 1957, signaling more serious interest in anthropology, the NSF awarded more than $150,000 for research in an- She was at various times Lolita Sofie Binns (her birth name), thropology to projects on primate evolution (William Strauss at Lita Binns Fejos (her first marriage, to Paul Fejos), and Lita Binns Hopkins), prehistoric hominid research in central Tanganyika Fejos Osmundsen (her second marriage, to John Osmundsen (F. Clark Howell at the University of Chicago), “races of the after Paul’sdeath).Forthegenerationofanthropologistswho world” (Carleton Coon at Penn), and other subjects in sociol- knew her personally, she was “Lita.” She was networked, known, ogy and social and physical anthropology. In 1958 the NSF and admired. Born in New York City in 1926, she was educated awarded more than $220,000 to anthropologists, and on Au- in city schools and then at Hunter College, which had been gust 1, 1958, the NSF formally established the Social Science founded as the first free teacher’s college (“Normal School”)in Research Program, renamed the Office of Social Science in the United States and which began to admit female students to 1959, and the Division of Social Science in 1961.142 its graduate programs in 1914 (fig. 41). She graduated from Compared with funding for physics and the agricultural Hunter and moved on to a PhD program in the anthropology sciences (the two dominant areas of NSF support), the funding department at Columbia University with Ruth Benedict as her for the social sciences was a pittance. But for anthropologists it faculty advisor. She never completed her PhD. She took grad- became the most important funding source in the post-1950 uate coursework in the four fields of anthropology at Colum- period. By 1967, the annual NSF anthropology budget was bia, but the new advisor assigned to her after Benedict’s death $9.2 million.143 Wenner-Gren funding, by comparison, was (in September 1948) would not approve her proposed thesis topic—“The Quest for Privacy among Non-Literate Peoples.” A story about the Viking Fund in the New York World-Telegram newspaper in 1949 featured a photo of her at work and opened 141. This occurred even though many leading physicists supported an with the sentence, “Lolita Binns ought to be in pictures. Instead, NSF that would fund social sciences because they feared the psycho- she’s up to her pretty head in skulls. One might expect this logical and social problems posed by the atomic bomb. A clearheaded young woman, who has an olive complexion, hazel eyes, and analysis of the protracted debate, 1942–1950, over the form and function dark brown hair, to be taken up with romance at 22. And she of what would become the NSF is in Wang (1995). 142. See discussion of this progression in Gieryn (1999:65–114, esp. 69–70). 143. These growing numbers over time are outlined in Michael 144. WGF annual reports going back about 6 years are publicly avail- Yamaner, Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, able on the Wenner-Gren home page, http://www.wennergren.org/about and Nonprofit Institutions: FYs 2010 and 2011, NSF Report, October 2014, /annual-reports (accessed August 7, 2016), and earlier reports are held detailed statistical tables NSF 15–301. The report (and many others at the WGF archives in New York. These reports include detailed lists of showing trends in NSF funding) can be downloaded at http://www.nsf.gov all recipients and financial data on the foundation’s expenditures and /statistics/2015/nsf15301/ (accessed August 7, 2016). investments. S272 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

pologist and racial theorist Carleton Coon as a “mixture of Scotch, Negro and American Indian,” and Coon himself called her “a colored girl” in a fall 1962 interview. “Wenner-Gren has put up some [money for Coon’s race research]. I’m sure they’ll never put up any more because Paul has married a colored girl.”148 The person interviewing him, Anne Roe Simpson, had asked, “Is Lita colored?” Simpson was a psychologist trained at Columbia University who was married to the paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, and she was an insider who knew Fejos, Lita, and their circle. Her husband had only a few months earlier (July 8–21, 1962) participated in a Burg Wartenstein conference on “Classification and Human Evo- lution.” She knew exactly who Paul was and whom he had married. But she did not know that Lita Binns Fejos was engaged in a social practice that flourished in the twentieth century, when the legacies of Jim Crow laws heightened the economic and social costs of being “colored”: Lita was passing. She joined possibly thousands of light-skinned African Amer- icans who crossed or hovered over the color line as the “one- drop rule” came to define social and legal relationships in the United States in the late nineteenth century (Davis 1991). Af- ter the landmark Supreme Court case upholding state segregation laws in 1896, Plessy v. Ferguson, segregation in schools, real estate, the workplace, and other settings became more rigid. A long, complex history of the slave trade, immigration, and black-white sexual contact from the eighteenth century forward meant that populations in the United States were mixed, and Figure 41. Lita Binns, graduation photograph, Hunter College, Negroes or coloreds or blacks (depending on the decade) were New York, 1947 (WGF archives). not all the same color. The same was true of European Amer- icans of course, but such variations in precise skin tone mattered less in the “white” category. In Jamaica, where Binns’s — ”145 is with the romance of Anthropology. The reporter went parents were born, the history of racial mixing was particularly “ on to note that brains on the distaff side abound at the Vik- complex (Patterson 1966).149 ” “ ing Fund and to express amazement at the subjects girls The “liminal position between black and white worlds” that ”146 work on these days! scholars have examined was fluid and even productive for some — The perceived incongruence of beauty and scholarship of those who were able to exploit it in the twentieth century the idea that an attractive woman could not possibly be se- (Crothers and K’Meyer 2007). But the costs of passing or not — ’ rious about intellectual pursuits must have shaped Binns s passing were both high. On one side was access to rights and professional life at every stage. She was a much-noticed beauty, privileges, and on the other, the support of the African Amer- and given the roles that beauty or its absence often play in the ican community and the ties of family and friends, as Allyson lives of women, the comment is not impertinent. She was also Hobbs demonstrates in A Chosen Exile. More men than women “ ” registered as Negro in the New York City census records passed, but “under particular conditions, women passed almost for 1930, when she was 3 years old. She lived on 118th Street effortlessly” (Hobbs 2014:7). Some who passed as white on the in New York with her father Irving, her mother Avadne, and job lived as black at home, and passing could even be geograph- her uncle Claude, all recent immigrants from the West Indies, ically variable: some lived as white in the North during part of fi 147 speci cally, the complex racial melange of Jamaica. the year and black in the South the rest of the time (Davis Later she became in social terms white. At some point Fejos 1991:56). Being discovered to be “inauthentic” could lead to described Lita to University of Pennsylvania physical anthro- ostracism from the white community—even from spouses and

145. George Keaney, “Greatest Mystery of All: Skulldiggers Hunt 148. This is in an interview in the Papers of Anne Roe Simpson, Clews to Riddle of Man,” New York World-Telegram, March 23, 1949, interview of Carleton Coon by Anne Roe (November 1962), p. 4. clipping filed in Box #BW-2, WGF. 149. An evocative sociological paper published in June 1966, when 146. Ibid. Lita was director of research at WGF, included a sustained critique of the 147. According to census records, the apartment building had several ideas of the anthropologist Melville Herskovits relating to the African other families listed as being from the British West Indies. diaspora. Herskovits, of course, had won a Viking Fund medal in 1954. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S273 children. Passing could also mean leaving behind family and were criticized by Theodosius Dobzhansky. (Coon seemed to friends indefinitely, and many blacks were no more sympa- support polygenism, the old idea that some groups had evolved thetic to those who chose to pass than were whites (Piper “earlier” than others.) Those theories were being used by white 1996). A person who was passing was violating the rules of supremacists to support segregation in the South (Jackson two communities, not one. 2005:157–162; Collopy 2015). When Dobzhansky attacked Coon, In 1985, when Lita Binns Fejos Osmundsen was fired by Coon wrote to Osmundsen to complain—placing her in the the board of trustees of WGF, the great British anthropologist odd position of being asked to stand up for him when he was Mary Douglas wrote an appreciation of her and her work espousing ideas that many anthropologists viewed as racist. (Douglas 1986). Douglas adopted publicly the fiction that She was also in touch with Dobzhansky in this debate. These Osmundsen was choosing to retire but must have known controversies ultimately led Coon to be deposed from the better—the essay is warm, caring, and quietly angry at the AAPA (Collopy 2015). board of trustees. She described Osmundsen as the “chief in- Other people in Osmundsen’s networks were promoting the spirer and organizer” of the discipline of anthropology and anthropological study of African American communities in outlined a long list of achievements and skills. “We would do the midst of the civil rights movement. The Boasian Melville well to ask who this person is without whom neither Axel Herskovits (a Viking Fund medal winner in 1953) emerged as Wenner-Gren nor Paul Fejos nor a thriving academic disci- a controversial “father figure” for Africana studies whose theo- pline could have achieved as much,” she said. And then, her ries about continuities between African and African American short account of who Osmundsen was took an interesting turn, culture were widely contested. Meanwhile Arthur Jensen’sno- telling just enough and not too much about both Osmundsen torious 1968 proposal that African Americans were biologi- and Douglas. Douglas reported that Osmundsen was born Lita cally incapable of higher intellectual achievement provoked a Sofie Binns in New York City, the daughter and oldest child firestorm of discussion in anthropology, and academic meet- of a cabinetmaker and a seamstress. Her mother “had been ings focused on race relations were often filled with tension— educated” in the West Indies and had been a “kind of a late- some that came explicitly to her attention as the director of born Victorian in outlook.” Her parents believed in “work, research of a major foundation focused on supporting anthro- duty, fairness, public service.” Apparently for financial reasons, pology. When a 1972 SSRC conference in Jamaica imploded, during the Depression “the family moved to Jamaica,” where for example, because of tense reactions from the African Amer- Lita experienced a “British style education” so effective that ican scholarly community, Osmundsen was among a small circle when she returned to New York, “she was three years ahead of people sent a full, confidential report on what went wrong.152 of her age-mates” (Douglas 1986:521). Douglas thus elided a Osmundsen therefore had a ringside seat in controversies in racial identity that she probably did not see. which she had a direct if covert stake. She held an unusual po- In 1972, the University of Virginia linguist Dell Hymes, dis- sition as an insider/outsider, powerful enough to shape some of cussing the plan of Giancarlo Menotti to write an opera about what happened and engaged in her own forms of social mobility. the Vietnam War (this became Tamu Tamu), sent Osmundsen Of equal importance for Osmundsen was her status as a (whom he called “Minx”) a note about the modern world, “mak- woman. Women in the scientific community were routinely ing people ashamed of who they are and what they do, catch- denied jobs, fellowships, leadership opportunities, and access ing them between an identity which they can never fully ob- to field sites in the 1970s and 1980s. Their scientific work was tain, and one which they can never fully accept—God knows often dismissed, ignored, or stolen; their personal lives were how to express it in a work on opera—but it is a fundamental subject to unusual surveillance (children could be seen as a dimension of what is being done to much of the world today. sign of lack of scientific seriousness); their professional per- The carrot of material reward and the stick of cultural shame formance was scrutinized in ways that did not happen with beat most of us along unhappy paths.”150 Osmundsen was their male colleagues. For example, young women scientists moved. “You did a masterful job and I myself am intrigued and could be found wanting because they were not equivalent in impressed by many of your thoughts and ideas. The closing talent to Marie Curie or other superstars, while young male sentence of your Postscript [quoted above] is quite beautifully scientists were not expected to be doing work comparable to expressed!”151 that of Nobel Prize winners (Rossiter 1984, 1998, 2012). Os- Under the circumstances, she was a uniquely positioned mundsen may not have been a practicing scientist, but she observer of debates about race, identity, and anthropology in was nonetheless embedded in scientific networks, interacting the 1960s. For example, Carleton Coon, who knew that she was with many scientists and technical experts, and presumably “colored,” appealed to her to intervene when his racial theories she was directly affected by some of the same standards that undermined so many other women professionals during this time. 150. This was a draft of a letter he wanted to send to Menotti, but he passed it by Lita first. Hymes to Menotti, May 3, 1972, in “Gian Carlo Menotti Opera,” Box #DoR-5, WGF. 152. Roger D. Abrahams, report attached to a letter to Lita Osmundsen, 151. Osmundsen to Hymes, May 9, 1972, “Gian Carlo Menotti Op- September 29, 1972, Wenner-Gren Symposium, Committee on Afro- era,” Box #DoR-5, WGF. American Societies and Culture, Box #DoR-3, WGF. S274 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

In Osmundsen’s life story, then, topics of recurrent interest in contemporary anthropology—gender, race, class, eth- nicity—converge around questions of social mobility enabled by her affiliation with WGF. The rise of a first-generation immigrant Jamaican American woman to an easy social prom- inence in the elegant worlds of New York foundations and scientific networks involved various kinds of boundary crossing. She gained complete administrative control as director of research and then president of a major scholarly foundation for the 22 years, from 1964 until she was forced out in 1985 (and resigned in December 1986). Wealthy business leaders who served on the board of trustees were charmed; leading scholars in all fields of anthropology admired her management of the international symposia and her support for innovative anthropology. “Many of us have been startled by Osmundsen’s comments on what we could or should be doing in the profession, adroit assessments of potential that allowed individuals Figure 42. Lita and John Osmundsen, their wedding reception at ” to take the next step, reported Mary Ellen Morbeck, Mary Burg Wartenstein, 1965 (WGF archives). Catherine Bateson, and Anna Roosevelt in their 1998 obituary for Osmundsen in American Anthropologist. She leveraged an incomplete PhD at Columbia into a position that gave her a riage she gave birth to twins—a son and a daughter—and while powerful role in shaping the discipline of anthropology. Clear- the children were young, the family more or less made the cas- headed, probably manipulative, charming, and beautiful, “Minx” tle its summer home. They moved en famille to Burg Warten- sustained a network of connections and collaborators who ad- stein in May or early June and stayed until the fall. mired her “British” or “Old World” sensibilities: “the quick first Osmundsen was therefore in charge of WGF during the name basis of American social life bothered her,” Douglas most romantic and glamorous period of the foundation’s his- (1986:521) said, and she was “more at home where social roles tory. Both the brownstone and the castle were in full use; are clearly articulated, as in the more formal cultures of Japan markets kept the endowment growing; anthropology as a dis- or Europe.” But what kind of being “more at home” was this? cipline was enjoying a period of expansion, influence, and pop- After her marriage to Fejos in 1958, she became more im- ularity. During the summer of 1963, the summer after Paul portant to the inner circles at the foundation, and as his health died, there were no symposia at Burg Wartenstein. But for declined in early 1962, she began essentially to serve in his the next 17 years the summers were filled with the excitement place. Fejos passed away in April 1963, and his widow became and challenge of the international symposia, the many thrilling director of research in his absence. The first president after and fascinating guests, and the elegant meals, musical perfor- Fejos’s death, appointed in October 1963, was a member of the mances, and intense scholarly discussions around the green felt. board of trustees and a distinguished scientist who had no At the castle, the 1960s saw a string of pathbreaking meet- training in anthropology. Heinz von Foerster was a prominent ings focused on primates—on primate variation, social behav- physicist and philosopher of knowledge from the University of ior, social organization and subsistence, and systematics in Old Illinois. He was also a leading cybernetician and the coauthor in World monkeys. The guest list at Burg Wartenstein in the 1960s 1960 of an (intentionally provocative) theory of population was a who’s who in anthropology, biology, genetics, history, growth that came to be known as the “doomsday equation”— social theory, law, and other fields. Ernst Caspari and Theo- the theoretical point at which human population growth would dosius Dobzhansky were there in 1964; Jane van Lawick-Goodall, become infinite—which he and his coauthors calculated would Kenneth Boulding, and Marshall Sahlins in 1965; Talcott Par- occur in the fall of 2026. Later, other members of the board sons and Conrad Arensberg in 1966; Francisco Salzano in 1967; served as president in a relatively disengaged way. Osmund- Robin Fox in 1968; Clifford Geertz in 1969. Laura Nader’s sen was functioning in the ways that Fejos had functioned but “Ethnography of Law” conference brought scholars from new serving only as director of research. This was to continue until disciplines into the Burg Wartenstein mix. Gregory Bateson 1978, when she was finally named president— at the same that brought cybernetician Warren McCulloch and environmental she was removed from the board. activist and biologist Barry Commoner. In May of 1965 she became engaged to New York Times By the 1970s the pace at the castle was breathtaking. There science journalist John Osmundsen, whom she met at a WGF were five conferences each during the summers of 1970, 1973, seminar on “The Creative Process” (fig. 42).153 After their mar- 1976, and 1977. These symposia were generally a week to 10 days long. Osmundsen was therefore overseeing 50 days of 153. Lita Binns Fejos to Mrs. H. R. Besserman, May 17, 1965, in nonstop conferencing in these summers—with breaks of about folder “Fejos, Lita S. Binns, Misc.,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. a week between conferences. In other years the pace was “slower,” Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S275 at four or even occasionally three conferences, but given the in- Natural History (Monge and Mann 2005). The museum at the tensity of these meetings and the extreme care that went into University of Pennsylvania began a casting program using planning and managing them, it was a job that demanded both these molds after their purchase. Later, in 1958, an American organizational and social skills at a high level. inventor named David Gilbert approached the Smithsonian The glittering attendees in the 1970s, the last castle decade, Museum about investing in a new casting technique. The mu- included scholarly stars from many fields, all of them presum- seum was interested but needed funding to support the plan. ably eager to greet and talk to Osmundsen over cocktails and Once again Paul Fejos came through, providing Gilbert with around the dinner table. Population geneticists James Neel a grant of $15,000 to demonstrate that his technique could and Newton Morton (who did not always get along) were at be used to cast human skulls and paying him an additional Burg Wartenstein together. Pediatric-advice author T. Berry amount to write a booklet describing his techniques. For many Brazelton showed up one summer, as did Dian Fossey, Des- years, Wenner-Gren also paid Gilbert to train technicians in mond Clark, Mary Leakey, Melvin Konner, Fredrik Barth, and many of the major laboratories in human paleontology—a Mary Douglas. Napoleon Chagnon attended, as did William practice that was considered to have reduced “the natural re- J. Schull, Renee Fox, F. Clark Howell, Glynn L. Isaac, Erving luctance some feel toward letting strangers come in and pour Goffman, and Donald Johanson.154 rubber all over their irreplaceable fossils” (Cartmill and Hy- Osmundsen and her staff were thus at the center of a global lander 1974:220). network of fascinating and engaged scholars. There were dis- With WGF support, a laboratory was established in Fair- cussions of core questions in hominoid evolution, culture, ur- field, New Jersey, to allow for the development of casts using ban change, the origins of language, human behavior, fossil molds overseen by Gilbert while the process was refined. The interpretation, social organization, ethnic identity, animal com- idea was that the “Gilbert process” would become a subsidiary munication, kinship, art, and local and global politics. It must of some larger corporation. This was not to be. When no in- have been an intoxicating intellectual experience to spend the terested buyers materialized, the Fairfield laboratory was char- summer months talking to the world’s leading thinkers entered as “Anthro-Cast” in 1965. The new corporation was to gaged with core questions of human life and society in such a be separate from WGF itself, lest the sale of its casts became beautiful setting over the span of 2 decades. lucrative enough to endanger the foundation’s tax-exempt status. This precaution proved unnecessary. By 1970, Anthro-Cast Shaky Foundations155 was losing $139,000 a year. It was folded back into WGF as a division of the foundation’s education and training program. Of course, running WGF involved more than summers at Burg This meant that Wenner-Gren would continue to absorb the Wartenstein. During Osmundsen’s term at the helm, the foun- financial losses of the program. dation faced many difficult decisions, including the manage- Although overseen by an international advisory group headed ment of an enterprise known as Anthro-Cast; the arrest and by F. Clark Howell and including Alan Mann, Adrienne Zihl- trial of Current Anthropology editor Cyril Belshaw for the mur- man, C. K. Brain, and P. V. Tobias, the program was plagued der of his wife; and the economic consequences of the global with problems from the start. Anthropologists in other sub- recession in the 1970s, consequences that ultimately led to the fields accused the foundation of diverting funds to Anthro-Cast sale of the two real estate properties. (and to physical anthropology) that should have been used to Anthro-Cast became a particularly thorny issue. What looked support other kinds of research.156 And paleontologists accused like a straightforward service operation that would provide the foundation of distributing casts for free to an inside clique high-quality casts for teaching and possibly research in paleo- while excluding those who held views this clique considered anthropology became a source of controversy (fig. 43). It even- unfashionable. Such accusations were never formally substan- tually cost the foundation about $1.6 million. The program was tiated, but they pointed to deeper problems involved with the abandoned in 1976. Later the entire question of casting fossils economy of exchange surrounding the circulation of specimens was seen to raise ethical questions relating to the originals, their and the intended audience for the casts. Some observers were possible damage, and their ownership. pleased that the Wenner-Gren casts eroded the “concept of fos- WGF’s casting program for human fossils had its origins in sils as semisecret private property” (Cartmill and Hylander a very early grant request from the American Institute of Hu- man Paleontology. In 1945, members of the institute applied to the Viking Fund for money to purchase molds that had been made by cast maker F. O. Barlow of the British Museum of 156. For the previous decade, the foundation had supported a large program on human evolution. In 1965 it established the “Origins of Man” program (1965–1972) under the guidance of Walter William (Bill) 154. A full list of attendees of all Wenner Gren symposia can be Bishop, C. K. Brain, J. Desmond Clark, Francis Clark Howell, Louis found at the foundation website at http://www.wennergren.org/history Leakey, and Sherwood Washburn. In the 1960s and 1970s, over 300 /conferences-seminars-symposia/wenner-gren-symposia/cumulative-list grants were made in palaeoanthropology. Other parts of biological an- -wenner-gren-symposia. thropology, and other subdisciplines in anthropology, were not funded at 155. We borrow this subhead from Solovey (2013). this level. This played a role in concerns about the casting program. S276 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 43. Anthro-Cast staff with Lita Osmundsen (1975) and the “Zinjanthropus” description from Anthro-Cast sales catalog, 1973 (WGF archives).

1974:229). At the same time, illegally produced casts were be- did not require specimens with the same amount of detail and, ing made from Anthro-Cast products (Monge and Mann 2005: accordingly, were unwilling to pay top prices. The third group 105). presented a whole different set of challenges, chief among them A bitter 1974 critique in the Yearbook of Physical Anthro- the concern that those who discovered and curated the original pology proposed that the foundation engaged in misleading fossils would feel undermined and withdraw their support for marketing, presenting the casts as “something quite special: casting if casts could actually be used in research. high prestige items of exceptional quality for the elite profes- By 1976, over 16,000 replicas of 180 cast items and accom- sional.” Anthro-Cast displayed the casts “dramatically lighted” panying descriptive brochures were distributed by the foun- inside museum-style cases at professional meetings and shipped dation to the anthropological profession worldwide. The foun- “each cast inside a lead-sealed bag inside a drawstring pouch dation’s board of trustees had concluded in that year that it of velvet inside an imitation-leather sliding case.” These “sym- would be imprudent to continue absorbing the costs of the bolic gestures” coupled with “more explicit statements in bro- program partly because of concerns about the economy and chures and advertisements, have led some people in the pro- the endowment. The casting program was terminated, and the fession to regard the casts as adequate substitutes for the original production facilities were closed. The remaining casts and the specimen.” The authors reported that at some institutions, equipment were donated to museums and universities.157 Many Wenner-Gren casts were placed on public exhibit inside mirror- of the surplus casts produced in the program ended up at the lined cases, and at least one textbook of primate evolution had University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology, some been illustrated with photos of Wenner-Gren casts, identified of them stored in the special “Lita Osmundsen Room” there. incorrectly as pictures of original fossils (Cartmill and Hylander The foundation kept a complete set of casts on premises until its 1974:227). It is hard to know what to make of this complaint. most recent move in 2004, when they were donated to David Anthro-Cast was claiming research accuracy for the casts and Lordkipanidze at the Georgian National Museum to help de- as a result was destroying four out of every five casts made be- velop a comparative collection in the context of Lordkipa- cause the techniques were not up to the accuracy that was being nidze’s hominin discoveries at the site of Dmanisi, Georgia. claimed. This is one of the reasons the program was not prof- Meanwhile, WGF was facing changes in tax law that had a itable. In any case there were marketing and production issues direct effect on operations. In 1969, the United States Congress with Anthro-Cast. passed a Tax Reform Act designed to mitigate abuses believed The confusion might have reflected the fact that Wenner- by members of Congress to occur in private foundations. Mem- Gren casts were purchased by three different kinds of constit- bers of Congress were concerned that foundations were not uencies. First were those engaged in graduate- and postgraduate- distributing their income to charities, that donors were profit- level training. Second were those who needed casts for ing from charitable donations, that investments of charitable wide-ranging undergraduate courses. Finally, some sought to foundations were being badly handled and poorly supervised, use WGF casts as a research focus in cases when original spec- and that foundation money was being used for noncharitable imens were not available. These three uses, however, were not compatible. Those in the first group required casts of the highest quality and equivalent expense. Those in the second group 157. http://www.wennergren.org/history/other-programs/anthro-cast. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S277 or noneducational purposes. The act was essentially an effort by Congress to regulate tax-exempt foundations in the United States. It granted private foundations a new tax status as “public charities,” and it required that nonoperating foundations pay out for charitable or educational purposes each year a fixed percentage of asset value—up to 6%. The act also penalized foundations for making risky investments and barred foundations from sponsoring lobbying or partisan political activity (including things such as voter registration drives; Lore 1975). It included stiff penalties for failure to comply with the law, and it became clear early that the Internal Revenue Service intended to enforce it.158 In an essay published in 1975, when the issue was still controversial, Homer Wadsworth, director of the Cleveland Foundation, said that the consequences of the Tax Reform Act were not entirely clear but that “the only thing about which one can be quite certain is that those who elect to establish new private foundations do so for other than tax reasons. Al- most all the tax incentives for creating new foundations were removed from the law; many new barriers, inclined to dis- courage rather than to attract potential donors, were erected” (Wadsworth 1975:255). The legislation forced foundations in the United States to take stock of their situation. “It was . . . for the best that private foundations were reminded that they function as a result of generous provisions of the tax law and that their only legitimate purpose is to serve the public interest,” Wadsworth said. “All private foundations got the message, certainly those ’ — which were well aware of the law s grace prior to the act and Figure 44. Cyril Belshaw (Current Anthropology editor, 1975– this would clearly be most such foundations—as well as a few 1984, at symposium 68, “International Aspects of Anthropological foundations that tended to skirt the ragged edges of approved Publication,” Burg Wartenstein, 1976 (WGF archives). behavior” (Wadsworth 1975:262). It also spurred increased membership in the Council on less. Much of the foundation wealth of the United States Foundations, which by 1975 had 715 members representing was held by the 2,370 grant-making foundations with assets “70% of the total assets of all foundations in the country” over $1 million. As of 1971, Wadsworth said, there were only (Wadsworth 1975:256). Foundations thus began working to- 180 foundations in the country that had assets in excess gether to represent their own interests. According to an of- of $25 million each. The assets of WGF, in 1971, came to ficial history of the Council on Foundations, the legislative $21,451,508—bringing it almost, though not quite, into this debate about the 1969 act sent “shock waves” through the inner circle.160 foundation field.159 The transparency provisions of the act In the context of these legal changes and many other chal- made it possible to get a reasonable picture of foundation lenges, the fall of 1979 was unusually difficult for Osmundsen. assets and the level of their annual spending at the national She was under significant pressure from the board of trustees, level. There were then between 28,000 and 30,000 nonoper- and she was very unwillingly moving out of the brownstone, ating foundations in the country that made annual grants for which was sold that November. In the same month, she learned research and program services of various kinds. But most of that her Current Anthropology editor was arrested in Swit- these had assets of less than $1 million—often significantly zerland for the murder of his wife. Cyril Belshaw, an anthropologist at University of British Columbia, was the editor of Current Anthropology from 1975 to 1984 (fig. 44). In 1979, while 158. Expenditures at the IRS for auditing foundations increased eight- he and his wife Betty, an English scholar, were on sabbatical fold, and the IRS planned to audit each private foundation every 5 years and some foundations every other year. In the first 4 years of the act, the IRS and staying in Switzerland, his wife disappeared. Belshaw re- assessed penalties, from 1970 through the first month of 1974, of $469,000, ported on January 16, 1979, that she had disappeared in Paris, not a particularly high penalty rate (Wadsworth 1975:261). where they had gone together. Months later, in late March, af- 159. History of the Council on Foundations, posted at http://www.cof .org/sites/default/files/documents/files/History%20of%20the%20Council %20on%20Foundations.pdf (accessed August 7, 2016). 160. Assets listed in 1971–1972 biennial report, WGF. S278 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 ter Belshaw returned to Canada, a body was found in a ravine in Switzerland. Eventually, this body was identified as Betty Belshaw’s. Swiss authorities suspected his involvement in the murder. Belshaw refused to return to Switzerland to be charged, but did choose to attend a UNESCO meeting in Paris in Novem- ber 1979. While he was in Paris he was arrested, extradited to Switzerland, and then charged with his wife’s murder. He was imprisoned in Switzerland for more than a year, continuing to edit Current Anthropology from his prison cell. Osmundsen, loyal to her editor, asked the WGF board to help with bail, seeking their approval for a possible “bonus” that was actually intended to cover the costs to get him out of jail in Swit- zerland.161 This “proved to be unnecessary” when Belshaw was not approved for bail. Osmundsen told the board that his situation was “continuing to be very upsetting to everyone concerned including himself,” and while “most of his letters try to be cheerful,” every once in a while “one sees a desperation coming through, and total frustration at the helplessness of his circum- Figure 45. John and Lita Osmundsen, attending “Are They Happy ’ ” stances.”162 in the People s Republic of China supper conference held in the WGF library at 14 East 71st Street, 1973 (WGF archives). In December 1980 his trial began, and in 1981 he was acquitted under a Swiss legal category “by reason of doubt.” Crime novelist and journalist Ellen Godfrey later used that ties to Axel Wenner-Gren, and most had no training in an- legal category as the title of her book about the case. Her book thropology. All were from the United States, and “an attempt raised serious questions about the facts and their legal reso- to put a Swede on the board in 1970 proved to be a problem lution and provided compelling insight into the narrow ac- with the IRS.”163 Before Fejos’s death, the board was more quittal (Godfrey 1981). But Belshaw (now 93) continued his involved in the day-to-day workings of the foundation. As scholarly career apparently unblemished by these events, and late as 1963, every grant approved by the foundation was his Wikipedia entry today does not even mention the murder, discussed by the board, which for a while met every month. trial, or prison time. It was only one of many crises for Os- In 1968, WGF established a system of proposal deadlines mundsen that were converging in the late 1970s and early (rather than rolling submissions) and more formal external 1980s. peer review that would be decisive, so that board members stopped reviewing every grant. Some members of the board Breaking Points began to propose in the 1970s that the foundation should redirect its efforts away from anthropology to more lucrative Economic crises of the 1970s took a toll on the foundation, means of cultivating its financial portfolio. There was no men- ’ and Osmundsen s managerial skills may have faltered as the tion of anthropology in the charter, these board members fi complexity of the job escalated ( g. 45). The foundation pointed out as they argued that the resources of the founda- struggled to come to terms with a combination of a falling tion could be better handled by a professional manager. They fl market, rising in ation, and devastating exchange rates that had grown weary of what they saw as Osmundsen’s relatively increased the costs of maintaining the castle by about 75% by laissez-faire financial management practices (see below) and ’ 1978. Osmundsen s relationship with the board of trustees in any case had no commitments to any particular scholarly deteriorated. She was forced to oversee the sale of both the discipline. brownstone and the castle, and for about 10 years, from 1975 In the late 1970s, as the financial meltdown took its toll, the fi until her resignation, she came under almost constant re board even began exploring whether the foundation should from the board. spend itself out of existence. Richard Scheuch advocated for “ The early board of trustees of WGF had elements of a “generational justice” and keeping the foundation for future ’ ” fi privileged boys club, with rst-class tickets and generous generations. Will Jones favored hiring a professional non- expense accounts the norm. Many early board members had anthropologist manager to lead WGF, and eventually others,

161. Lita Osmundsen to board of trustees, September 29, 1980, Box #BoT-8, WGF. 163. Karen Holmberg’s August 31, 2001, summary (p. 3) of the his- 162. Signed L. O. and sent to the board (Dodds, Ekman, Hunt, Jones, tory of the board is the source here. Holmberg drew on WGF archival Scheuch, Thayer, Wadsworth, and Westen), September 1980, Box #BoT-8, materials in her report to WGF president Fox. “Report on the Contents WGF. of the WGF Archives,”“Confidential for RGF,” Box #DoR-18, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S279 including Frank Wadsworth, Mike Levine, and Don Engelman, the board: “Most boards of nonprofit organizations need as- went along with the idea of hiring such a manager (to replace sistance when they are dealing with such areas as Wenner-Gren Osmundsen). The idea was that this manager could work with relates to. Some boards add professionals to give them the academic advisors, and the new structure could open up the necessary insights and knowledge to assist in decision-making.” question of whether to continue supporting anthropology at WGF, he said, needed 12 to 18 advisors (not the three or four all. The board planned to perform the search for a new man- who were generally considered research associates), and they ager without consulting the newly formed academic advisory should report to the board and be given full financial facts and council. information so that their recommendations reflected current This advisory council, which had working anthropologists conditions. In 1978 the advisory council was created with an as members, was created because of the evolving financial inaugural membership of Elizabeth Colson (then newly elected concerns at the foundation. Consulting with anthropologists to the National Academy of Sciences), H. B. S. Cooke, Irven was always a part of WGF regular practice, but the more for- Devore (the Harvard biological anthropologist and longtime mal advisory council became crucial as the financial crisis es- friend of WGF), Fred Eggan, and David Hamburg.166 calated. Some decisions could be expected to stir controversy Later this advisory council played a pivotal role in a con- in the scientific community, and the board needed guidance to tentious 1985 board of trustees and advisory council meeting in understand disciplinary priorities. It needed to know what was Arrowwood, New York. The board was discussing Osmund- most important to sustain. In 1974, the board created an ad sen’s replacement. The council was not privy to this discussion hoc planning committee to address these questions. The two but figured it out when impressions on a blank sheet of paper real estate assets—the brownstone and the castle—were for on a left-behind notepad in a meeting room used by both various reasons absorbing a larger proportion of the WGF groups showed evidence of the plan. This would involve po- budget, and the grant support was falling. tentially redirecting the foundation away from anthropology The ad hoc committee consulted with two prominent an- and the employment of a professional director of research with thropologists, Sherwood Washburn and Raymond Firth, to no commitments to anthropology as a discipline. The advi- seek their advice on the future of the foundation. Firth and sory council confronted Frank Wadsworth (fig. 46). They per- Washburn both seemed to suggest that Burg Wartenstein could suaded him to reconsider, and he became an ally of the anthro- go and that the New York building might be underutilized as pologists. He then insisted to the board that the anthropologists well. It was difficult in this context to justify the expense of should have been consulted, and he took the search for Os- maintaining these properties given the effect they were having mundsen’s replacement away from the headhunters. The job on the foundation. They supported phasing out Anthro-Cast, description was rewritten for an anthropologist, and Jones or significantly reducing it in scope, but they did not support resigned. abandoning the journal Current Anthropology. If economic con- Global economic pressures played a role in these events. ditions had been more favorable at the time, they said the As historian Andrew D. Moran noted in his study of Gerald foundation would be correct in continuing along its traditional Ford’s reaction to the financial crisis in the 1970s, the US course, seeking more cost-effective ways to operate but still in economy enjoyed international preeminence from 1945 until its customary mode. However, they both agreed that the cur- the early 1970s. Economic policy generally was successful, rent ratio between direct services and overhead had become maintaining a strong growth rate, high employment, and low untenable, and bold and positive steps had to be taken to bring inflation. The US economy seemed stable and secure. The the ratio back into a realistic relationship.164 ideas of John Maynard Keynes, which had influenced FDR in In 1977 the board engaged a nonprofit management con- his management of the Depression in the 1930s, were widely sulting firm, Frantzreb, Pray, Ferner & Thompson, to conduct viewed as effective in fine-tuning the economy to rebalance an internal audit. This auditor recommended the sale or do- as needed and “make the business cycle obsolete” (Moran nation of the castle, the sale of the brownstone, the mainte- 2011:40). But in the mid-1970s, unemployment and inflation nance of the grants program and Current Anthropology, and rose together, and “there was no longer a clear choice be- the creation of a new, more formal, advisory council that would tween larger deficits to stimulate the economy at the price take the place of the research associates (anthropologists who of higher inflation, and lower deficits to reduce inflation at served as advisors to the director of research).165 The new group the risk of recession” (Moran 2011:41–42). Inflation—once would be a resource for the director of research but also for stable at below 2%—hit 12% in 1974. Unemployment, long below 4%, went higher than 5%. The US share of world trade fell from 25% in 1948 to 10% in 1974. Meanwhile, the oil crisis, 164. September 8, 1975, memo to the WGF board of directors from in two shock waves in 1972 and 1979, disrupted global mar- Frank Wadsworth for the ad hoc planning committee relating to budget recommendations. Report in the WGF minute books, September 22–23, kets. Crude oil prices rose more than 500%, and the postwar 1975 meeting, WGF. petroleum regime collapsed (Ikenberry 1986). 165. David M. Thompson, of Franzreb, Pray, Ferner and Thompson, to WGF board of directors, June 1, 1977, in minute books, June 7–8, 1977, WGF. 166. April 28–30, 1978, minute books, WGF. S280 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

members and somehow unable to be recreated. We have truly embarked on a new era, and it is good to know you are there to provide healthy roots and perspective about the unhealthier ones.”168 She knew that the board wanted the castle to be sold, and she had a clear view of what that would mean: “We always have and can continue to run conferences elsewhere, but the control and organizational continuity we have there is unique and now world-renowned. It may be best put out in a blaze of glory nonetheless—hence my ambivalence. The emotional side of it—my ties to Paul’s dream, so to speak, must be set aside from these considerations—I realize this more than anyone else because I am the one that must do it and was wedded to the creative aspects of that concept. I fear some of the Board may feel I can’t and won’t do this—but I do honestly fight for the idea more than the nostalgia.”169 The board decided in 1977 to explore simultaneously the possibility of selling the castle or of finding some form of outside support that could decrease the cost to the foundation of maintaining the castle alone. Wadsworth investigated several potential sources of outside support, ranging from professional fund-raising agencies to major foundations such as Ford and Carnegie and specialized organizations such as the Salzburg Seminars and the Academy for Educational Development. At the same time, he spoke to a real estate firm and asked for a full assessment of the value of the property. The initial assessment came in at $783,125. The agent, however, said there Figure 46. Frank Wadsworth, who served on the Wenner-Gren would be a very limited range of buyers for a castle, and he board of trustees for 36 years, from 1970 to 2006. He played a expected the selling price of $600,000 to be more reasonable crucial role in ensuring the future of the foundation, guiding it and realistic.170 He also thought it would take 3 years at least to through the difficult decades of the 1970s and 1980s (WGF find a buyer.171 Mothballing the large structures (waiting for archives). a buyer) would cost an estimated $52,000 a year. When the Austrian government offered the possibility of a subsidy for the castle if the sale could be delayed, the board ap- These crises ricocheted through private and institutional proved the delay and hoped the Austrian subsidy would come lives. The foundation’s endowment began to fall, from about $21.5 million in 1970 to $17 million in 1978. The eventual recovery in the 1980s was spectacular, and by 2012 the endowment stood at almost $163 million (fig. 47). But the fi- 168. January 25, 1977, in folder “Board of Directors correspondence, nancial uncertainties of the 1970s generated a crisis mentality Jan-Jun 1977,” Box #BoT-7, WGF. in many domains, and the board of trustees began to pressure 169. Osmundsen to Davis, May 30, 1977, ibid. Osmundsen to cut costs—to eliminate the casting program, 170. Osmundsen had apparently cut out and saved a story in the Wall sell the brownstone and/or the castle, and trim programs. By Street Journal, January 6, 1966. that claimed that more Americans were the 1979 meeting of the board of trustees, she was at meet- buying European castles. The correspondent Igor Oganesoff, based in “ ings only by invitation and was no longer a member of the Paris, asked readers whether they were tired of that split-level life in the suburbs? Need to get away from it all? Want a home that’s far out, a board.167 She was struggling to make sense of why she seemed house with low taxes, a place where you can feel like a king? Consider a to be in a constant uphill battle and wrote to Charles Davis, who castle.” He reported that wealthy Americans were buying castles all over had recently stepped down from the board, who responded, Europe. “Man’s Home is His . . . . More Americans Buy Old Castles in “ The Board did miss your presence and, speaking of Paul, the Europe: Lures include 100,000 gallon wine cellar, moats, turrets; Some meeting did make me realize how little he seems to have to prices climb sharply.” Pasted into a notebook in Box #BW-2, WGF. do with current concerns of the Board. His flavor and philos- 171. Wadsworth had presented an argument in favor of the sale at the ophy are still there, but his dynamic is unknown to the newer board meeting held a few weeks earlier. This reflected growing concerns with increasing costs of holding conferences at the castle. Frank W. Wadsworth, June 16, 1980, “Sale of Burg Wartenstein” in file “Board of 167. Board of trustees meeting, February 10–11, 1979, files copies, Trustees correspondents, January 1, 1980–December 31, 1980,” Box Drafts of Minutes, Box #BoT-7, WGF. #BoT-8, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S281

reactions, the report said, “left no room for doubt. Given a choice they would choose participation in a conference.” About 58% of those queried also said they would be willing to pay for 25% of the cost of attending a conference at Burg Wartenstein, and 73% said it would be their first choice for a conference they organized themselves. Often the praise was spectacular. Emil Zuckerkandl said the Burg Wartenstein conference he attended in 1962 gave him “the definition of the ideal kind of scientific meeting.” The format offered “the greatest opportunity for an in-depth attack on the scientific problems and for conceptual progress.” He said that “in discussions about how scientific meetings should best be conceived and organized, I always give the Burg W. meetings as the outstanding example to follow.”175 Others Figure 47. Value of the Wenner-Gren endowment in 1968 dollars, echoed this perspective. W. C. Watt of the University of Cal- showing the reduction in the endowment in the early 1970s, its ifornia, Irvine, said that the single Burg Wartenstein confer- decade-long stagnation, the steady and impressive increase from “ 1985 to 2001, the effect of 9/11 on the financial markets in 2001, ence he attended was far and away the most rewarding of the housing bubble of the 2000s, and the crash leading to the “Great my career.” It had “a kind of intensity that no other conference Recession” in 2008. has even, in my experience, approached.” The Burg Warten- stein conference attended was “the highlight of my academic ” “ through. The plan to close the castle at the end of the summer and educational career and crucial for the development of ” “ 1978 was deferred, and the negotiations kept the castle open for my own career or has produced a series of landmark vol- ” two more years. But anthropologists knew what was up, and umes. It went on in this vein for more than 40 pages. If in 1977 Osmundsen proposed that meals should be trimmed the responses of these participants had been the only variable back a bit for the 1977 summer symposia, with the prime help- shaping the destiny of Burg Wartenstein, it would have been ings “a half to two-thirds the size of last year’s” because “if only preserved as a conference center for anthropology forever. in terms of public image, we still have to make a show of cutting An appraisal of the New York property was also in order back somewhat.”172 during this moment of crisis, and one realtor who considered “ Indeed, when 465 anthropologists received a questionnaire taking on the 71st Street listing remarked on its extraordi- ” about the value of the Burg Wartenstein experience in early nary detail and spacious proportions, lamenting, however, “ 1977, they correctly read the survey as a referendum on the that It is unfortunate that so much of the building is made castle itself and whether it would be kept or sold. The foun- up of long hallways, which are only wasted space. We feel dation undertook the survey in order to understand what was that the present market value of the building is somewhere in valued about the castle experience—and partly to understand the neighborhood of $550,000. An asking price of $700,000 ”176 whether it could be replicated in other places. But those queried might be worth your consideration. responded to the underlying threat and sent in lengthy com- Around this time a wealthy industrialist named Raymond ments about the value of the symposium format and site.173 A. Rich came, seemingly unbidden, onto the scene, and even- The question that sparked particular debate asked participants, tually Rich purchased both properties. One of his lawyers (and “If you had the choice of receiving a $3000 grant from the at the time of his death, companion) Claire W. Carlson had foundation or participating in a Burg Wartenstein conference been viewing properties for Rich listed with the Madison fi fi that was of interest to you, which would you choose?”; 56.1% Avenue real estate rm Whitbread-Nolan. This rm had been chose the conference, 16.5% chose the grant, and 17.5% were approached by the foundation to provide an estimate of the unable to decide, while 9.9% did not answer.174 “Many scholars value of the brownstone should they decide to sell. Though “ ” indicated that in their opinion this was the most important the brownstone was not actually on the market, one of the “ question asked and really hit at the heart of our survey.” The brokers brought the property to the attention of a Mrs. C.W. “large amount of unsolicited reaction received regarding this Carlson . . . [with the] understanding that it would be pre- question” suggest that participants thought “what we were mature at this point to discuss an asking price or possible really asking here was ‘Do you think we should continue Burg possession date. Nevertheless Mrs. Carlson persisted . . . saying ”177 Wartenstein as a conference center given the costs?’” Their that she would like to see the building anyway.

172. Kristina Baena to Karl Frey (both employees of the foundation in 175. Ibid. Austria), May 31, 1977, in “LO-KF Correspondence,” Box #BW-8, WGF. 176. Jonathan W. McCann of Whitbread-Nolan, Inc., to Nancy Sheehan, 173. “Report on the Results of the Burg Wartenstein Conference August 9, 1977, Box #BoT-6, WGF. Program Questionnaire,” Box #BW-7, WGF. 177. Welby C. Wood to Dodds, August 29, 1977, in folder “Sale of 14 E 174. Ibid. 71st St. All Correspondence with Buyer,” Box #BoT-6, WGF. S282 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

In early August a member of the staff at the brownstone ations?” Wadsworth said he supported the foundation’s work gave Carlson and the realtor a tour. She was favorably im- and knew it was valuable. But keeping the foundation fiscally pressed. Rich then circumvented the realtor (much to their sound would require “firmness on the part of all of us, but consternation) and wrote directly to John Dodds, then chair- particularly on the part of the President.”182 man of the board of WGF. Dodds dispatched fellow board The realtor now retained by the foundation viewed the es- member Wadsworth to inform the realtor that “the Wenner- timate of $1 million as “acceptable . . . but is not what we would Gren Foundation has no immediate plans to sell its property consider excessive at the present time.”183 But Rich complained at 14 East 71st Street. We have been interested in estimating to Wadsworth that the $1 million he was offering was in fact the property’s value as part of a long-range review of the Foun- a very high bid. “There is no way the Foundation property dation’s activities, but any decision to relocate would only be is worth $900,000 to $1 million. I am not saying you can’t get made after extensive discussion on the part of the directors that figure (because I’ve agreed to it), but what I am saying and such discussion has not yet taken place.”178 Wadsworth is that . . . their rationale is faulty. . . . Let’s stay in touch because sent a similar message to Rich as well.179 I think this proposal is to the advantage of the Foundation— But Rich was persistent. He immediately appealed to Os- and on the other hand, as you know, I very much want the mundsen, having his secretary write to inform her that “should property.”184 In Wadsworth’s reply a month later, he indicated the Foundation accept his offer . . . such action in New York that the board’s decision would ultimately be closely related to State by a tax-exempt organization requires a minimum two- what happened to the castle, “as we have been advised by many thirds vote of the Board of Directors officially recorded and persons not to dispose of both properties at the same time.”185 certified in the Minutes and attested to by the Directors. Rich’s reply indicated that he and Wadsworth had previously In addition, a subsequent court order must be obtained to per- discussed the possibility of his acquiring the castle as well. mit sale of the property.”180 He also offered to pay cash, and to However, Rich communicated his opinion to Wadsworth that allow the foundation to remain in the building for one year. the castle was likely to have greater long-term value to the We can only surmise that Osmundsen was unmoved by this foundation than the brownstone and indicated that “I would offer, but Rich may have divined that Wadsworth was more be willing to consider a $25,000 a year grant for a few years open to talking. He met with Wadsworth for lunch in early in connection with Burg Wartenstein.”186 October of 1977 and continued to send inquiries to him and By April 1979, WGF had agreed to sell the 71st Street Dodds through the New Year’s holiday.181 property to Rich. That spring, after nearly 35 years in resi- By July 1978 Wadsworth supported selling both the 71st dence, the brownstone was sold to him for $1.25 million.187 Street property and the castle. A new appraisal valued the The foundation took up its new offices in a high-rise at 1865 71st Street property at closer to $1 million, but “not everyone Broadway. Then Rich pressed forward with an offer for Burg I talked to thinks that it is wise to sell real estate” because real Wartenstein. And very soon after, Wadsworth began to make estate is a traditional hedge against inflation, Wadsworth told the board. His discussions with a financial advisor did suggest that “the property gave us diversification in our portfolio” 182. “If we relinquish 71st Street and are forced to move, then ob- and “real estate had reacted better against inflation than the viously we should try to find as efficient and economical space as is bond market.” But he then framed the problem in a way that consistent with the foundation’s aims. But there will be priorities to be — seemed to legitimate a sale: if the foundation were to receive weighted location versus amount of space particularly. I think that the a new gift of $1 million (the estimated value of the home on basic change that should be given the President is to design a foundation program for the next 10 years that will retain the foundation’s operating 71st Street), would it buy New York real estate? He thought status, provide a variety of services including grants and conferences, and not, and then he said that the only question about the sale continue the foundation’s roles as a facilitator of communications, a “fi ” “ was nancial merit and not the context of future directions catalyst for research, and a friend of the court, as it were. While some the Foundation might take: that is to say, does the sale rep- features of the foundation’s operations will obviously have to be elimi- resent sound fiscal policy exclusive of any other consider- nated or modified, I am confident that the essential characteristics can be preserved, and preserved in such a manner that the foundation can respond quickly to better economic times if the occasion arises. It may well 178. Wadsworth to Wood, September 23, 1977, ibid. be that the President will need to announce a moratorium on certain 179. Wadsworth to Rich, September 23, 1977, ibid. activities while she effects the necessary changes—this should be for her 180. Anne Hearn to Osmundsen, September 26, 1977, ibid. to decide—but it will certainly require a significant expenditure of time 181. In May of 1978, R. B. Hunt began to pursue the tax implications and energy on her part to cope with these problems in the next year.” of selling the brownstone. “The primary question was whether or not we Wadsworth to board of trustees, July 20, 1978, ibid. would have to expend either 85% or 100% of our net receipts on the sale 183. John B. Bailey to Wadsworth, July 24, 1978, ibid. of either the New York headquarters building or Burg Wartenstein, and 184. Rich to Wadsworth, September 1, 1978, ibid. the secondary question was would the 4% excise tax (or whatever lower 185. Wadsworth to Rich, October 3, 1978, ibid. amount might be the result of new legislation) be imposed on any 186. Rich to Wadsworth, October 10, 1978, ibid. portion of such net receipts from sale of the properties.” May 1, 1978, 187. “Sale of 14 E 71st St, NY, NY to Thomas S. Weary, Trustee for interoffice memo from R. B. Hunt to Wadsworth, ibid. Delphic Trust,” November 30, 1979, ibid. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S283 this happen. Wadsworth wrote that “I believe that the Board bearable those last weeks.” She said she could barely manage would be delighted to see to you under some arrangement until “the whole nightmare is passed. It is a death in the that would permit the Foundation to have limited use of family in every respect and I thank you for your solace.”192 the castle for conferences on a schedule convenient to you. What the trustees would consider an acceptable price, I do Regime Change: Firing Osmundsen not know.”188 As he explained it to the board of trustees, “since inflation The nightmare was far from over. By the fall of 1984, the continued to increase and the cost of the conference program board had reached a breaking point. Wadsworth generated a to soar,” and since the hoped-for Austrian subsidy materi- memo in October of that year commenting that “the board is alized in the insignificant amount of $20,000 annually, the committed to reaching a decision at the next meeting about board should dispose of the castle at the best price possible. Lita Osmundsen’s future role with the Foundation.”193 He The resolution was approved at the September 1979 board included with this memo a letter from Will Jones written in meeting—5 months after the sale of the 71st Street property. July 1979, which provides a particularly vivid portrait of the Rich came through with a $750,000 offer of cash, payable in crisis that had unfolded over the previous decade.194 Jones January 1981, for the castle. The market for properties like had come to see Osmundsen as the fundamental problem and Burg Wartenstein was weak, the prospect of selling the castle questions of the foundation’s enduring support for anthro- at all was far from certain, and the Austrian government had pology as secondary. “more castles than it could maintain.”189 Jones proposed that part of the problem was that the board A letter explaining the issues was circulated “to the members was insufficiently “firm.” Suggesting the need for a kind of of the Anthropological Profession” in May of 1978, signed muscular administrative bureaucracy, Jones said that Osmund- by Wadsworth. He said that the foundation took “great pride” sen perhaps “did not believe it [the board] really meant what in the “contributions that the Wartenstein conferences have it said. I think that this is a more reasonable charge against made to research in anthropology and related fields,” includ- the board—weakness of will, rather than fuzziness of instruc- ing the more than 120 books and many scholarly papers re- tions. Certainly the board has waffled on the sale of Warten- sulting from them. Unfortunately, however, the administrative stein—for justifiable reasons perhaps. But all the same it has costs of mounting the conference program had continued to waffled. And again, the board has repeatedly voted budgets it rise, producing a “budgetary imbalance” that was “inappro- disapproved of—again possibly for justifiable reasons. But all priate for the Foundation. . . . The Foundation will have no the same it has voted them.”195 He noted that “over her stren- choice but to hold the Wartenstein conferences in less costly uous objections” the board “closed out the casting program. We locations in the future.”190 The summer 1978 Wartenstein actively pursued the sale of E. 71st St., despite her protests that conferences would therefore not all be held at Wartenstein— if either property had to go, she would prefer to lose Warten- one would be an experimental conference, at Mt. Kisco, New stein. Above all we removed her from membership on the York, intended to “educate us to the problems of possible new board, which now meets sometimes without her. I submit that venues.” Wadsworth assured his readers that the format would these signals are strong enough to alert anyone, especially stay the same: privacy, extended meetings, intensive discus- anyone with Lita’s sensitive antenna, to the fact that the board sion, and comfortable accommodations.191 means business.”196 He then proposed that the real problem In the end, the symposia held at the castle the summer of was the “unusual situation” in the relationship between Os- 1980 were the last of an era. “The time at the castle was un- mundsen and the board. The board hesitated to fire her, believably depressing,” Osmundsen told Washburn that Oc- presumably because of the support for her in the anthropo- tober. “I had already turned the corner psychologically but logical community, and she thwarted their demands as much was not prepared for the impact of dealing with the people as she could, trying to preserve the casting program, the brown- involved. The tears and pain of realization were almost un- stone, and the castle—and to protect the commitment to anthropology (which really was threatened; fig. 48).

188. Wadsworth to Rich, August 2, 1979, ibid. 189. Memo, Frank W. Wadsworth, June 16, 1980, “Sale of Burg 192. Lita to Sherry Washburn, October 14, 1980, sent to Washburn at Wartenstein,” Board of Trustees Correspondence, January 1, 1980— Berkeley from Burg Wartenstein, in “Washburn, Dr. S. L.—Misc,” bound December 31, 1980, Box #BoT-8, WGF. folder, Box #MF-106, WGF. 190. Osmundsen’s handwritten calculations of “BW Expenses 1958– 193. Frank W. Wadsworth to the board of trustees, October 15, 1984. 1975” calculated the total as $1,476,763. This did not include, of course, In “Statements by Jones, Hunt, Wadsworth,” Box #BoT-9, WGF. the expenses of the various conferences, travel, etc. “BW Expenses by 194. Memo, July 3, 1979, labeled as “a letter from an older trustee to a Year & A/C, 1958–1975,” Box #BW-7, WGF. new member of the board (Will Jones)” and included in the ﬁle with the 191. Frank Wadsworth, letter to the Members of the Anthropological October 15, 1984, memo from Frank Wadsworth to the board of trustees, Profession, May 1, 1978, in “Burg Wartenstein Conference Program “A Brief History of BOT—Management Relations,” ibid. Questionnaire–1) Misc. correspondence; 2) Announcement re: disposi- 195. Ibid. tion of BW and Questionnaire Results,” Box #BW-7, WGF. 196. Ibid. S284 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

naire asked specifically what individual members of the board thought about Osmundsen’s management style, efficiency, ability to handle change, and so on. It included 17 questions about Osmundsen, naming her specifically: “Has Lita Osmundsen achieved a friendly, non-adversarial relationship to the BOT, been fully cooperative?” and “Has Lita Osmundsen demonstrated an appropriate interest in and comprehension of the Foundation’s finances?”199 The results varied widely among individuals, but the response of the board as a whole was to “rate her relatively high in the areas of professional compe- tency and relatively low in the areas of administrative ability.”200 Later that summer the executive committee reported to the board that “it occurred to us that whether we decide negatively about the caliber of Lita’s performance in the next twelve months, compromise on some form of early retirement, or give her a full vote of confidence, her tenure as President/ Director of Research could, for a variety of reasons, end in a relatively short time.”201 Wadsworth is now valorized in various official ways by the foundation because of this sequence of events. He ultimately played a crucial role in persuading the board to save the foundation for anthropology. The foundation has named two fellowships after him and says on its website that his “thirty-six years of service included ten years as Chairman of the Board of Trustees (1977–1987), ten years as Vice Chairman (1994– Figure 48. Lita Osmundsen with Wenner-Gren Foundation board members at Burg Wartenstein, 1974. Frank Wadsworth is second 2004), membership in the Executive Committee since its in- from the right (WGF archives). ception (1992–2006), Chairman of the Nominating Committee (1986–2004), and crucial roles on three presidential Search Committees.” Wadsworth, the foundation website says today, In his April 1979 report to the board of trustees (which “steered the Foundation through a period of profound crisis Osmundsen characterized as “impressionistic, superficial” in and more than anyone else in the Foundation’s history, is re- her handwritten notes in pencil responding to a draft report), sponsible for its survival and wellbeing. He had to make Wadsworth summarized the problems at the brownstone. decisions that were hard and unpopular at the time, but were These included staggered work times, so that “staff efficiency” instrumental in putting Wenner-Gren on a sound fiscal basis. was reduced, and a “leaderless” workplace, where Osmundsen Through his scholarly integrity and personal grace, he also “typically comes in at irregular hours.” The physical structure restored the trust of the anthropological profession in the of the brownstone itself was under attack because of time Foundation and its activities. His diligence, courage, wisdom, “wasted going from one floor to another, waiting for elevators, and dedication ensured that Wenner-Gren would continue to forwarding materials, etc. In addition, it results in a tendency benefit anthropology long into the future.” While he played a toward solitariness; one gets the impression that staff typically critical role in preserving WGF for anthropological research, retire to their own offices and work in relative isolation.”197 In the spring of 1983, the executive committee of the board of trustees drafted what was probably a humiliating (for Os- was operating in a rapidly changing environment and trying to hold on mundsen) “management evaluation” questionnaire and dis- to a vision of the foundation in which she was deeply invested. The tributed it to all members of the board.198 This question- blueprint that Osmundsen eventually produced was essentially to carry out the same programs with a reduced staff. One possible solution would have been to hire an associate director who could and would take care of the administrative details with which Osmundsen was less engaged, and 197. Ibid. this was considered for a while. Ibid. 198. At its winter meeting in 1981, the board had informed Os- 199. All in “EVALUATION of WG Foundation 1983,” Box #BoT-9, mundsen that it intended to make a formal review of her performance. WGF. She was asked to prepare a “blueprint” that would indicate her plans for 200. Frank W. Wadsworth to the board of trustees, “A Brief History the next 2 years and how she intended to keep herself and the board of BOT—Management Relations,” October 15, 1984, p. 2, in “Statements informed of changes in the legal operations and financial environments by Jones, Hunt, Wadsworth,” Box #BoT-9, WGF. that would affect the foundation. Here, Wadsworth seems to acknowl- 201. Executive committee to board of trustees, August 3, 1983, in edge that Osmundsen was not alone in generating these problems. She “EVALUATION of WG Foundation 1983,” Box #BoT-9, WGF. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S285 he also led the initiative to sell both the brownstone and the special qualities but also the friendship of a warm and under- castle, in theory assets that diversified the holdings of the standing gentleman” the minutes said in relation to one of these foundation, and he handled the firing of Osmundsen in prob- departing trustees. But later in the same minutes, Osmundsen’s lematic ways. resignation was treated without even polite praise. “The Pres- For instance, when Wadsworth circulated the questionnaire ident and Director of Research, Lita Osmundsen, having in- to members of the profession, Osmundsen was contacted by formed the Trustees of her resignation effective September 1, some of those queried, who asked her what was going on. 1986, the Trustees adopted the following resolution unani- Leading anthropologists sought out by members of the WGF mously after motion had been duly made and seconded.” This board of trustees could not fail to notice that these appeals resolution described the plans for a search for a successor.206 signaled a possible threat, either to the continuation of foun- Osmundsen retired at age 59. It was the end of an era. dation support for anthropology (there were rumors that their An announcement appeared in the Anthropology News- real goal was to turn the foundation to some other focus) or to letter, and notices (accompanied by a New Yorker cartoon) Osmundsen herself, an individual to whom many anthropol- were sent to about 150 eminent members of the field around ogists had deep allegiance and professional debts. the world. A list was also made of those 100 or so who re- Wadsworth’s own personal interviews with leading anthro- plied, including Claude Levi-Strauss in Paris, Mary Douglas pologists over that winter (1983/1984) led him to conclude in London, Dell Hymes in Philadelphia, Clifford Geertz in that the foundation was “well-known and highly regarded, one Princeton, Richard Leakey in Kenya, Sir Edmund Leach in person remarking that W-G and anthropology are insepa- Cambridge, Sidney Mintz at Johns Hopkins, Shirley Lin- rable in people’s minds. Only one person had strong negative denbaum in New York, Laura Nader in Berkeley, Francisco comments; these . . . concerned the foundation’s ‘cronyism’ and Salzano in Brazil, Phillip Tobais in South Africa, and Sherwood the inability of the ordinary anthropologist to communicate Washburn in Berkeley.207 easily with the foundation. One or two other persons echoed The news was received by many with a mix of surprise, this criticism mildly, noting that W-G does not ‘reach out’ dismay, and, as Thomas Beidelman wrote, “trepidations about strongly to the profession ‘at large.’”202 The image of both who would replace” her, often combined with expressions of the foundation and Osmundsen was “generally high although deep gratitude and admiration for Osmundsen’s leadership. there is agreement that the foundation does not ‘lead’ as it used Bob Ehrlich regarded her leaving as a “catastrophe for the to.”203 Martin noted that he had heard from Osmundsen that Foundation,” but acknowledged that “you have been rather people had called her about the survey. “Some whom I was unhappy there for some time.” For Brian Fagan, it was a “trag- about to see telephoned her to ask what was going on, [asked edy for anthropology, which is so sadly in need of aggressive her] why these interviews were taking place.”204 Harold Mar- leadership, such as you have provided in your inimitable way tin’s report was similar: “Although I took care not to bring up every since I have been a member of the community.” From Lita’s name myself, in every interview she was praised (even by Raymond Firth came the recollection that “For so many years one anthropologist who said he had ‘political’ differences with now . . . you have been so associated in my mind with the her and had, as well, spiteful things to say) as very capable and Foundation that the Board and the rest of the organization well-informed.”205 seemed to be just appendages.” Several acknowledged that The support of the anthropological community was not they knew her recent tenure had been rocky. Mary Douglas enough to slow the train, however. Osmundsen was forced described her receipt of the news as a “sad shock.” Musing, to resign. When the board of trustees met in July of 1985, “whatever can have happened to make it just not acceptable the minutes included lavish praise for two trustees who were for you to stay on where you had built so much and given so stepping down, describing their “unusually perceptive, objec- much of your remarkable talents? I fear the worst.” She con- tive” qualities and their “financial acumen and well reasoned tinued, reflecting that, “In a sense, I thought you ought to advice” as critical factors in helping the foundation to main- have resigned before, when the sale of the two buildings was tain financial stability. “The foundation will miss not only the carried through so [illegible]” before remarking, “You are the outstanding first of the many American professional women to make such an impact on me, with their generous support and 202. Wadsworth to BOT, February 2, 1984, p. 1, ibid. sympathy—I’ll always remember.”208 203. Ibid., 3. Osmundsen’s resignation was a pivot point in the history “ 204. (Presumably, almost certainly, they called her before they re- of the organization and prompted individuals who knew her ceived the explanatory statement and the questions.) I would like to think Lita did not play political games when they called (she said ‘a couple’ had done so) but I have no way of being sure about that. I did 206. Minutes of a special meeting of the trustees of Wenner Gren think once or twice that the interviewees introduction of her name into Foundation for Anthropological Research, held July 18 and 19, 1985, our conversation was somewhat less than casual, but I’m not even sure minute book, WGF. that is so. I do hope she did not initiate any calls.” Martin to Wadsworth, 207. Unnamed folder, Box #DoR-6, WGF. January 26, 1984, p. 2, ibid. 208. This is a sampling of dozens of letters of support sent to 205. Ibid., 1. Osmundsen in September 1985. S286 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 personally as well as institutions that had benefited from the When the time came to choose her successor, Osmundsen foundation’s largesse and intellectual leadership to request had a chance to comment on an early, long list of possible that she reconsider. To those in the know, this move marked candidates—14 leading scholars in anthropology, ranging an irrevocable break with a board of trustees increasingly across the four fields and with expertise in many different hostile to her perpetuation of an older and perhaps grander countries. Many were well known to her personally—they had “Old World” style of managing the foundation. Her depar- been grantees at WGF, had organized conferences, or had ture from the board represented, as J. Goody put it, “the negotiated with CA about some issue—and she knew their veritable end of an era!” (December 2, 1985, Goody to LO) research, their quirks, and their strengths. Her comments that had been sustained on the power of its social networks about them reflect a sharp, critical awareness of how much and the beginning of a new, more standardized, bureaucra- diplomacy and charm mattered to the foundation. Some lacked tized one. diplomacy, in her view, even if they had significant adminis- Old acquaintances such as Earl Count observed, “Over the trative experience; others could not be trusted; were rigid, in- course of the years I had repeated occasion to ask myself, flexible, impatient, or intolerant; lacked objectivity; and could what would Paul think about the fortunes of his brain-child?” be “abrasive.” In her catalog of what was lacking in these (December 22, 1985, Count to Minx). Kailish C. Malhotra, candidates, Osmundsen mapped an outline of what she saw as professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Delhi expressed her strengths and her proper role as president: open, gracious, his sincere “hope that you would kindly withdraw your res- flexible, objective.210 With her retirement, the foundation en- ignation and that we Anthropologists and the discipline of tered a new era (fig. 49).211 Anthropology for which you have rendered selfles [sic] service ” will continue to have your valuable guidance and services Reinvention: Sydel Silverman and the New WGF (January 31, 1986, Malhotra to LO). Meanwhile, David Ham- burg, president of the Carnegie corporation, a peer institution, When Sydel Silverman became president of WGF in early wrote to express his “shock” and admiration. “I can think of 1987, the foundation was in crisis (fig. 50). Osmundsen’s long, no one in the grant making world, either private or public, who painful exit, at least a decade in the making, had taken a toll contributed so much as you. Your record is simply superb.” on the staff and on programs and even on the public image of He added that with regard to the castle meetings, “I always the foundation. The real estate was gone, the casting program thought your unique capacity to deal with all of us prima was gone, and Current Anthropology had barely survived. The donnas was the key factor in the success of these extraordinary foundation was in rented quarters at the American Bible So- meetings” (November 14, 1985, Hamburg to LO). Many sim- ciety building near Columbus Circle. (It moved again to 220 ply could not imagine WGF without her. Fifth Avenue in March of 1990 and to its present quarters at Osmundsen was aware of the potential strategic value of this 470 Park Avenue South in April 2004.) And the board of outpouring of support, and she forwarded to the chair of the trustees expected change (a lot of it). board of trustees those letters that she believed could be ef- Silverman also had to contend with an emotional legacy in fective. A few highly negative ones—which accused the board the anthropological community. Many found it hard to imag- harshly—she withheld, but others were copied and forwarded. ine the foundation continuing to function without Osmundsen. This had no effect, however. The board’s decision was final. It had been intimately linked to her personality and style. Sil- In a nostalgic letter to Osmundsen written in the midst of verman recalled that Osmundsen was viewed by many in the this crisis, old friend and trustee emeritus John W. Dodds profession as a “fairy godmother” who could magically pro- reminded her of happier times. “I often think how much the duce the resources to make things happen. Anthropologists foundation meant to me over the years, how it educated me whom the foundation supported felt personally grateful to her (at least partially) in new and exciting directions, how much it rather than grateful to an institution. When the AAA gave its meant to be close to you and Paul, how warm and congenial first awards for service to the profession in 1976, they went the board was as a group, how thrilling the Wartenstein ad- to Osmundsen—a foundation administrator who did not pub- venture was—indeed the whole network of relationships. When lish—and to Margaret Mead, one of anthropology’s most vis- I retired thinking that it was the proper thing to do at my age, ible public intellectuals. and how the foundation might prosper with some fresh blood, In contrast to Osmundsen’s “fairy godmother” persona, Sil- I had no idea that everyone else would grimly hang on, or that verman had a no-nonsense, businesslike style. She described the board would expand to a total of 11 members, which makes herself as “running a good operation”—oriented around the it, I would assume, a different kind of custodial operation. Do you remember that we used to talk about anthropology?”209 210. Osmundsen “Confidential Comments for Chairman’s Eyes Only,” undated, but probably February 1986, in “Search Committee (Candidates for DOR’s position.” Box #BoT-9, WGF. 211. Osmundsen died in January 1998 at the age of 71 as a result of 209. Dodds to Lita, January 2, 1985, in folder “Dodds, Dr. John W., pulmonary hypertension. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/16/nyregion Trustee emeritus,” Box #DoR-4, WGF. /lita-s-osmundsen-71-an-anthropologist.html. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S287

In 1972 she married anthropologist Eric Wolf (1923–1999), who had studied at Columbia a decade before her (PhD 1951) and who came to the CUNY Graduate Center in 1971. Wolf ’s (1982) most widely known work, Europe and the People without History, is a wide-ranging historical exploration of trade routes and manufacturing industries with a focus on the roles of peasants and laborers in global change.214 He was a part of the inner circle at WGF, participating in the September 1960 symposium at Burg Wartenstein on “Anthropological Hori- zons” and organizing a 1965 symposium at Burg Wartenstein, “The Evolutionist Interpretation of Culture.” In the summer of 1978, Silverman attended a WGF symposium at Burg War- tenstein, with Wolf, on social inequality, and like Wolf she found the setting and the style of the international symposia productive and compelling. Losing the castle, she later recalled, was worse than losing the brownstone.215 Her experience with academic leadership prepared her well for her role in WGF. She served as chair of the anthropology department at Queens, revived the PhD program at the City Figure 49. Lita Osmundsen in front of the brownstone at 14 East University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, and served 71st Street, New York City, 1975 (WGF archives). as its acting dean—a job that she did so well she was asked to assume the position in a more formal capacity. Though she turned the opportunity down, the experience helped her real- practical and efficient management of resources. Silverman’s ize that she was good at and enjoyed this kind of work. Other mandate was to bring the foundation into a new era that was people realized it too, and she began to receive invitations to more bureaucratic, structured, and cautious in some ways. The apply for directorships of organizations, including small uni- time of an Old World genteel (even romantic) Wenner-Gren versities and large foundations and even the role of NSF pro- culture was being replaced with practices that reflected broader gram officer for anthropology. These leadership roles in aca- trends in American institutional life. deme taught her “not to care about being popular”—something Silverman was the first president of the Wenner-Gren Foun- any academic administrator can appreciate—and made her dation for Anthropological Research who was a practicing and realize that she “really liked running things.”216 credentialed anthropologist. She studied four-field anthropology When the position became available at WGF, she hesitated. at the University of Chicago (1952–1957) and Columbia Uni- “It sounded like a can of worms.” She was interested in the versity (1957–1963), earning her PhD with a dissertation that position and the possibilities, but she knew enough about the focused on an agrarian Italian hill town, Montecastello di Vibio. turmoil at the foundation over the previous few years—“ev- This relatively novel decision, to focus on a European (rather erybody knew”—to be unsure about whether she should ap- than isolated or “primitive”) community, was inspired by Con- ply. When two members of the board encouraged her, how- rad Arensberg’s cultural anthropological work in Europe. Arens- ever, she did. She recalled her interview, held at the Mayflower berg, who was on the faculty at Columbia when Silverman was Hotel, as stressful. Board members grilled her, pressing her there, proposed that the tools of anthropology could be pro- about the value of the small grants to PhD students under- ductively applied to complex modern societies.212 His work taking their first field research that served, and continue to, as focused on Ireland, and using his approach as her model, she one of the foundation’s main forms of support to the profes- conducted fieldwork in Umbria, Italy. Though Silverman later sion. Proposing that these small grants were a waste of re- said she was “never good at fieldwork,” she published Three sources, one trustee commented provocatively, “You get what Bells of Civilization: The Life of an Italian Hill Town in 1975.213 you pay for, you know,” to which Silverman retorted, “Any- She taught at Queens College in New York (1962–1975) and one who says that does not shop at Loehmanns.”217 Word became executive officer of the City University of New York (CUNY) PhD program in anthropology (1975–1986).

214. For a brief interview and proﬁle of Wolf, see http://www.indiana 212. Sydel Silverman, interview by Susan Lindee and Joanna Radin, .edu/~wanthro/theory_pages/Wolf.htm (accessed August 7, 2016). August 25, 2014, New York, NY. 215. Silverman, interview. 213. Silverman, 2008 autobiographical information on the website of 216. Ibid. the National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institution, 217. Loehmann’s, now strictly online, was a popular discount retailer http://www.anthropology.si.edu/naa/fa/silverman.pdf (accessed August 7, known for selling high-quality women’s clothing at deep discounts. Sil- 2016). verman, interview. S288 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

tively seek donations, meaning any increase in resources would depend on the investment performance of the endowment. She, alongside the board, crafted a spending policy linking annual expenditures to its investment performance. This rigorous fiscal management, both on the investing and spending sides, put the foundation on track to prosper for years to come. WGF had come to terms with the new realities and under new leadership was able to effect change. In the spring of 1987, newly in charge, Silverman laid out the issues that the foundation faced for the board of trustees. Policy for the foundation should reflect, she asserted, “the kind of discipline anthropology is, and the way research in anthropology is conducted.”219 She then proceeded to present a brief tutorial on the nature of four-field anthropology, roughly equivalent to a first-semester lecture, and an outline of the existing state of funding for anthropological research. The NSF, with a $7 million annual budget for anthropological research at that time, was the leading source of designated funds. WGF allocated all its support to anthropology, but many other agencies and foundations offered some funding, including the SSRC, foundations with area interests around the world, special foundations devoted to particular forms of research such as paleontology (Leakey Foundation), and other organizations such as the National Geographic Society, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Spencer Foundation. For Silverman, this Figure 50. Sydel Silverman, Wenner-Gren Foundation presi- brief summary suggested the crucial roles of the WGF small dent, 1987–2000 (WGF archives). grants-in-aid program, which supported PhD students.220 The foundation, Silverman told her board, should make its best contributions to anthropology by defining an identity trickled back to her that everyone loved that she had stood grounded in four components. First, it should be inclusive, “em- up to this somewhat difficult trustee. She was offered the po- bracing the range of subfields, interests and approaches that sition, and she agreed to accept a 3-year appointment. In the make up contemporary anthropology.” Specializing in a par- end, she stayed for four terms, 12 years, from 1987 until 1999. ticular subfield would risk missing new developments in the She began the job with Osmundsen still active and making forefront of the field, which Silverman was convinced often an effort to introduce Silverman to the workings of the foun- happened in the interactions among subfields, and risked be- dation. Silverman, for her part, wanted to assure the profes- ing “written off” by “large segments of the discipline.” This sion that two hallmarks of the foundation, its small grants perspective then explicitly questioned the idea of a special “fo- program and its investment in American-style four-field an- cus” for the foundation. Second, it should be in the forefront thropology, would continue. She highlighted this in a 1986 of promoting international communication. “Unless interna- profile in the Anthropology Newsletter. One trustee objected tional linkages are aggressively fostered, they will not be there that she could not speak for the foundation without board when researchers need them.” Third, WGF should focus on approval—but Silverman gradually established a different re- special forms of support not available through other funding lationship with the board. Sustaining her scholarly autonomy sources. The foundation could not compete with NSF, but it and her right to act independently of the board in scholarly did have “direct access to the confidence of its constituency, matters relating to anthropology would be among Silverman’s who are prepared to support its efforts with their time and challenges.218 expertise.” It also had “flexibility” and a “minimum of bu- Silverman also struggled to maintain the “Old World” cul- reaucratic impediment . . . without the intervention and over- ture of WGF while bringing the foundation in line with new head charges that come with funding through institutions.” expectations. On Silverman’s watch, WGF became a modern, Finally, Silverman proposed, the foundation should establish a operating foundation involved in the active execution of pro- continuing role in innovation and leadership in anthropology grams and with a required annual disbursement of approx- as a whole. imately 4.2% of the endowment. The foundation did not ac-

219. Silverman, “Statements of Jones, Hunt and Wadsworth,”“The Wenner-Gren Foundation: Identity and Goals,” Box #BoT-9, WGF. 218. Silverman, interview. 220. Ibid. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S289

This was part of the Wenner-Gren identity until recent years, every element of Silverman’s evolving vision for the founda- and it can be once again. The foundation has the advantage tion, its historical legacy and successes were emphasized. Some of being independent of institution, national and factional elements of the romantic past were gone forever, but the foun- interests, its only commitment being to the discipline as a dation could continue to “fulfill the goals of the Wartenstein whole. Moreover, the track record of the Foundation in symposia in the absence of a fixed facility” and could continue forging new directions for anthropology is still well enough to support creative or risky projects that might need to be nur- known for it to be able to aggressively reclaim that role. tured early with minimal bureaucratic interference (fig. 51).225 The best qualities of Osmundsen’s personal approach could be The foundation should seek to identify research that “could be kept alive even in the new computerized and efficient foun- advanced by a limited infusion of funds, or that for one reason dation world of the 1980s. or another falls through the cracks in the world of funding” and Through the 12 years of her service as president, Silver- should take the initiative to identify where the field is going man oversaw an improved financial situation, a stabilized and and where opportunities with “unusual promise” might lie. more professional relationship with members of the board “Anthropology,” she emphasized “has gone through a period of trustees, and the creation of new programs, including the of increasing specialization and fragmentation, but there is now extension of the Developing Countries Training Fellowship a growing concern to return to the underlying questions that to support advanced anthropological training for black South make it a unified discipline.”221 Africans at the University of Cape Town and the University of In her first program review the following fall, she singled the Witwatersrand. (This program is now known as the Wads- out the small grants program as “the single most effective ac- worth African Fellowship Program and the Wadsworth In- tivity of the foundation” which had “benefited from a fairly ternational Fellowship Program.) She also created the (now rigorous review process” and “enjoys credibility within the defunct) International Collaborative Research Grant, which profession.”222 Her only important recommended changes supported research collaborations between two or more qual- focused on the procedures in-house for awarding the grants— ified scholars from different countries and representing dif- revised application forms, eliminating the preliminary appli- ferent, complementary perspectives, knowledge, and/or skills. cation stage, increasing application and award dates to twice Her strong interests in history led to the Council for the a year, and computerization of the grants management pro- Preservation of Anthropological Records, also known as CoPAR. cess with attendant notification procedures for applicants.223 A 1992 international symposium, “Preserving the Anthropo- Some things could be safely dropped entirely—the senior scholar logical Record: Issues and Strategies” was organized by Silver- research stipends, for example, and the post-doctoral training man and Nanci Parezo, an anthropologist and historian of fellowships, while others should be subject to a longer assess- the discipline, to assess the “survival of the historical records” ment and some revisions, such as the developing countries of anthropology. Reflecting concerns befitting a maturing dis- training fellowships and the Pacific Studies program.224 cipline, CoPAR also reckoned with the challenges new tech- A year later she could claim a kind of success. Her president’s nologies, such as computers and e-mail, were posing to the report for 1988 said that the “process of self-reflection and re- maintenance of unpublished materials: the field notes, corre- evaluation of its programs” during her first year affirmed the spondence, and data sets from which anthropological knowl- focus on an anthropology that embraced cultural/social an- edge is made. thropology, ethnology, biological/physical anthropology, ar- CoPAR is now a nonprofit sponsored by the major US chaeology, and anthropological linguistics. She explicitly prior- anthropological organizations in cooperation with the Society itized basic research, saying that “applications” to public policy of American Archivists, the American Library Association, and the like were fine as long as the project would “contribute and the National Park Service. Its website, www.copar.org, to the development of basic research.” Silverman also empha- maintains guides to anthropological field notes and manu- sized the unique niche that WGF filled. Because its resources scripts in archival repositories. provided “only a minute proportion of the total funding for re- Silverman was also particularly concerned with the preser- search in anthropology, . . . Its approach, therefore, is to direct vation of the historical record of anthropology and introduced its resources toward needs not met by larger funders, to re- the Historical Archives Program to help anthropologists pre- spond to such needs with flexibility and a minimum of bu- pare and deposit their unpublished research materials in ar- reaucratic impediment, and to seek opportunities to foster in- chival repositories. Since its inception, approximately 135 grants novation and leadership at the forefronts of anthropology.” In valued at $1.3 million have been made to preserve unpublished research materials that might otherwise have been lost and to carry out oral history interviews with significant figures in the fl 221. Silverman, October 1987, “President’s Report: Programmatic discipline. Her leadership is re ected in the historical sensi- Recommendations and Five-Year Goals,” ibid. bilities that continue at WGF today. 222. Ibid. 223. Ibid. 224. Ibid. 225. Ibid. S290 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 51. Symposium 125, “Anthropology at the End of the Century,” held in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, October 28–November 5, 1999. Left to right, Shirley Lindenbaum, Mary Ellen Morbeck, Sydel Silverman, Alan Goodman, and Timothy Bromage (WGF archives).

WGF at the Millennium: Richard Fox famine I also suffered for lack of food since people wouldn’t sell to me on the black market for fear I’d turn them in. It was a When Silverman stepped down in 2000, her replacement was very difficult time personally, but I did learn a lot in that town. Washington University cultural anthropologist Richard Fox I had a better understanding of inequality and the political fi ( g. 52). Trained in materialist anthropology and ethnogra- relation between the local and the national and also of In- phy at the University of Michigan (PhD 1965), Fox was a dian beliefs and how I needed to respect them even though I cultural anthropologist whose studies of India explored com- was trying to get away from the notion of India as ‘spiri- “ ” munity change, culture in the making (which he viewed as tual’”(Starn and Bar 2006:158). “ not anything like the concept of culture as most anthro- Recalling his years as president of WGF, Fox highlighted ” fl pologists use it ), and the ideas and in uence of Mohandas one decision that “might seem small in retrospect, but it mat- Gandhi (Starn and Bar 2006:159). His work engaged with de- tered to me quite a bit.” This was the decision to stop using bates about nationalism and nationalist ideologies, colonialism, the Miguel Covarrubias image of the “diversity of mankind” as social movements, urban experience, and the dynamics of cul- a symbol of WGF.226 The Covarrubias logo features four fig- tural invention and change (Fox 1969, 1971, 1977). Fox taught ures, dancing together and apparently representing African, at Brandeis University, Duke University, and Washington Greek, Native American, and Asian cultures, or perhaps the University and also served as editor of both American Ethnol- “four races” of “man.” It was created at the request of the ogist and, later, Current Anthropology, before becoming president of WGF. – He was drawn to anthropology as a student by the “wind-in- 226. Designed by Miguel Covarrubias (1904 1957), a Mexican artist and anthropologist who was commissioned in 1947 by WGF (then the-palms variety” of anthropology produced by Margaret fi fi known as the Viking Fund) to design the Viking Fund medal. The medal Mead and Ruth Benedict and then did his rst year of eld- was awarded to honor outstanding intellectual leadership and excep- work in a famine year in 1963/1964 in a desperately poor town tional service to the discipline of anthropology. It was originally struck in “ in India (Starn and Bar 2006). There were a couple of riots heavy bronze with a 3-inch diameter, and it depicts four dancers, rep- and beatings in the time I was there. Muslims sent their fam- resenting the diversity of humankind. The design served as the logo of ilies out of town for safety. It wasn’t a happy place, and in the the foundation except for the 5 years of Fox’s presidency, 2000–2005. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S291

the board to support a competition for a new logo, and the winning design, of a handprint, was adopted during his tenure as president. “The hand could serve as a symbol of cultural or biological anthropology.” Fox said he wanted “to see all this antiquarian and elitist background that the foundation rightly or wrongly was seen to have—that glitzy view of anthropology—removed. I thought that by changing the logo we could take the first step to do that.”228 He was not the only president to struggle with the legacies of the 1948 logo, which is intimately bound up with the history of the foundation but which also reflects ideas about anthropology that many find offensive. Silverman had removed the logo from the letterhead during her tenure, though she continued to use it as the symbol of the foundation. Fox created the handprint logo during his tenure, but that never seemed to really catch on. Aiello revived the old Covarrubias symbol because of its historical connection with the foundation. Yet in anticipation of the upcoming 75th anniversary, the board rethought the logo and in early 2016 adopted a new one. The foundation’s new logo, Aiello hopes, can resonate with the historically important Covarrubias symbol for WGF but also capture anthropology as it is practiced in the twenty- first century. Fox took over the foundation in 2001, just before the September 11 attacks in New York City, a few miles away from the foundation’s headquarters. He recalled that earlier that September, he had decided that it would be useful to see whether there were any archival records from the first pres- — Figure 52. Richard G. Fox, Wenner-Gren Foundation president, ident of the board the Wenner-Gren attorney Richard Carley 2000–2005 (WGF archives). Hunt. “So I wrote to the law firm that had become the successor to his own firm, asking if they had any archival materials ” fi ’ fi foundation in 1947 as a design for the Viking Fund medal and from Hunt, because we did not have much. This rm sof ces “ is a clear reflection both of Covarrubias’s artistic style and of were in the World Trade Center. Then 9/11 came and the the times. Covarrubias had made his name as a caricaturist, whole place went up in smoke. Whether there were records or ’ ”229 illustrator (e.g., for Vanity Fair and the New Yorker), and stage not we don t know. A piece of Wenner-Gren history was designer in New York in the 1920s but later established him- perhaps lost in an attack that reshaped United States culture self as an ethnologist and archaeologist in Mexico in the 1930s, and politics. ’ 1940s, and 1950s. He knew Axel Wenner-Gren when he lived in Fox s tenure at WGF was characterized by expanded funding Mexico beginning in the 1940s, and the foundation also funded for junior anthropologists by increasing the stipend for the his archaeological research at the preclassic site of Tlatilco in Richard Carley Hunt Memorial Fellowship and an enhanced the Valley of Mexico in the 1940s. panel system for peer reviewing all grants and fellowships fi During Fox’s tenure, the Covarrubias dancing figure image ( g. 53). He also established the Wenner-Gren International was replaced by a simple hand print. The new logo, Fox said Symposium Publication Series in collaboration with Berg Pub- fi in his first annual report to the board, was “adopted to better lishers, a dif cult negotiation that went a long way toward guar- represent anthropology in its current states” and replaced an anteeing that symposium papers would be available to all rel- image “adopted by the foundation fifty years ago.”227 In dis- evant scholars. Some symposia had not resulted in publications cussing his decision, Fox said that the logo represented “an partly because organizers were expected to negotiate with presses ’ anthropology that I did not have any sympathy with. This was to publish them. Fox s decision to support publication with WGF — — for several reasons: One it portrayed people in ways that I funding and to negotiate in advance through Berg estab- thought were racist and sexist. Two it showed people dancing, lished a precedent for the current practice of publishing a doing something ceremonial, when I thought anthropology special issue of Current Anthropology. was about more than enjoying funny customs.” He convinced

228. Fox, 2000–2001 biennial report, p. 4 227. Fox, 2000–2001 biennial report, p. 4 229. Ibid. S292 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 53. Francis Nyamnjoh, Kregg Hetherington, Orin Starn, and Richard Fox (left to right) in the wine cellar at Villa Luppis, Pordenone, Italy, location of symposium 135, “Indigenous Experience Today,” March 18–25, 2005 (WGF archives).

Fox recalled his commitments to attracting more inter- fluential, but that the new strategies of the foundation, which national applications to WGF and his efforts to reconfigure do not emphasize large single awards, sustain anthropology some elements of the budget. The Small Grants program was but do not drive it. formally renamed the Dissertation Fieldwork and Post-PhD “ ‘ ’ Research Grant programs ( Because there were no large grants Leslie Aiello and the Contemporary Foundation so why have a ‘small grants’ program?”). He viewed the program as supportive of anthropology graduate programs but The president of WGF today is US evolutionary anthropol- not necessarily the most efficient and effective use of WGF ogist Leslie C. Aiello, whose work on the Expensive Tissue funding. He wanted to bring the spending for these advanced Hypothesis (with Peter Wheeler) has been broadly influential graduate students under control. He also worked to reduce the in the field (fig. 54). The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis posits costs associated with the symposium program. Having partic- an inverse relationship between brain size and gut size me- ipated in one of the “old style” symposia, he found that by the diated through the adoption of a high-quality, animal-based sixth or seventh day people were exhausted and the conver- diet. Aiello is the first physical anthropologist to lead WGF sations began to lag. He shortened the format he inherited by even though the foundation is widely viewed as particularly one day. influential in physical or biological anthropology. Her route In 2006, when he looked back on his work for the foun- to this leadership role was slightly circuitous. “I was probably dation, he seemed to see little change. “I think I had a bigger a sort of accidental academic.” Educated in California in the impact on anthropology through the journal, mainly because 1960s, she was swept along with the huge post-Sputnik ex- of starting the electronic edition in 1999” (Starn and Bar 2006: pansion of higher education in which jobs were plentiful, and 162). He described the satisfactions of bringing back the Vi- even master’s degree candidates could often earn tenure. She king Fund Medal (for a senior anthropologist) and moving to got her master’s and started teaching. “I loved it, loved teach- a new building in 2004. “But did my work at the Foundation ing. I was just a year or two too late to get a full-time job with make a major impact on anthropology? I doubt it.” He sug- a master’s. I would have been extremely happy teaching in a gested that early presidents, particularly Fejos, had been in- community college and staying there.” Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S293

possible to know almost everyone personally. And an anthropologist could be a generalist.” Today the field is both larger and more diverse in every sense, and “people don’t see the connections the way they once did.” Every subfield has more than one research trajectory. Social anthropology has reflexively critiqued its own historical roles in colonial power and begun to “study up”; biological anthropology has branched out into molecular methods, quantitative analysis, forensic work, public health, and studies of DNA; archaeology is seriously engaged with contract work, museums, heritage, and laboratory research; and linguistics is almost fractured between language computation and old-fashioned fieldwork. Taken as a whole, these basically useful developments have produced “a problem of defining what modern anthropology is.” Today, Aiello notes, it is a question of where anthropology ends and other disciplines begin. When does medical anthropology become public health or when does primatology veer so far from anthropological questions to become pure animal behavior or zoology? She proposes that it is difficult to unite today’s dis- parate research methods, assumptions, foci, and practices into a single unified whole.230 The expansion of the discipline in size and range, Aiello has learned, also means that a preserved endowment, which in real dollars is approximately the same as it was in 1968, cannot go as far. There are too many people and too many projects. WGF cannot have an effect equivalent to the impact it had in the early days, when almost everyone practicing Figure 54. Leslie C. Aiello, Wenner-Gren Foundation president, 2005–2017. anthropology could be supported or included in some way. When Fejos convinced Wenner-Gren to fund anthropology, the discipline was nascent, and a small amount of funding She decided, instead, to go back to get a PhD when her first could make a huge difference. “But we are a mature discipline marriage broke up and, with the help of good friends, en- now” she has said, suggesting that her “main challenge since rolled at St. Thomas’s Hospital Medical School, University of taking over a decade ago has been to develop new and ef- London. After a year, in 1976 an opportunity at University fective ways to impact the field.” College London in biological anthropology reconfigured her Aiello was not headhunted for the WGF presidency. She career. “They were desperate to find someone to fill in be- “saw the advert” and “it looked like it was written for me.” cause the professor had just died unexpectedly.” She was She had never applied for funding from WGF, never acted as a hired, and “30 years later I was still there.” She became head of reviewer for the foundation, and never been invited to a her department 1996–2002, then head of the graduate school, symposium. But she “decided immediately that I was inter- in which role she established one of the first ethical review ested.” Around this time she realized she was “not getting the boards for the social sciences in the United Kingdom. kick out of human evolution that I used to, was definitely Teaching was difficult, particularly in the early years, because overextended, and I felt that I wasn’t doing anything well. I was she had a serious speech impediment when she was young. “I actually doing too much.” Until she arrived at the foundation, still stutter when I get nervous,” she said. The first time she tried Aiello said, “I didn’t realize how burned out I was.” to get a teaching license in California she failed because of the She took over in 2005 and enjoyed 3 years of a growing en- stutter. Eventually, however, she became someone comfortable dowment. Then she had to ride out the 2008 financial crisis, enough to appear first on BBC Radio and later even on tele- which slowly began to affect what WGF could do as assets vision. “The first time I did TV I remember telling the producer fell. The foundation’s funding protocols were always flexi- ‘I’m so glad none of my friends are going to see this.’ And a ble, and there were relatively few long-term commitments, so quarter of a million people were watching that show. I still Aiello and her Vice President for Finance Maugha Kenny cal- won’t watch myself on TV or listen to myself on the radio.” ibrated their options and “put their seat belts on.” The foun- For Aiello, taking over the foundation required not only interacting with a broad range of people but coming to terms with the rich diversity of anthropology today. “When Paul 230. All quotes are from an interview with S. Lindee, October 8, 2015, and Lita were in charge,” she said in an interview, “it was at the Wenner-Gren office in New York. S294 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 dation was in the fortunate position of having no “big ticket” theories of human evolution often attract journalists, but the items or long-term commitments. The success rate for WGF social anthropologists may work within theoretical traditions grants fell, and maximum grant amounts were reduced. “We that are less accessible. With editorial offices at the Denver could manage the outgo in real time,” Aiello said, so that they Museum of Nature and Science and an editor, Chip Colwell, could control the damage. During the crash, WGF also halved who has significant experience in public outreach, the site has the number of international symposia to one a year. Although already generated enthusiasm within anthropology, as editors the foundation lost a considerable percentage of its endow- of journals have agreed to alert SAPIENS.org about new pa- ment during the economic downturn, it has rebounded and is pers and findings (fig. 55). again in a healthy position. Throughout the crisis it was able to Colwell has put together a team of science writers and preserve both its very experienced staff (who are critical to all bloggers who will help produce the content, and he has forged the programs) and its support for doctoral students. connections with Scientifi c American, Discover, Slate, and other The foundation has provided about $100 million in re- established venues where science stories often appear. WGF has search support since the mid-1980s, an average of about 200 also launched a new grant program, starting in 2015, called grants per year, about 50% of those to doctoral students. This “Innovations in the Public Awareness of Anthropology,” which has, Aiello suggests, “kept anthropology alive” by supporting encourages anthropologists to think outside the box and de- PhD students at a critical point in their research. Some of these velop projects to raise the profile of anthropology outside of fledgling WGF recipients do receive NSF or other grants, but academe. “It’s very easy for a foundation to stagnate,” says “we are always happy to fund good projects that may not Aiello. “We want to raise the profile of anthropology and show succeed with other agencies and we are particularly happy to people its relevance to their daily lives.” fund international students who may not be eligible to apply She has seen her role as effectively stewarding the endow- to traditional US sources.” ment to best serve the field as it moves forward. “We are re- Partly because of this program, departments of anthropology in the United States, Aiello observed, are more dependent on WGF for graduate student research support than might be ideal. “Are we training too many students?” she asks. While there are many other sources of support for anthropologists in training, WGF plays an important symbolic role that she recognizes. “Right now we can only fund 15% of the applications we get and it is becoming increasingly difficult to fund blue-sky anthropology, that might just be an interesting idea without an immediate practical implication.” This was the sort of thing Fejos often did in the early years, and it was long associated with WGF, which could be receptive to new (perhaps half-formed) ideas that needed support to develop. Under Aiello’s leadership, WGF has developed initiatives that can encourage more cutting-edge programs, including Institutional Development Grants (to raise capacity in anthropology departments outside the United States) and Engaged Anthropology Grants to support grantees sharing project results with their research communities. As this historical account suggests, Aiello today sees the 75th anniversary as a time for the foundation to think about both its origins and its future. The new Fejos Post- doctoral Fellowship in Ethnographic Film celebrates Paul Fejos’s pioneering role in the development of that genre, while one of Aiello’s most important initiatives focuses on “looking outward” to the broader world to encourage public engagement with anthropology as a research field. This takes the form of a “Huf- fington Post for anthropology,” the evolving website SAPIENS that features accessible and lively reports about anthropology and anthropological research, including essays by leading scholars, topical blogs, debates, and news reports on current research that can help journalists and the public understand anthropol- Figure 55. Chip Colwell, editor-in-chief of SAPIENS, at the ogy today. SAPIENS launch held at the American Anthropological Asso- Aiello particularly hopes that the contributions of social ciation meetings in Denver, Colorado, November 18–22, 2015 anthropology can be brought to greater public attention. New (WGF archives). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S295 sponsible only to ourselves and to the field—that is a luxury.” suitable backdrop for the traditional WGF symposium photo She does answer to her board, the membership of which does (fig. 56). Conference Program Associate Laurie Obbink, who not include anthropologists but does include many trustees has been involved in managing the symposia for 30 years, takes with long-standing interest in the field. Board members serve care of the administrative and planning details and plays a key a maximum of 12 years, and the number of members is re- support role during each meeting. The staff at the Portugal quired to be between 7 and 17. Importantly, half of the board Palácio knows what WGF needs. “It is better than Burg War- members are financial professionals who help to manage the tenstein,” Aiello says. “Sintra is a World Heritage site, and within endowment and ensure that the foundation continues to 10 minutes’ walkofthePaláciothereisavillagewherepeoplecan thrive.231 go for a beer, coffee, or just a wander. It is near a nature reserve Of equal and enduring importance is the advisory council, with a Moorish castle on one hill and a nineteenth-century which is composed entirely of anthropologists and is deeply Romanistic palace on another, and it is only half an hour from involved in the discipline. The seven-member advisory coun- the airport. It solves all the issues.” cil now always includes the editor of Current Anthropology While Aiello was never invited to attend a Burg Wartenstein (currently Mark Aldenderfer), which keeps CA connected with symposium—she was a junior scholar when the castle was the foundation and its work. It also includes the new editor sold—in 2015, when she was in Vienna to give a talk, she went of SAPIENS.org, Chip Colwell. The advisory council meets with two colleagues to see it. It looked the same, “like a castle,” twice a year, the timing matched to the board meetings, so that and she and her friends ignored the No Parking and No the advisory council meeting comes first, and “we have a full- Trespassing signs to drive their car to the plaza near the gate. day AC meeting, go over the discussion materials, and decide A man came out of the gatehouse, and when they explained on program and other recommendations for the board.” The who they were, he revealed that he was the grandson of Frau advisory council was not originally given a decision-making Haupt, the castellan who wrote the recipe book that included roll, but now they make funding decisions for the Institutional “Klausenburger Krauttopf a la Dr. Fejos.” He reported that Development Grant and the symposium program. his grandmother Frau Haupt lived in the gatehouse until Meanwhile, the symposium program has stabilized in ways her death in the 1990s and that his mother lived there still. that almost replicate the early years at the castle. Generally Raymond Rich, who had purchased the castle from WGF, there is a spring symposium and a fall symposium, usually continued to own it until his death in 2009, and it was now two each year though occasionally there are more, held in one occupied by his partner, the lawyer who initially handled of an established set of venues that have hosted conferences the sale, Claire Carlson. Carlson spends every summer at the more than once. These are beautiful places where the foun- house, he said, is well loved in the village, and sponsors a dation has a reliable network of support staff and the food and festive Fourth of July party on the castle grounds to which entertainment are up to the standards of WGF. They have everyone is invited—whether they usually celebrate Amer- included the Haringe Slott Palace, in Stockholm, Sweden (in ican independence or not. Wenner-Gren’s former “Summer Palace”); the Hotel Rosa dos For Aiello, running the foundation has been both a challenge Ventos, in Teresopolis, Brazil; the Hotel Villa Montana, in and a pleasure. “WGF is just a lot of fun,” she says (fig. 57). She Morelia, Mexico; and El Parador, in Ronda, Spain. will step down in 2017. After an exhaustive search, the new Increasingly, in recent years, all symposia are held at Palácio president is Danilyn Rutherford, a social anthropologist from de Seteais in Sintra, Portugal, an eighteenth-century moun- the University of California, Santa Cruze. The WGF begins a tainside castle that is now a hotel with gardens, mazes, and new chapter. a spa. Palácio de Seteais is able to supply both spaces and services, and its dramatic architecture and grounds make a Conclusions: Value Incongruence After the castle was sold in 1980, some members of the board fi 231. The current board members are Leslie C. Aiello (president, of trustees were suf ciently disenchanted with the memory of WGF), Ira Berlin (department of history, University of Maryland), Cass Axel Wenner-Gren to suggest that his formal portrait, then Cliatt (vice president for communications, Brown University), Henry being shipped to New York from Burg Wartenstein, should Gonzalez, (head of research, responsAbility Investments, AG), John not be displayed at the foundation (fig. 58). At a spring board Immerwahr (department of philosophy, Villanova University), Meredith meeting, “a somewhat casual but pointed statement [was] Jenkins (vice president and cochief investment officer, Carnegie Cor- made” to the effect that the Howard Chandler Christy por- poration of New York), Darcy Kelley, (department of biological sciences, trait “would never be seen again.”232 Howard Chandler Christy Columbia University), Seth J. Masters (executive vice president, Alliance- (1873–1952) commanded “lucrative commissions for portraits Bernstein), Lauren Meserve (deputy chief investment officer, Metropolitan of Benito Mussolini, Crown Prince Umberto of Italy, humorist Museum of Art), Barbara Rockenbach (director, humanities and history libraries, Columbia University), Barbara Savage (department of history, University of Pennsylvania), Lorraine Sciarra (general counsel, National 232. Lita Osmundsen to Elon V. Ekman (board member from Swit- Audubon Society), Ted Seides (cochief investment officer and president, zerland), August 20, 1980, in “Burg Wartenstein The Move,” Box #BW-7, Protege Partners). WGF. S296 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Figure 56. Tivoli Palácio de Seteais, Sintra, Portugal. Symposium 143, “Human Biology and the Origins of the Genus Homo,” held March 4–11, 2011, and organized by Leslie Aiello and Susan Antón. From the left, Peter Ungar, Chris Rainwater, Laurie Obbink, Jonathan Wells, Andrea Migliano, Chris Kuzawa, Leslie Aiello, Rick Bribiescas, Susan Antón, Gary Schwartz, Susan Pfeiffer, Trent Holliday, Mike Plavcan, Karen Steudel, Katie MacKinnon, Rick Potts, Karin Isler, Josh Snodgrass, Jennifer Smith, Herman Pontzer, Tom Schoenemann, Carl van Schaik (WGF archives).

Will Rogers, aviator Amelia Earhart, and Mr. and Mrs. Wil- answer the question of Wenner-Gren’s true loyalties, and the liam Randolph Hearst,” among others, and Electrolux had foundation supported several scholars who undertook investi- paid to have the portrait done and donated it to the foun- gations into the question. dation for Burg Wartenstein. Osmundsen sought the counsel It was a legitimate problem. Was the foundation, with its of board of trustees member Elon Ekman, an executive at commitments to scholarly research and ethical practice in Electorlux, and Ekman thought the foundation should keep it, anthropology, tainted by the possibly fascist and racist loy- though it “shows him with decorations bestowed upon him, alties of the Swedish industrialist who first provided the en- which is not customary. Should the foundation hesitate to dowment? Was it contaminated, even delegitimated, by the show the portrait for that reason?” He continued, fact of its origins in what was probably an economic cloak for ’ I realize that some people have a feeling and no doubt it Wenner-Gren s mining interests in Peru? fi is a genuine feeling that Mr. Wenner-Gren did not always Nonpro ts of all kinds face these sorts of challenges. The “ ” remember that he had unqualifiedly and once and for all purity of a donor can shift over time, and sometimes do- parted with his money and his control of it, once he made nations are returned or names are removed from facilities. fi “ the donation; but he is not alone in that respect. There is no As the Nonpro t Quarterly put it in 2010, a tainted donor is denying that he on some occasions was disquiting [sic]to a previously clean benefactor who has become socially unac- those who were responsible for the conduct of the Foun- ceptable because of scandal. A tainted donation is money that dation. I, also, had some experiences along these lines but I was derived illegally or through a socially unacceptable man- ”234 also saw his many good sides.233 ner. One of the deepest problems foundations face is that of “value incongruence,” when the norms, values, and actions In the end, the portrait was retained, and it is on display in of a donor conflict with the core values, beliefs, and activities of fi the WGF of ces today, but it continues to be a reminder of a an organization. complex legacy that our work here cannot entirely resolve. In the case of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthro- ’ Wenner-Gren s status as a possible Nazi sympathizer made pological Research, support by its founding benefactor to the some anthropologists suspicious of the Viking Fund in the Nazi cause would constitute a profound value incongruence. early years. It also had long-term consequences for the rep- It would be a grotesque historical echo of the roles of German utation of WGF. Over the decades, leaders at WGF sought to

234. https://nonproﬁtquarterly.org/philanthropy/2379-when-a-donor 233. Ekman to Lita Osmundsen, October 14, 1980, ibid. -becomes-tainted.html (accessed August 7, 2016). Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S297

The story of WGF is both unique and typical. Like other foundations, it was reshaped by new legal constraints in the 1970s. Like other scholarly institutions, it was affected by new federal funds for scientific research (as anthropology grew) after 1945. Even in the individual life stories of Fejos, Os- mundsen, and Wenner-Gren, broader forces are made mani- fest. Fejos was an immigrant outsider who forged a new identity as a scientist despite a lack of formal education, but for his generation this kind of career track was an available op- tion at a time when anthropology was relatively porous and only nominally disciplined. Osmundsen was negotiating gender roles and crossing racial boundaries in tandem with thousands of others at a historical moment when the stakes were high enough to justify the costs of doing so. Wenner-Gren himself was financially tied to Germany for decades and sustained those business ties even as Germany descended into Nazism, but he was not alone, and his practices were widespread even Figure 57. Leslie Aiello (right) and Tanja Ahlin (conference monitor) at symposium 149, “The Death of the Secret: The among major corporations in the United States, as a growing Public and Private in Anthropology,” held March 14–20, 2014, historical literature makes clear. Sintra, Portugal (WGF archives). Similarly, in the commitments and practices of Tax, Kroeber, and other members of the “inner circle” of WGF in its first decades, some broader elements in the intellectual arc of post- anthropologists in the industrialized murder of Jews and war anthropology are clear. Internationally there were only others—a dark legacy for a foundation that works to build about 3,000 anthropologists in the entire world when Tax be- and promote anthropology as a resource for scientific knowl- gan his travels and consultations. But bringing them into con- edge and human dignity. That the foundation’s presidents have tact to forge a unified and coherent international discipline wrestled with this legacy and tried to understand Wenner- helped the field grow everywhere. New interest in the power of Gren’s activities and loyalties is not surprising. interdisciplinary research transformed anthropological ideas In 1993, WGF president Sydel Silverman personally or- and practice as various subfields engaged with geography, mo- dered the collection of about 800 pages of FBI files at the Na- lecular biology, physics, history, epidemiology, cybernetics, and tional Archives and Records Administration in Washington, other fields. The 1955 “Man’s Role in Changing the Face but the photocopies and a memo assessing them were later lost. of the Earth” conference at Princeton—in retrospect a vision- Six years later Silverman approved a $12,000 grant to an anthropologist who wanted to assess the blacklisting. Apparently one motivation for approving this grant was a sense that the foundation should be consistently open to scholarly studies of Axel and his networks regardless of where they might lead. The foundation did not want to seem to be engaged in “covering up” anything relating to Wenner-Gren. The foundation’s paper records include many documents relating to Wenner-Gren and his loyalties. There are Swedish and Austrian documents, reports from the Austrian history program about the nature of the ways the castle had been used, crank letters from people who had had some sort of interactions with people who had contact with Axel Wenner- Gren, correspondence with the Mexican ambassador, and correspondence with those who researched this history. The density, complexity, and often frivolity of these documentary trails make for an inexhaustible trove of conspiracy theory, paranoia, and myth, but the collected materials do not resolve the key questions. The archive that has been produced in the effort to get the final word on the dubious origins of this now eminent foundation is impressive in its extensive- Figure 58. Burg Wartenstein foyer with the portrait of Axel ness. Yet rather than offering answers, these documents raise Wenner-Gren by Howard Chandler Christie (photo by Nikolas more questions. Muray; WGF archives). S298 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 ary meeting—reflected this interdisciplinary approach, which port, which reinforced their professional identities, but en- was critical for the elucidation of such large-scale phenomena couragement to take risks in research. Individuals navigate as the human transformation of the globe. work life just as they navigate personal life, and WGF has fa- Meanwhile, political tensions after 1945 made their way cilitated that navigation for the last 75 years, functioning as into WGF symposium planning and were reflected in support one node in a feedback loop that shaped the possibilities for for PhD students, who were on the “front lines” of a rapidly being an anthropologist. Although the foundation did not lead transforming world. Anthropology and anthropologists en- anthropology in one clearly defined direction, it participated in gaged with big issues: postcolonial states, Cold War fears, jus- defining what it meant to be an anthropologist—and what it tice and human rights issues, the effect of capitalism, and the meant to be a human. The foundation, itself, is a uniquely transition from rural to urban societies. The discipline moved social beast. Be it at an Austrian castle, a brownstone, a uni- from an uninflected notion of “the primitive” (e.g., in Fejos’s versity campus, a conference center, or even via the pages of account of the Yagua) to an engagement with indigenous ac- its journal, WGF has embraced the complexities of human tivism and with studying up, the practice of turning anthro- experience and supported a broad range of inquiry. It began, pological attention to those with more power rather than less and continues to be, a fascinating “social experiment.” As we (Nader 1972). Feminist theory reshaped studies of primates suggested in our introduction, almost every major issue in an- and their societies. Emerging standards for human subjects re- thropology—intellectual and social, political and ethical—of search drew ethical steam from biomedicine but also changed the last 75 years is entangled at some point with the story we ethnographic field research. New technologies reconfigured explore here. The conversations threaded through the history practices in almost all fields but particularly in biological an- of WGF are conversations about the postwar world. They il- thropology. luminate questions of enduring relevance to the past, present, In all these domains of theory and practice, WGF has been a and future. source of experimentation—not always successful but often bringing together people and ideas in innovative and con- sequential ways. Its history provides a way of seeing how Acknowledgments disciplines function and the challenges they face in both ma- We are deeply grateful to Leslie Aiello for the invitation to terial and intellectual terms. WGF has sustained a sharp focus undertake this project and for her engagement and guidance fi fi on anthropology alone since the late 1950s, de ning the eld in throughout the process. Completing it would not have been “ ” a generous way as what anthropologists do. That has in- possible without the archival acumen and institutional knowl- cluded history, sociology, science studies, molecular genetics, edge of Mark Mahoney. Laurie Obbink and Maugha Kenny — and other related forms of knowledge production even carbon- were generous with their respective expertise regarding the fi 14 dating. WGF has also sustained a vision of four- eld an- foundation’s symposium program and its finances. Sydel Sil- thropology even as that vision unraveled in some highly visible verman spoke with us at length and offered invaluable perspec- disputes in departments of anthropology in the United States. tives from her experiences. Richard J. Fox shared with us his It could never provide the sort of funding available through the memories of leading the foundation. Jessica Helfand provided NSF, but it has provided something equally important: a moral access to Cornelius Osgood’s unpublished memoirs, and Eka- and structural home for anthropologists. Through the case of terina Babintseva provided editorial support. We are also in- WGF, it becomes possible to see how an enduring interna- debted to the keen insights of three anonymous reviewers and tional community was crafted from a patchwork of patronage to our generous colleagues at Penn and Yale, including Rene across place and time. Almeling, Robert Aronowitz, Henry Cowles, Danya Keen, In a much cited essay, the philosopher of science Ian Hack- Naomi Rogers, and John Warner. ing (1986:222) proposes that “sometimes, our sciences create kinds of people that in a certain sense did not exist before. I call this ‘making up people’. What sciences? The ones I shall call References Cited the human sciences.” Certainly anthropology as a human sci- Aiello, Leslie C. 2011. The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological ence has engaged with what Hacking calls making up people. Research. In Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of human evolution. B. A. Wood, ed. As a knowledge system it has defined categories of identity, Pp. 830–832. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. from kinship to language group to population, with which in- Anderson, Warwick. 2003. The cultivation of whiteness: science, health, and racial destiny in Australia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. dividuals can forge alliances and choose roles. The knowledge ———. 2006. Colonial pathologies: American tropical medicine, race, and made by anthropologists (as Sol Tax put it, “what anthro- hygiene in the Philippines. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ” Appel, Toby A. 2000. Shaping biology: the National Science Foundation and pologists do ) has been a critical resource for social and politi- – — American biological research, 1945 1975. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Uni- cal understanding of a wide range of people including those versity Press. alive today, those who lived at various times in the history of Baldwin, Melinda. 2015. Making Nature: the history of a scientific journal. human evolution, and surely those who will live in the future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Benedict, Ruth. 1934. Patterns of culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Those called to the discipline of anthropology as practi- Bennett, John W. 1998. Classic anthropology. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. tioners found in WGF not only a key resource for early sup- ———. 1999. Classic anthropology. American Anthropologist 100(4):951–956. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S299

Biagioli, Mario. 1993. Galileo, courtier: the practice of science in the culture of Engerman, David C. 2010. Social science in the Cold War. Isis 210:393–400. absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Erickson, Paul, Judy L. Klein, Lorraine Daston, Rebecca Lemov, Thomas Sturm, Bidney, David. 1964. Paul Fejos. American Anthropologist 66:110–115. and Michael Gordin. 2013. How reason almost lost its mind: the strange Birn, Anne-Emanuelle. 2006. Marriage of convenience: Rockefeller International career of Cold War rationality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Health and Revolutionary Mexico. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Fabian, Ann. 2010. The skull collectors: race, science, and America’s unburied Press. dead. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blanchard, David. 1980. Beyond empathy: the emergence of an action an- Fejos, Pál. 1943. Ethnography of the Yagua. Viking Fund, Publications in thropology in the life and career of Sol Tax. In Currents in anthropology: Anthropology, no. 1. New York: Viking Fund. essays in honor of Sol Tax. Robert Hinshaw, ed. Pp. 419–443. Studies in ———. 1944. Archeological explorations in the Cordillera Vilcabamba, Anthropology, 3. Berlin: de Gruyter. southeastern Peru. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 3. New Blanckaert, Claude. 1988. On the origins of French ethnology: William Edwards York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. and the doctrine of race. In Bones, bodies and behavior: essays on biological Fisher, Donald. 1986. Rockefeller philanthropy: and the rise of social an- anthropology. G. W. Stocking, ed. Pp. 18–55. Madison: University of Wis- thropology. Anthropology Today 2(1):5–8. consin Press. Fox, Richard. 1969. From zamindar to ballot box: community change in a Borofsky, Robert. 2002. The four subfields: anthropologists as mythmakers. North Indian market town. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. American Anthropologist 104(2):463–480. ———. 1971. Kin, clan, raja, and rule: state-hinterland relations in preindustrial Borstelmann, Thomas. 2009. The Cold War and the color line: American race India. Berkeley: University of California Press. relations in the global arena. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ———, ed. 1977. Realm and region in traditional India. Durham, NC: Duke Braidwood, Robert J., and Gordon Willey. 1962. Courses toward urban life: University Press. archeological considerations of some cultural alternates. Viking Fund Publi- Friedman, Max Paul. 2000. Specter of a Nazi threat: United States-Colombian cations in Anthropology, no. 32. Chicago: Aldine. relations, 1939–1945. The Americas 56(4):563–589. Braun, Lundy, and Evelynn Hammonds. 2008. Race, populations, and geno- Funk, Charles Earle, ed. 1959. Funk and Wagnall’s new practical standard mics: Africa as laboratory. Social Science and Medicine 67(10):1580–1588. dictionary of the English language. Chicago: Ferguson. Buchenau, Jürgen. 2005. Blond and blue-eyed in Mexico City, 1821 to 1975. Gannett, Lisa. 2001. Racism and human genome diversity research: the ethical In The Heimat abroad: the boundaries of Germanness. Krista O’Donnell, limits of “population thinking.” Philosophy of Science 68(3):479–492. Renate Bridenthal, and Nancy Ruth Reagin, eds. Pp. 85–110. Ann Arbor: Gieryn, T. F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line.Chicago: University of Michigan Press. University of Chicago Press. Burnett, D. Graham. 1999. A view from the bridge: the two cultures debate, its Gill, Brendan, and Peter Bunzel. 1954. Dollars and skulls. New Yorker, No- legacy, and the history of science. Daedalus 128(2):193–218. vember 20, Talk of the Town sec. Cartmill, Matt, and William L. Hylander. 1974. On the production, marketing Ginsburg, Faye D., and Rayna Reiter. 1995. Conceiving the new world order: and utilization of the Wenner-Gren casts. Yearbook of Physical Anthro- the global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press. pology 17:219–232. Godfrey, Ellen. 1981. By reason of doubt: the Belshaw case. Vancouver: Clarke, Cohen-Cole, Jamie. 2009. The creative American: Cold War salons, social Irwin. science, and the cure for modern society. Isis 100(2):219–262. Goodman, Alan H., Deborah Heath, and M. Susan Lindee. 2003. Genetic Collopy, Peter. 2015. Race relationships: collegiality and demarcation in nature/culture: anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide.Berkeley: physical anthropology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 51 University of California Press. (3):237–260. Greenberg, Joseph. 1957. Essays in linguistics. Viking Fund Publications in Conniff, Richard. 2016. House of lost worlds: dinosaurs, dynasties, and the Anthropology, no. 24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. story of life on Earth. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gutkind, E. A. 1956. Our world from the air: conflict and adaptation. In Crosby, Alfred W. 1995. The past and present of environmental history. Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Ed Thomas, ed. Pp. 1–44. American Historical Review 100(4):1177–1189. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crothers, A. Glenn, and Tracy E. K’Meyer. 2007. “I was black when it suited Hacking, Ian. 1986. Making up people. In Reconstructing individualism: au- me; I was white when it suited me”: racial identity in the biracial life of tonomy, individuality, and the self in Western thought. Thomas Heller, ed. Marguerite Davis Stewart. Journal of American Ethnic History 26(4):24–49. Pp. 222–236. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Crutzen, Paul J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23. Hallowell, Alfred Irving. 1960. The beginnings of anthropology in America. In Cueto, Marcos. 1994. Missionaries of science: the Rockefeller Foundation and American Anthropology, 1888–1920: papers from the “American Anthropol- Latin America. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. ogist.” F. De Laguna and A. I. Hallowell, eds. Pp. 1– 90. Lincoln: University of Darnell, Regna. 2001. Invisible genealogies: a history of Americanist anthro- Nebraska Press. pology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Hamburg, David, and Elizabeth McCown. 1979. The great apes. Menlo Park, Davis, F. James. 1991. Who is black? one nation’sdefinition. University Park: CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Pennsylvania State University Press. Handler, Richard, ed. 2000. Excluded ancestors, inventible traditions: essays Dayé, Christian. 2014. Visions of a field: recent developments in studies of social toward a more inclusive history of anthropology. Madison: University of science and humanities. Science, Technology, and Human Values 39(6):877– Wisconsin Press. 891. Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 1988. Remodeling the human way of life: Sherwood de Brigard, Emilie. 1995. The history of ethnographic film. In Principles of Washburn and the new physical anthropology. In Bones, bodies, behavior: visual anthropology. Paul Hockings, ed. Pp. 13–43. New York: Mouton de essays on biological anthropology. G. W. Stocking, ed. Pp. 206–259. Mad- Gruyter. ison: University of Wisconsin Press. Denich, Bette. 1977. On the bureaucratization of scholarship in American Heggie, Vanessa. 2014. Why isn’t exploration a science? Isis 105(2):318–334. anthropology. Dialectical Anthropology 2(2):153–157. Heizer, Robert, and Sherburne F. Cook. 1960. The application of quantitative ———. 1980. Bureaucratic scholarships: the new anthropology. In Hierarchy methods in archaeology. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 28. and society: anthropological perspectives on bureaucracy. Gerald M. Britan Chicago: Quadrangle. and Ronald Cohen, eds. Pp. 165–175. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study Herman, Ellen. 1995. The romance of American psychology: political culture in of Human Issues. the age of experts. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dodds, John. 1973. The several lives of Paul Fejos: a Hungarian-American Heyck, Hunter, and David Kaiser. 2010. Focus: new perspectives on science odyssey. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation. and the Cold War. Isis 101:362–366. Douglas, Mary. 1986. Lita Osmundsen and the Wenner-Gren Foundation: an Hicks, Dan. 2013. Four-field anthropology: charter myths and time warps appreciation. Current Anthropology 27(5):521–525. from St. Louis to Oxford. Current Anthropology 54(6):753–763. Duster, Troy. 2003. Backdoor to eugenics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Higham, Charles. 1983. Trading with the enemy: the Nazi-American money Dyk, Walter. 1947. A Navaho autobiography. Viking Fund Publications in plot, 1933–1949. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Anthropology, no. 8. New York: Viking Fund. Hixon, Donald L. 2000. Gian Carlo Menotti: a bio-biography. Westport, CT: Eheim, Fritz, and Gerhard Winner. 1958. History of the Fortress Wartenstein. Greenwood. Carl Bayerschmidt, trans. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for An- Hobbs, Allyson. 2014. A chosen exile: a history of racial passing in American thropological Research. life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. S300 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Hoijer, Harry. 1944. Review of Yokuts language of California, by Stanley Manchester, William K. 1968. The arms of Krupp. New York: Little, Brown. Newman. American Anthropologist 46:536–537. Marks, Jonathan. 1995. Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history. New Hoijer, Harry, and Cornelius Osgood, eds. 1946. Linguistic structures of Native York: Alaine de Gruyter. America. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 6. New York: ———. 2002. What it means to be 98% chimpanzee: apes, people, and their Viking Fund. genes. Berkeley: University of California Press. Howe, Daniel Walker. 2009. Making the American self: Jonathan Edwards to ———. 2008. Race across the physical-cultural divide in American anthropol- Abraham Lincoln. New York: Oxford University Press. ogy. In A new history of anthropology. H. Kuklick, ed. Pp. 242–258. Malden, Howell, F. C., and F. Bouliere, eds. 1963. African ecology and human evolu- MA: Blackwell. tion. Chicago: Aldine. Marlowe, Greg. 1999. Year one: radiocarbon dating and American archae- Ikenberry, John. 1986. The irony of state strengths: comparative responses to ology, 1947–1948. American Antiquity 64(1):9–32. the oil crisis of the 1970s. International Organization 40(1):105–137. Masuda, Shozo, Izumi Shimada, and Craig Morris. 1985. Andean ecology and Isaac, Joel. 2007. The human sciences in Cold War America. Historical civilization: an interdisciplinary perspective on Andean ecological comple- Journal 50(3):725–746. mentarity: papers from Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re- Jackson, John P. 2005. Science for segregation: race, law, and the case against search symposium no. 91. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New York University Press. Mead, Margaret. 1928. Coming of age in Samoa. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge: the co-production of science and Merriam, Alan P. 1967. Ethnomusicology of the Flathead Indians. Viking Fund social order. International Library of Sociology. New York: Routledge. Publications in Anthropology, no. 44. Chicago: Aldine. Kay, Lily E. 1993. The molecular vision of life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foun- Milam, Erica Lorraine. 2015. Men in groups: anthropology and aggression, dation, and the rise of the new biology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1965–84. Osiris 30:66–88. ———. 1997. Rethinking institutions: philanthropy as an historiographic Mitman, Gregg, and Paul Erickson. 2010. Latex and blood: science, markets problem of knowledge and power. Minerva 35:283–293. and American empire. Radical History Review (107):45–73. Kevles, Daniel J. 1986. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human Monge, Janet, and Alan Mann. 2005. Ethical issues in the molding and casting heredity. Berkeley: University of California Press. of fossil specimens. In Biological anthropology and ethics: from repatriation Kohler, Robert E. 1991. Partners in science: foundation managers and natural to genetic identity. Trudy Turner, ed. Pp. 91–110. Albany: State University scientists, 1900–1945. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. of New York Press. Koszarski, Richard. 2005. It’s no use to have an unhappy man: Paul Fejos at Moran, Andrew D. 2011. More than a caretaker: the economic policy of Universal. Film History 17:234–240. Gerald R. Ford. Presidential Studies Quarterly 41:39–63. Kroeber, Alfred Louis. 1944. Peruvian archeology in 1942. New York: Viking Morbeck, M. E., M. C. Bateson, and A. Roosevelt. 1998. Lita Osmundsen Fund. (1926–1998). American Anthropologist, n.s., 100(30):753–756. ———, ed. 1952. Anthropology today: an encyclopedic inventory. Chicago: Murphy, R. 1972. Robert Lowie. New York: Columbia University Press. University of Chicago Press. Nader, Laura. 1972. Up the anthropologist: perspectives gained from studying Kuklick, Henrika. 1991. The savage within: the social history of British an- up. In Reinventing anthropology. Dell Hymes, ed. Pp. 284–311. New York: thropology, 1885–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pantheon. ———. 1996. Islands in the Pacific: Darwinian biogeography and British Nielson, Waldemar. 1989. The golden donors: a new anatomy of the great anthropology. American Ethnologist 23(3):611–638. foundations. New York: Truman Talley. ———. 2008. A new history of anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Nurge, Ethel. 1965. Participation in current anthropology. Current Anthro- ———. 2010. Continuity and change in British anthropology, 1914–1919. In pology 6(3):239, 270–280. Doing anthropology in wartime and war zones: World War I and the cul- Nye, Robert A. 1997. Medicine and science as masculine “fields of honor.” tural sciences in Europe. R. Johler, C. Marchetti, and M. Scheer, eds. Pp. 29– Osiris 12:60–79. 46. Bielefeld: Transcript. Osgood, Charles E., and Thomas A. Sebeok, eds. 1965. Psycholinguistics: a ———. 2011. Personal equations: reflections on the history of fieldwork, with survey of theory and research problems. Indiana University Studies in the special reference to sociocultural anthropology. Isis 102(1):1–33. History and Theory of Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers Palmer, Steven. 2010. Launching global health: the Caribbean odyssey of the through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Rockefeller Foundation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lee, Ricard, and Irven DeVore. 1968. Man the hunter. London: Aldine. Parmar, Inderjeet. 2012. Foundations of the American century: the Ford, Lemov, Rebecca. 2005. World as lab: experiments with mice, mazes, and men. Carnegie, and Rockefeller Foundations in the rise of American power. New New York: Hill & Wang. York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2015. Database of dreams. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Patterson, H. O. L. 1966. Slavery, acculturation and social change: the Jamaican Lenoir, T. 1997. Instituting science: the cultural production of scientific case. British Journal of Sociology 17(2):151–164. disciplines. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Patterson, Thomas C. 2001. A social history of anthropology in the United Lindee, M. Susan, and Ricardo Santos. 2012. The biological anthropology of States. New York: Berg. living human populations: world histories, national styles, and interna- Paul, Diane B. 1995. Controlling human heredity, 1865 to the present. Atlantic tional networks. Current Anthropology 53(suppl. 5):S3–S16. Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Lipphardt, Veronika. 2010. The Jewish community of Rome: an isolated Pauly, Philip J. 1988. Summer resort and scientific discipline: Woods Hole population? sampling procedures and bio-historical narratives in genetic and the structure of American biology, 1882–1925. In The American de- analysis in the 1950s. Biosocieties 5(3):306–329. velopment of biology. R. Rainger, K. R. Benson, and J. Maienschein, eds. Little, Michael, and Bernice A. Kaplan. 2010. The immediate postwar years: Pp. 121–150. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. the yearbook of physical anthropology. In Histories of American physical Piper, Adrian. 1996. Passing for white, passing for black. In Out of order, out anthropology in the twentieth century. M. Little and K. R. Kennedy, eds. of sight, vol. 1 of Selected essays in meta-art 1968–1992. Cambridge, MA: Pp. 155–172. New York: Lexington Books. MIT Press. Lore, John S. 1975. A study of the effects of the 1969 Tax Reform Act on Price, David H. 2000. Anthropologists as spies: collaboration occurred in the private grant making foundation support of charitable activities. EdD past, and there’s no professional bar to it today. Nation, November 2. https:// dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. www.thenation.com/article/anthropologists-spies/. Accessed August 5, 2016. Luciak, Ilja. 2012. The life of Axel Wenner-Gren: an introduction. In Reality ———. 2004. Threatening anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s sur- and myth: a symposium on Axel Wenner-Gren. Ilja Luciak and Bertil Dane- veillance of activist anthropologists. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. holt, eds. Pp. 12–29. Wenner-Gren International Symposium, Stockholm. ———. 2008. Anthropological intelligence: the deployment and neglect of http://blog.wennergren.org/2012/08/reality-and-myth-a-symposium-on-axel American anthropology in the Second World War. Durham, NC: Duke -wenner-gren/. University Press. ———. 2016. Vision and reality: Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and the ———. 2011a. How the CIA and Pentagon harnessed anthropological re- origins of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. search during the Second World War and Cold War with little critical Current Anthropology 57(suppl. 14):S302–S332. notice. Journal of Anthropological Research 67:333–356. Lutkehaus, Nancy. 1990. Sepik heritage: tradition and change in Papua New ———. 2011b. Weaponizing anthropology: social science in service of the Guinea. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. militarized state. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Lindee and Radin Patrons of the Human Experience S301

———. 2016. Cold War anthropology: the CIA, the Pentagon and the growth ———. 1987. Victorian anthropology. New York: Free Press. of dual use anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. ———. 1988. Guardians of the sacred bundle: the American Anthropological Radin, J. 2013. Latent life: concepts and practices of human tissue preserva- Association and the representation of holistic anthropology. New York: tion in the international biological program. Social Studies of Science 43(4): American Council of Learned Societies. 483–508. ———. 2000. “Do good, young man”: Sol Tax and the world mission of liberal Reardon, Jenny. 2005. Race to the finish: identity and governance in an age of democratic anthropology. In Excluded ancestors, inventible traditions: essays genomics. In-formation Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. toward a more inclusive history of anthropology. R. Handler, ed. Pp. 171–264. Rossiter, Margaret. 1984. Women scientists in America: struggles and strategies Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Szathmáry, Emőke J. E. 1991. Reflections on fifty years of anthropology and ———. 1998. Women scientists in America: before affirmative action, 1940– the role of the Wenner-Gren Foundation: biological anthropology. Wenner- 1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Incorporated: Report for 1990 ———. 2012. Women scientists in America: forging a new world since 1972. and 1991: fiftieth anniversary issue. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tax, Sol. 1965. The history and philosophy of Current Anthropology. Current Rubinstein, Robert A. 1991. A conversation with Sol Tax. Current Anthro- Anthropology 6(3):238–269. pology 32(2):175–183. ———. 1988. Pride and puzzlement: a retro-introspective record of 60 years Salamone, Frank. 2000. The International African Institute: the Rockefeller of anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 17(1):1–22. Foundation and the development of British social anthropology in Africa. Tax, Sol, Loren C. Eiseley, Irving Rouse, and Carl F Voegelin. 1953. An ap- Transforming Anthropology 9(1):19–29. praisal of anthropology today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Santos, Gonçalo. 2012. The birth of physical anthropology in late imperial Thomas, William L., ed. 1956. Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Portugal. Current Anthropology 53(suppl. 5):S33–S45. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sauer, Carl O. 1956. Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. William L. Thompson, Laura, Paul Baker, Betty Bell, John W. Bennett, George F. Carter, Thomas, ed. Pp. 49–69. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. John J. Honigmann, Carleton S. Coon, et al. 1967. Steps toward a unified Schimanski, Folke. 1974. Swedish notebook: scientific standards. New Scientist anthropology. Current Anthropology 8(1/2):67–91. (March 28):826–827. Tilley, H. 2011. Africa as a living laboratory: empire, development, and the problem Schneider, William. 1996. The history of research on blood group genetics: of scientific knowledge, 1870–1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. initial discovery and diffusion. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Vincent, Joan. 1990. Anthropology and politics: visions, traditions and trends. 18:277–303. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. Schultz, Adolf. 1961. Physical anthropology. http://www.wennergren.org/sites Wadsworth, Homer. 1975. Private foundations and the Tax Reform Act of /default/files/Physical%20Anthropology%20-%20Adolph%20H%20Schultz 1969. Law and Contemporary Problems 39:4, 255–262. .pdf. Wailoo, Keith, Alondra Nelson, and Catherine Lee, eds. 2012. Genetics and Segal, Daniel Alan, and Sylvia Junko Yanagisako. 2005. Unwrapping the sacred the unsettled past: the collision of DNA, race and history. New Brunswick, bundle: reflections on the disciplining of anthropology. Durham, NC: Duke NJ: Rutgers University Press. University Press. Wallander, Jan. 2002. The Wenner-Gren Foundations 1955–2000: how vanity, Shapin, Steven. 2008. The scientific life: a moral history of a late modern vo- visions and over-ambitious plans to improve the world led to the creation of cation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. great foundations. Stockholm: Atlantis. Silverman, Sydel. 1975. Three bells of civilization: the life of an Italian hill. Wang, Jessica. 1995. Liberals, the progressive left, and the political economy of New York: Columbia University Press. postwar American science: the National Science Foundation debate revisited. ———. 2002. The beast on the table: conferencing with anthropologists. Walnut Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 26(1):139–166. Creek, CA: Altamira. Warren, K. B., ed. 1950. Origin and evolution of man. Cold Spring Harbor ———. 2009. A social experiment. Current Anthropology 50(6):949–954. Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 15. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Science Slobin, Mark. 1976. Music in the culture of Northern Afghanistan. Viking Fund Press. Publications in Anthropology, no. 54. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Washburn, Sherwood. 1951. The new physical anthropology. Transactions of Solovey, Mark. 2013. Shaky foundations: the politics-patronage-social science the New York Academy of Sciences 13(7):298–304. nexus in Cold War America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press,. ———. 1962. The social life of early man. London: Methuen. Solovey, Mark, and Hamilton Cravens, eds. 2012. Cold War social science: Wax, Dustin M., ed. 2008a. Anthropology at the dawn of the Cold War: the knowledge, production, liberal democracy, and human nature. New York: influence of foundations, McCarthyism, and the CIA. London: Pluto. Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2008b. Organizing anthropology: Sol Tax and the professionalization Sommer, Marianne. 2010. DNA and cultures of remembrance: anthropo- of anthropology. In Anthropology at the dawn of the Cold War: the influence logical genetics, biohistories and biosocialities. Biosocieties 5(3):366–390. of foundations, McCarthyism, and the CIA. D. M. Wax, ed. Pp. 133–142. Spuhler, James N., ed. 1967. Genetic diversity and human behavior. Viking London: Pluto. Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 45. Chicago: Aldine. Weber, Max. 1922 (1919). Wissenschaft als Beruf. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Starn, Orin. 1986. Engineering internment: anthropologists and the war re- Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr. location authority. American Ethnologist 13(4):700–720. Weston, Patty Jo. 1979. Archaeological ethnography in Western Iran.VikingFund Starn, Orin, and Neta Bar. An interview with Richard G. Fox. Current An- Publications in Anthropology, no. 57. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. thropology 47(1):155–163. Williams, Michael. 1987. Sauer and Man’s role in changing the face of the Stepan, Nancy. 1982. The idea of race in science: Great Britain, 1800–1960. earth. Geographical Review 77(22):218–231. Hamden, CT: Archon. Wisner, Bill. 1975. The golden age of yachts. Motor Boating and Sailing, December. Stocking, George W. 1966. Franz Boas and the culture concept in historical Wolf, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of perspective. American Anthropologist 68(4):867–882. California Press. ———. 1968. Race, culture, and evolution: essays in the history of anthro- Zachary, G. Pascal. 1999. Endless frontier: Vannevar Bush, engineer of the pology. New York: Free Press. American century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1985. Objects and others: essays on museums and material culture, Zunz, Olivier. 2011. Philanthropy in America: a history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton vol. 3 of History of anthropology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. University Press. S302 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Vision and Reality Axel Wenner-Gren, Paul Fejos, and the Origins of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

by Ilja A. Luciak

In this article I explore the origins of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. I focus on the complex relationship between Paul Fejos, the foundation’s first scientific director, and Axel Wenner-Gren, its founding president and benefactor. The accusation of having been a Nazi collaborator remains an undeserved stain on Wenner-Gren’s name. Recently declassified documents concerning Wenner-Gren’s controversial 1942 inclusion on the US Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals constitute convincing evidence that the official reasons—namely, his personal and business ties with Nazi Germany—were not at the core of the US government’s case. I suggest that the US government acted out of concern that one of the richest men of his time, courted by the presidents of Peru and Mexico to invest in their countries, represented a strategic threat to US hegemony in the hemisphere. In the final analysis, Wenner-Gren was simply a victim of the Monroe Doctrine. The reexamination of Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting in light of newly available evidence is essential for a comprehensive appreciation of the philanthropist’s legacy in the United States and Fejos’s role in creating one of the key institutions in support of anthropology.

In order to understand the history and early development of ever, there were also times when Fejos was marginalized by the the Viking Fund/Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropo- business tycoon, and Fejos, prioritizing personal and institu- logical Research,1 it is essential to comprehend the complex re- tional needs, acted against his benefactor’s interests. Thus, per- lationship between Paul Fejos, the foundation’s first scientific director, and Axel Wenner-Gren, its founding president and Maecenas (generous benefactor). In this essay I provide an ac- 1. The Viking Fund, established in 1941, was renamed a decade later. fi count of the early years of the Viking Fund. Four perspectives Since 1951, its of cial name has been the Wenner-Gren Foundation for are employed in order to illuminate the origins of the New Anthropological Research. For the purpose of clarity, I use the term “foundation,” when appropriate, even when referring to the fund. There are York foundation: the relationship between Wenner-Gren (1881– – two Wenner-Gren-endowed institutions in the United States: the New York 1961) and Fejos (1897 1963); the 1942 blacklisting of Wenner- foundation and the Wenner-Gren Aeronautical Laboratory at the University Gren, its effect on the foundation, and the role played by Fejos of Kentucky. The Swedish businessman also endowed a number of foun- ’ and his spouse, Inga Arvad; Fejos s struggle to secure institu- dations in Sweden. They all carry his name. For the purpose of the discus- tional autonomy while having to reconcile personal ambitions sion here, the most significant are the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet (1936), and conflicting philanthropic visions; and the rivalry and co- the Wenner-Gren Institute (1937), and the Wenner-Gren Center Founda- operation between Wenner-Gren’s Swedish and US philan- tion for Scientific Research (1955). Later, an additional foundation was thropic enterprises. I conclude with an assessment of Wenner- created, the Axel Wenner-Gren Foundation for the International Exchange Gren and Fejos’s legacy.2 of Scholars. Since 2007, all of the Swedish foundations, with the exception of A core thesis of this article maintains that the mixing of the Wenner-Gren Institute, have coordinated their administration. I refer to “ ” business and personal interests in Wenner-Gren’s philan- these foundations as the Stockholm foundations unless historic events concern a particular unit. For a time line of Wenner-Gren’s philanthropic thropic enterprises is at the root of the complex relationship legacy, see table 1. between Fejos and Wenner-Gren. I argue that the relationship 2. The article is based on field research, personal interviews, and the was characterized by periods of deep loyalty on the side of Fe- study of archival materials in the Americas and Europe. My family con- jos and exceptional trust on the part of Wenner-Gren. How- nection to Axel Wenner-Gren is that my grandmother, Elsa af Wirsén, married, on the death of her husband Einar af Wirsén, Axel’s brother Hugo Wennergren. Significantly, Einar af Wirsén served as Swedish ambassador in Berlin from 1925 until 1937, when Hitler declared him per- Ilja A. Luciak is Professor in the Department of Political Science at sona non grata based on his efforts on behalf of the Jewish community. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (531 Major Williams Hugo Wennergren was a Swedish businessman who had commercial in- Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A. [[email protected]]). This paper terests in Germany. My research benefited from privileged access to sur- was submitted 3 IX 15 and accepted 19 V 16. viving relatives and family archives. q 2016 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2016/57S14-0003$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/687776 Luciak Vision and Reality S303

Table 1. Axel Wenner-Gren’s philanthropic legacy

Year Philanthropy Location 1936 Wenner-Grenska Samfundet (The Wenner-Gren Society) Stockholm, Sweden 1937 Wenner-Gren Institute for Experimental Biology at Stockholm University Stockholm, Sweden 1939 Wenner-Gren Aeronautical Laboratory at the University of Kentucky, U.S.A. Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A. 1941 Viking Fund, renamed in 1951 Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research New York, New York, U.S.A. 1954 Wenner-Gren Cardiovascular Research Laboratory (with affiliations in Åbo and Copenhagen) Stockholm, Sweden 1955 Wenner-Gren Center Foundation for Scientific Research Stockholm, Sweden 1957 Burg Wartenstein—European Headquarters for the Wenner-Gren Foundation in New York Raab, Lower Austria 1959 Wenner-Gren Computer Center at the Weizmann Institute of Science Rehovoth, Israel 1962 Wenner-Gren Center Stockholm, Sweden sonal and business interests presented significant challenges I conclude with a focus on the legacy of Wenner-Gren and to a remarkable friendship. Fejos. I argue that both the Swedish financier and Paul Fejos, A reexamination of Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting in light of who contributed his vision and dedication, deserve recognition newly available evidence is essential for a comprehensive ap- for building a philanthropic enterprise in support of anthro- preciation of the philanthropist’s legacy and Fejos’s role in pology. creating the foundation for one of the key institutions in sup- fl port of anthropology. Leif Lei and (1989), who arguably wrote The Roots and Early Careers of Two Visionaries the most important study of the Swedish tycoon, maintained that the philanthropist’s blacklisting was “a miscarriage of jus- Axel Wenner-Gren was born in Uddevalla, Sweden, on June 5, tice.” The Swedish diplomat reached this conclusion based on 1881, into a home of considerable means (fig. 1). His ancestors an examination of the official record available at the time. Sig- already exhibited some of the entrepreneurial acumen that nificantly, Leifland did not have access to key documents that would make Wenner-Gren world-famous. The Wennergren have been released only recently. These documents, analyzed family traces its roots in Uddevalla back to the late seventeenth below, finally establish the real reasons that led the US gov- century.4 Axel’s ancestors were known as Storbönder (gentle- ernment to brand one of the most successful businessmen of man farmers) and business people. His grandfather Jeremias his time as a supporter of Nazi Germany. (1772–1843) owned a large farm, managed several small busi- Whereas it is easy to appreciate the justified concerns that nesses, and served on the town council. His father succeeded motivated US authorities to blacklist the Swedish entrepre- in making the family farm a prosperous business and built a neur, the official reasons turn out to have no merit. The accompany that exported wood products to England, eventually cusation of having been a “Nazi collaborator” remains an un- accumulating a small fortune. deserved stain on Wenner-Gren’s name. The now available Axel spent his childhood in the company of his siblings, four record concerning Wenner-Gren’s controversial 1942 inclu- sisters and a brother.5 The tragic deaths of three of his sisters sion on the US Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals might be one important factor in explaining why Wenner- (US Department of State et al. 1945) provides a solid basis for Gren never had children himself. It is important to note that a reevaluation of the Swedish philanthropist’s legacy.3 Wenner- being childless was a key factor in permitting Wenner-Gren to Gren’s fall from grace had a devastating effect on his personal leave his entire fortune to science. reputation and his business empire, with serious consequences Wenner-Gren did not distinguish himself in his early years for his philanthropic enterprises. Recently declassified FBI doc- as a student. Having finished his regular Swedish schooling at uments constitute convincing evidence that the official reasons the age of 15, Wenner-Gren spent 5 years working at the spice for Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting—namely, his personal and busi- import business of Eric Tunnell, a wealthy maternal uncle in ness ties with Nazi Germany—were not at the core of the US Gothenburg. In the summer of 1902, Axel left his birthplace, government’s case against the Swede. I demonstrate that, in Uddevalla, behind and started his schooling abroad at Greifs- the final analysis, Wenner-Gren was a victim of the Monroe wald University in northern Germany, enrolling in several Doctrine. summer courses. According to Wenner-Gren’s own account, the lectures given by the eminent scientist Rudolf Rosemann in the field of medicine “made a deep impression on me and

3. The Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US Department of State et al. 1945) was promulgated on July 17, 1941, and ofﬁcially withdrawn on July 9, 1946. The US government used this list to limit 4. Axel, as the only member of the Wennergren family to do so, used and control the activities of anyone that the FBI determined to have close “Wenner-Gren” for business purposes while signing with “Wennergren” personal or business ties with Nazi Germany. The blacklisting process in private matters. required the consent of key US agencies and had established procedural 5. The account of Wenner-Gren’s youth is based on Wenner-Gren rules. (1961) and Unger (1962). See also Luciak (2012b). S304 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

At the beginning of 1908, Wenner-Gren visited the United States for the first time (Unger 1962:24–31; Wenner-Gren 1961: 161–163). There he was employed at a small company, owned by the Swedish count Henning Taube, that produced motor en- gines for agricultural use. Wenner-Gren fell in love with en- gines and became intrigued with transportation problems. He piloted his first plane a few years later, and despite a spectacular crash early on from which both he and his wife Marguerite escaped unharmed, the improvement of motors would become a lifelong passion. Axel Wenner-Gren had a remarkable career as an industrialist and financier and created a number of successful and world-famous companies, most notably Electrolux and the Tel- éfonos de México (TELMEX), the Mexican phone company. The 1919 founding of Electrolux, which became synonymous with the vacuum cleaner, was the basis for the tycoon’s im- mense fortune. In addition to Electrolux, he had major interests in Swedish companies, including Bofors, Svenska Cel- lulosa, and Svenska Aeroplan (Saab), producing munitions, wood pulp, and airplanes. By the late 1930s, Wenner-Gren’s empire had become truly global in nature, with a presence in Europe, the United States, Latin America, and Asia. In Mexico, his business empire was legendary. For example, in December 1947, the industrialist founded TELMEX and built it into a lucrative enterprise. The company, sold by Wenner-Gren in the mid-1950s, is since 1990 at the core of the telecommu- nication empire controlled by Carlos Slim, a Mexican billionaire and one of the richest men in the world. The success of TELMEX demonstrates that US authorities were rightly Figure 1. Axel Wenner-Gren in 1927 (courtesy of Electrolux concerned in the early 1940s about Wenner-Gren’s business Group archives). acumen, which permitted him to gain control over vital sectors of the Mexican economy. Without the 1942 blacklisting of fl ” later on had an important in uence in shaping my life (Wenner- the Swedish tycoon (discussed below), Wenner-Gren would Gren 1961). Wenner-Gren had discovered his lifelong fasci- indeed have competed with US interests at the height of nation with science and applied research (Luciak 2012a). From World War II, when Washington viewed independent eco- Greifswald he went to Berlin, where he was admitted to the nomic initiatives across the Mexican border with suspicion.7 Berliner Handelsakademie (business school) and managed to Not all his business ventures met with equal success. Start- graduate in the record time of only 4 months (Unger 1962:21). At ing in 1952, Wenner-Gren invested large sums of money in the the age of 21, Wenner-Gren had completed his formal school- development of computers. The first generation of the ALWAC 6 ing and was ready to leave his mark on the business world. (Axel Wenner-Gren Automatic Computer) competed success- “ Wenner-Gren had left for Germany with access to con- fully with the top IBM models. The entrepreneur donated the siderable starting capital. At the time of his departure, his father first machine that was assembled to “the U.S. Air Force and opened a credit line for him in the amount of 10,000 Swedish emphasized that he considered the United States through his ” ’ crowns, US$100,000 in today s money (Boger-Langhammar American wife his motherland” (Boman and Dahlberg 1975: 1959:21). With the help of these funds, Wenner-Gren started 70). The later models could not deliver on the initial promise, fi his rst commercial enterprise, an agricultural machinery com- as the Federal Reserve learned the hard way. In a competition pany located near Stuttgart, Germany. of five electronics manufacturers, the Federal Reserve elected to place an order for the WEGEMATIC (Wenner-Gren Mar- guerite Computer). When the machines were not delivered on 6. The lack of any formal university education might explain Wenner- the June 1957 target date or during the extensions that were Gren’s delight in insisting on being addressed as “Dr. Wenner-Gren” once he had been awarded his first honorary doctorate from Cuzco’s Uni- versidad de San Antonio Abad in 1941. Over the course of his life he ac- 7. Wenner-Gren started to gain an economic foothold in Mexico in cumulated four honorary doctorates. In addition to Cuzco, he became 1941. Without the decision to blacklist him, his control over telecom- doctor honoris causa at Stockholm University (1953), Uppsala University munications and other strategic Mexican sectors would have commenced (1954), and the Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg (1957). during the war years. Luciak Vision and Reality S305 granted, the Federal Reserve filed a lawsuit to recuperate its investment.8 ALWEG—the Axel Leonard Wenner-Gren monorail system, which Wenner-Gren developed in a joint investment with the Krupp family—also failed to revolutionize transportation the way it had been envisioned. In the 1950s, he sold his shares in Electrolux and TELMEX in order to engage in a multimillion-dollar project to develop key natural resources in British Columbia. When the Canadian project failed several years after Wenner-Gren’s death, it bankrupted what remained of his economic empire. At the time of his death, Swedish and US newspapers reported that Wenner-Gren’s assets were estimated to be US$1 billion.9 When his last major initiative failed, his philanthropic legacy, albeit substantial, was considerably less than anticipated. In the late 1930s, Wenner-Gren started to focus his energy on the development of society at large. He endowed foundations in Sweden and the United States to promote scientific research in disciplines ranging from medicine to anthropology. Wenner-Gren believed in the value of science for the advancement of humanity. In his 1937 book A Call to Reason (Wenner-Gren 1937, 1938), Wenner-Gren argued that we were living in a new age in which “modern science and technology have given us the means to create prosperity for everyone” (Wenner-Gren 1938). The Swede’s talent was to recognize excellence when he encountered it. He was a visionary in his own right who made his fortune understanding the po- Figure 2. Paul Fejos (undated; Wenner-Gren Foundation ar- tential inherent in applied science to revolutionize how people chives). all over the world could be freed from daily household chores. He was personally fascinated by the possibilities intrinsic in im- ther, a pharmacist by profession, died when Paul was only proving transportation and communication systems and was 2 years old. Paul received a Jesuit education and claimed to have inspired by like-minded individuals who pursued their dreams, studied medicine, although his wish was to make a career in albeit in other fields. Among other shared traits and interests, theater. Fejos maintained that he was forced to interrupt his it is likely that what initially endeared Paul Fejos to Wenner- studies to serve in the Hungarian cavalry during World War I. Gren was Paul’s mind. Both men were out to conquer the Fejos indeed served as a medical orderly during World War I. world. Their combined talents fused into a creative force that History shows, however, that this was the extent of his “med- had considerable influence on scientific discovery and research. ical training.” The exhaustive research of Scott Farris (2016) Paul Fejos was born in Budapest, Hungary, on January 24, and Ann Mariager (2008), who wrote biographies of Inga Ar- 1897. According to Paul, his parents Aurora and Desiré Fejos vad, Fejos’s third wife, establishes that “Dr. Fejos” never stud- were part of the landed aristocracy (fig. 2). Fejos, known for his ied medicine and did not hold a medical degree.10 exaggerations, claimed that his mother served as a court lady to Contrary to the fortunate Wenner-Gren, Fejos arrived in the Austrian empress Elisabeth and that his father was a cap- New York with a few hundred dollars. His family had lost its tain in the hussars (Dodds 1963:405–406, 1973:1–24). His fa- fortune investing in Hungarian war bonds, and Fejos was forced to find work. With limited English, he survived for months on odd jobs often lasting only a couple of weeks. Fi- 8. United States v. Wegematic Corp., 360 F.2d 674 (2nd Cir. 1966). nally, he succeeded in obtaining employment as research tech- 9. See Time, Friday 1, 1961. Swedish, US, and German newspapers nician at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, where reporting on Wenner-Gren’s business ventures described him as “the Swedish billionaire.” The International Herald Tribune referred to the businessman “as one of the richest men on earth,” while other news media sensationalized the tycoon in the mid-1950s as being, together with Aristotle Onassis and Alfried Krupp, one of the richest men alive. Boman 10. See Lindee and Radin (2016), who assert correctly that Fejos never and Dahlberg (1975) and Leifland (1989) estimate Wenner-Gren’s wealth graduated with a medical degree. Their view is confirmed by two biog- to be considerably less. Leifland (1989:281) calculated that his famous raphers of Inga Arvad, Fejos’s third wife. Both Ann Mariager and Scott compatriot was worth around US$20 million in 1941–1942. In 2015, this Farris reach the conclusion that, according to their research, Fejos simply sum represented a fortune of a little less than US$307 million. lied about his medical degree. S306 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 his claimed academic training allowed him to secure stable recognized) in the blacklisting case of the Swedish host and work for 3 years. When he was contacted out of the blue to the serious repercussions it had on the early years of the New give advice on a movie project, however, his passion for the- York foundation. ater led him to give up his work in New York and to move to At this point in time, however, the course of events that Hollywood. almost destroyed Wenner-Gren was several years in the future. During the next few years he became a renowned movie Two adventurous minds had met: Wenner-Gren, who saw director for Universal and MGM studios.11 After having di- himself as “the last Viking”—a modern-day Alexander von rected a number of innovative films, Fejos looked for new chal- Humboldt in search of new frontiers discovering lost civ- lenges in Europe. In the early 1930s, Fejos was involved in ilizations—and Fejos, who had put his imagination to work movie projects in Paris, Vienna, and Budapest until he came when he created several Hollywood hits in the 1920s and was to direct ethnographic film projects in Denmark and Sweden. then living his dream as an explorer, leading a Swedish film This work took him to Madagascar and the East Indies. In team engaged in ethnographic documentary work (fig. 3). 1937, leading an ethnographic expedition in Malaysia, Fejos An excellent example of Fejos’s imaginative mind and cre- met Wenner-Gren, and a lifelong intimate relationship en- ative potential is the story of Fejos saving Wenner-Gren’s life, sued.12 which became the founding myth for their intimate friendship. John W. Dodds recounted this event in his biography of Fejos 17 “ The Tale of a Complex Friendship (Dodds 1973:63). While in Singapore, Wenner-Gren wanted to go hunting and Paul arranged an expedition for him. They The first encounter between Axel Wenner-Gren and Paul Fe- flushed a tiger and Paul, always the perfect host, stepped back jos occurred in Penang, Malaysia, on December 6, 1937.13 When to let the visitor have the kill. Wenner-Gren fired, but only Wenner-Gren entered the harbor on the Southern Cross,14 his wounded the animal. Then Paul noticed that Wenner-Gren’s private yacht, while on a cruise around the world, he was spot- rifle was shaking violently, as was the man himself. He had ted by Baron Åke Sixten Lejonhufvud,15 who served as the buck fever [temporary paralysis impeding the discharge of his sound engineer of a Swedish film company team that Fejos rifle]. Paul moved in and shot the charging tiger about ten feet directed in Borneo and the Malaysian islands. It was through away, just as it was ready to leap” (Dodds 1973:63). Lejonhufvud that Fejos was first introduced to Wenner-Gren.16 The account of the tiger hunt, so vividly told by Fejos and A week later, in Singapore, the parties met again, and Fejos propagated by his spouse, Inga Arvad, impressed many lis- was invited to dinner onboard the Southern Cross together with teners and created an image of Fejos being “larger than life.” his third wife, Inga Arvad, a former Danish beauty queen and It turned out to be one of Fejos’s tall tales. In fact, the hunt budding reporter. Arvad, suspected in the United States of never happened. The widely differing accounts concerning the being a Nazi spy, came to play a key role (so far largely un- events of that day provide an insight into Fejos’s psyche. De- spite a life full of achievements that most people could only 11. Fejos’s cinematographic work has inspired many great directors; dream of, Fejos had a penchant for exaggeration and outright e.g., Alejandro González Iñárritu, the 2016 Academy Award winner for fabrication in order to take on a persona even more glamorous best director, has a special affinity for Fejos’s work. See Lindee and Radin than his own. (2016) for a detailed account of Fejos’s career in the movie industry. Genevieve Gauntier, Wenner-Gren’s American sister-in- 12. The brief background on Fejos draws primarily on Dodds (1973). law and an eyewitness, remembered the adventure in ques- Dodds, in turn, relied on his personal conversations with Fejos and an tion, which took place on January 10, 1938, quite differently. oral history recorded at Columbia University. For a comprehensive ac- “ ’ Gauntier, who considered Paul Fejos one of the most fas- count of Fejos s life, see Lindee and Radin (2016). ’ ” 13. This account is based on the diaries of Axel Wenner-Gren and his cinating and interesting men I ve ever met, wrote in her “ fi sister-in-law, Gene Gauntier. See Lindee and Radin (2016) for an alter- diary, Axel went out to the Film Co. to see a ght between native account. six newly brought in tigers from the jungle. . . . Axel had had 14. Wenner-Gren acquired the Southern Cross from Howard Hughes a strenuous day. A deer had been put in the compound with in 1935. Built in Great Britain, the 300-foot yacht was a floating castle. the wild tigers; they thought the tigers would fight over it. But The ship was the largest private yacht of its time. Wenner-Gren con- they just lay there and looked at it. The deer lay down beside sidered it his “business card.” one of them and started to lick it. Still no fight. Finally they 15. The Swedish Baron’s ancestors had once owned Häringe Castle, shot the deer, thinking the blood would set them off. But no. which Wenner-Gren had acquired a few years before their 1937 en- However, a black panther leaped to the top of a tree and was counter. just about to get out of the compound when Fejos shot it. 16. Genevieve Gauntier, “The world cruise of the Southern Cross: Axel was holding up a pole when he felt something on his personal diary.” I am using the original diary in English with the permission of its owner, Eric Hagsäter, whose father Einar served on the hand and there was an ugly snake a yard long coiling over it; Southern Cross as the head engineer during the events described. The diary has been translated into Spanish (La vuelta al mundo a bordo de 17. This book is to a great extent based on several hours of taped “La Cruz del Sur”) and privately printed in Mexico City in 2010, edited interviews that Fejos gave as part of an oral history project at Columbia by Santiago Bolaños Guerra. University. Luciak Vision and Reality S307

Figure 3. Paul Fejos with Axel Wenner-Gren filming in Indonesia circa 1938 (Wenner-Gren Foundation archives). a little later one dropped down from a tree and he just es- Fejos stand up to Wenner-Gren when he perceived his per- caped. . . . These are just a few items of his day on a wild sonal interests or those of the foundation threatened. animal moving picture lot. He said it was the most nerve- Their first adventures together resulted in an invitation racking dangerous business he had ever heard of.”18 extended by the business tycoon to visit him in Stockholm in On the same evening, Wenner-Gren wrote a more laconic order to discuss the possibility of future joint endeavors. Fejos account of that exceptional day in his diary. Not surprisingly, accepted, and during the summer of 1939, he traveled fre- it supports the less dramatic version, albeit with another twist. quently from Copenhagen to Stockholm to discuss potential While witnessing a captivating fight between tigers and pan- projects. Over the course of these weeks, the two friends agreed thers, “a black panther that was close to escape had to be on an ethnographic expedition to Peru. shot.”19 No snakes at all appear in this diary entry. Fejos was a true renaissance man. The patrician background Thus, from the very beginning of their relationship, Paul and academic credentials he claimed, his multifaceted work and Axel had starkly divergent perspectives on key events that experience, together with his imaginative mind and enthu- they experienced together. The conflicting perspectives led to siasm attracted the wealthy businessman, who was 16 years unrealistic expectations, which, at times, brought discord into his senior. Fejos became Wenner-Gren’s intimate, advising their relationship. As mentioned earlier, Fejos, known as a him on his philanthropic endeavors and—usually without suc- brilliant storyteller, was prone to exaggerate events. The found- cess—on the financier’s business ventures. For most of their ing myth of their amity was certainly of benefit to Fejos, who friendship, the philanthropist and business magnate could be in his mind and in the eyes of his friends and colleagues es- certain of his loyalty. Fejos wrote many speeches for Wenner- tablished himself as the savior of his benefactor. From a psy- Gren, particularly those that required a scientific background. chological point of view, it is likely that Fejos eventually be- Fejos was the one who brought the philanthropic visions that came a believer in the tall tale he had created. Undoubtedly, the two men shared to paper. the widely held belief in the origins of their relationship helped Despite their close ties, they were clearly not equals. Within a very small circle of close friends, Fejos called Wenner-Gren “his Lord and Master.” Making fun of the entrepreneur was ’ 18. Gauntier, “The world cruise of the Southern Cross: personal diary.” a way for Paul to cope with Wenner-Gren s idiosyncrasies. 19. Axel Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary (1924–1961),” Swedish Na- Wenner-Gren, used to being treated as royalty by the many tional Archives. heads of state that sought to gain his favor over the years, S308 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 expected complete deference from mere mortals. Few people he perceived to be “writhing under what he had to do.” Dodds dared to challenge him. Yet behind the official facade was an continued, “I was perfectly aware of Paul’s ambivalent feel- intensely private person who battled his own insecurities. Fe- ings . . . his deep feeling of obligation . . . and indeed his very jos, who claimed to be of noble birth and distinguished aca- real affection for him.”24 demic background, possessed in the eyes of “the Master” cre- Wenner-Gren rewarded Fejos for his loyalty and support dentials that the businessman lacked.20 with lavish gifts and a generous salary (fig. 4). Fejos frequently Fejos resented that he stood in Wenner-Gren’s shadow. It received substantial amounts of money from his benefactor. was frequently the case that Wenner-Gren was given credit For example, in 1953, Fejos received $3,000 ($26,735 in today’s for Fejos’s innovative ideas. At times, he was the glorified as- money) as his Christmas gift.25 The Wenner-Grens also ex- sistant who made things happen and was even demoted to tended a “standing invitation to come and stay with us wher- being an errand boy. For example, Fejos was asked to supply ever we may be.”26 Fejos was indeed a frequent and honored common household items to the Wenner-Grens in Mexico, guest in Wenner-Gren’s residences around the world. The Hun- such as replacement parts for their gramophone or batteries garian gentleman, in turn, always took great care in selecting for Marguerite’s radio.21 On the occasion of Wenner-Gren’s special gifts for his friend, including Tokay wine from his visits to New York, he was at the “Master’s” beck and call. native Hungary. His tokens of friendship pleased the indus- Fejos was under permanent pressure to secure special distinc- trialist. For example, in a 1955 letter, he thanked Fejos for all tions for his “Lord and Master,” whether it involved honorary the “marvelous gifts you have given us [that] we appreciate doctorates, grand crosses, or other recognitions. Wenner-Gren’s tremendously but please do not spend all your savings on desire to be showered with official distinctions was insatiable. your friends.”27 Fejos shared his ambivalence concerning some of his pa- Wenner-Gren had the highest regard for Fejos, an opinion tron’s requests and his preoccupation to appear perfect in the that he shared on numerous occasions. He considered Fejos’s “Master’s” eyes only with his most intimate circle, including leadership of the foundation an example to be emulated. In his wife and John Dodds, a longtime friend. Lita Binns Fejos 1954, Fejos’s dedication and loyalty was rewarded with an Osmundsen, who was married to Fejos from 1958 until his unmistakable sign of trust—he was given power of attorney death and succeeded her husband as director of research, by Wenner-Gren. Having finally been elevated to the presi- summarized the complex relationship between Wenner-Gren dency of the foundation in 1955, Fejos advanced simulta- and her husband in a letter exchange with John Dodds. Dodds, neously to the inner circle of Wenner-Gren’s business em- a professor of humanities at Stanford, served on the foun- pire. He served as a director of the US Electrolux Corporation dation’s board from 1954 to 1982 and was very influential. He from 1957 until his death in 1963 (Dodds 1963:406). witnessed firsthand the ambivalent feelings Fejos had vis-à-vis Paul Fejos was without doubt the creative force that guided Wenner-Gren.22 In a letter to Dodds, Lita complained about the foundation during its first 2 decades. His role as scientific her late husband’s “Wenner-Gren dilemma” and referred to director meant that he served in effect as executive director. “Paul’s ambivalent affection and loyalty to this man, which In 1955 he also assumed the position of president. For most of overrode and carried through the many disappointments and his tenure, Fejos was empowered to run the foundation the difficulties he had to bear in regard to Wenner-Gren’s behavior way he considered best, although Richard C. Hunt, a Wenner- and reputation.”23 Dodds acknowledged in his reply that he Gren confidant and the foundation’s president, looked over knew Wenner-Gren only from a couple of meetings and that his shoulder. In a few significant instances, Wenner-Gren per- his view of Wenner-Gren was entirely colored by Fejos, whom sonally forced his hand. A particularly noteworthy instance occurred in 1948, shortly after the Swede had returned from 20. One can only imagine Wenner-Gren’s reaction had he known his Mexican exile. Fejos was ordered to use foundation funds to that his esteemed friend “Dr. Fejos” had no medical degree and exag- make a $150,000 donation to the Stockholm Wenner-Grenska gerated his “patrician background.” Samfundet. At times, Wenner-Gren embarrassed Fejos by leav- 21. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, February 23, 1955. Most personal corre- ing him out of significant decisions. For example, in 1951, spondence is part of the New York foundation’s archive. Fejos was not informed of the New York foundation’s im- 22. John Dodds, professor of humanities at Stanford University, be- pending name change. Instead, he was presented with a fait came a close friend of Fejos in the 1940s when Fejos started a position as accompli. Starting in the mid-1950s, with Fejos having reached consulting professor of anthropology, which he held until his death. the apogee of his relationship with Wenner-Gren, both at a ’ Dodds s closeness to Fejos and his fourth wife, Marianne Arden (married personal and a professional level, he had to come to terms with to Fejos from 1942 to 1957), is evidenced by the fact that Dodds married one of the greatest disappointments of his life: in spite of as- Marianne in 1988 at the advanced age of 86. Dodds died one year later. surances to the contrary, Wenner-Gren’s fortune was to go to Interestingly, Marianne Arden, with whom Fejos fell in love on his 1939 transatlantic voyage to the United States, appears to have played no role in the life of the foundation. Her absence in any correspondence is so note- 24. Dodds to Osmundsen, November 5, 1972. worthy that one can reasonably assume that Fejos’s last wife, Lita Osmund- 25. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, December 31, 1953. sen, played a role in her “disappearing act.” 26. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, December 20, 1946. 23. Osmundsen to Dodds, October 16, 1972. 27. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, December 20, 1946. Luciak Vision and Reality S309

Figure 4. Paul Fejos, director of research, in his office at the foundation’s New York offices at 14 East 71st Street, New York (Wenner- Gren Foundation archives). the Stockholm foundations. This ended Fejos’s dream of di- the expedition received additional funding from the Viking recting one of the most important philanthropic enterprises Fund, a philanthropic enterprise endowed by Wenner-Gren ever conceived. In the mid-1950s, Fejos had been tasked by his in February.29 The Swedish entrepreneur created the Viking benefactor to conceive The Foundation, a global philanthropy Fund with the intention of supporting all kinds of scientific funded by Wenner-Gren’s entire fortune. Whereas great am- discovery and promoting “research, educational, technical and bitions frequently remain dreams, Fejos’s legacy to anthro- scientificwork.”30 pology at the helm of the New York foundation, however, was The success of the Peruvian expedition was a central rea- reality. son why the Viking Fund eventually dedicated itself entirely to the support of anthropology. Both Wenner-Gren and Fejos The Origins of the Foundation were fascinated by archaeological and anthropological discovery; Fejos deserves the main credit for steering the fund’s Paul Fejos began to leave his mark on the foundation when activities toward a focus on anthropology. In 1951, the dis- he led the 1940–1941 Wenner-Gren scientific expedition to ciplinary focus also became evident in the philanthropy’s Hispanic America (fig. 5). The initial 1939 funding for the name. In honoring the founder’s seventieth birthday, the Fund expedition, with the mandate to carry out ethnographic re- was renamed the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropo- search in Peru, came from the Viking Foundation.28 Wenner- logical Research. Gren was the corporation’s governor. In the spring of 1941,

29. It is alleged that Wenner-Gren created the New York foundation in order to escape tax liabilities in the United States. This is entirely pos- 28. The Viking Foundation, incorporated in Panama, was set up as a sible, although there is no documentary evidence. Like most rich people, holding company for the global business interests of the “Electrolux King.” Wenner-Gren hated nothing more than paying taxes. It should not be confused with the Viking Fund (later the Wenner-Gren 30. See the foundation’s web page (http://www.wennergren.org/about Foundation), endowed by Wenner-Gren in February 1941. /2016-wenner-gren-foundations-75th-anniversary). S310 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

were presented to museums in Peru and the United States. Peruvian president Manuel Prado bestowed the Order of the Sun on Axel Wenner-Gren and Paul Fejos, the expedition’s sponsor and its leader.33 Wenner-Gren’s interest in Peru can be traced to a March 1938 letter he received from US ambassador Laurence Stein- hardt. The two men’s close connection dates back to the early 1930s when Steinhardt served in Sweden (1933–1937) before he was appointed to head the US mission in Peru (1937– 1939). Steinhardt, praising “the archaeological wonders” of Peru, told his friend, “If you don’t come you make the greatest mistake in your life.” Steinhardt made sure to let Wenner-Gren know that “the country is probably one of the potentially richest in the world” (Leifland 1989:39, 25–26, 50, 182). Wenner-Gren heeded the advice and subsequently visited Peru, where the two friends engaged in several minor excavations during late January and February 1939.34 Inspired by his Peruvian experience, Wenner-Gren invited Fejos to Häringe Castle, the philanthropist’s residence outside of Stockholm, to discuss plans for a major expedition to Peru.35 Wenner-Gren was close to 60 years old at the time, Figure 5. Axel Wenner-Gren and Paul Fejos in Vilcabamba, whereas Fejos, at 44, was in his prime. During the summer of Peru, 1940 (Wenner-Gren Foundation archives). 1939, Fejos was planning another expedition to the Far East sponsored by the Swedish Film Industry. When this plan failed to materialize, Wenner-Gren urged him “not to go to – The 1940 1941 expedition lies at the heart of the foun- the Far East, but rather suggested that he head an expedi- ’ dation s origins and its enduring focus on anthropology. The tion to South America”; subsequently, “the Cuzco region of expedition is commonly perceived as the brainchild of both Peru was selected as the site for further ethnographic work. Wenner-Gren and Fejos, yet it is Wenner-Gren who deserves Dr. Fejos then occupied himself in research on this region and sole credit for the idea to explore the Andes. Fejos, on the other began planning the trip.”36 ’ hand, was instrumental in the expedition s execution. The sci- In November 1939, Fejos left Denmark and embarked for fi fi enti c signi cance of the enterprise had more to do with for- New York. During the following month he discussed final tuitous events on the ground than vision or sound planning. details of the Peru expedition with Wenner-Gren. The ex- ’ Because the expedition cemented Wenner-Gren and Fejos s plorer left on January 31, 1940,37 with the intention to un- ’ friendship and was key to the foundation s eventual focus on dertake research in northeastern Peru, focusing on the area fi the eld of anthropology, a brief accounting provides essen- between the Putumayo and Amazon Rivers. Field research tial background. for this stage, however, was postponed and did not start until Few current members of the anthropological and archaeo- December 1940. The delay of the ethnographic work was the logical community have a complete picture of the historic result of an unanticipated opportunity—the possibility to dis- ’ contributions Fejos s expedition to Peru made to our under- cover important archaeological sites in the area of Machu 31 standing of Andean culture, although the expedition is dis- Picchu. cussed in several published works.32 The expedition discovered and explored several well-known sites along the Inca trail leading up to Machu Picchu, and the discoveries sparked a fl fi urry of news reports in the Peruvian media. The signi cance 33. Not surprisingly, Fejos received the lowest class of this recognition of the expedition was broadly recognized. The area comprising as “Knight,” whereas Wenner-Gren was recognized with the highest the expedition’s explorations was denominated the “Wenner- distinction of “Grand Cross.” Gren National Park,” the expedition’s leaders were honored 34. The two “explorers” remained close. Steinhardt was Jewish, and it with the highest academic distinctions for their contributions, would have been his professional duty to report to Washington any anti- the results were published, and the expedition’s collections Semitic or pro-Nazi views held by Wenner-Gren. 35. According to Fejos, starting in the summer of 1939, when he began planning the expedition, he received a monthly stipend of $300 from Wenner-Gren for his personal expenses. See Inga Arvad FBI file, 31. See, e.g., Allison (2003), Bingham (2003), Burger (2010), and Rowe March 1, 1945. (1944). 36. Inga Arvad FBI file, February 28, 1945. 32. Fejos (1944, 1943), Hemming (2004), and Thomson (2003). 37. Inga Arvad FBI file, March 1, 1945. Luciak Vision and Reality S311

The main legacy of the expedition consists of the discovery of the substantial funding Cuzco University expected to re- of new archaeological sites in the area of Machu Picchu, the ceive from the business tycoon. Finally, government officials most prominent one being Phuyu Pata Marka. These sig- were counting on the large-scale investments in Peru’s natural nificant archaeological finds evoked the enthusiastic support resources that Wenner-Gren had already offered during his of Wenner-Gren. He decided to allocate a major new grant, earlier 1939 visit. adding to the original funding that was channeled through his Viking Foundation. Using a new funding source, the ty- The Dire Consequences of a Failed Peace Mission coon’s newly endowed Viking Fund, awarded on June 19, 1941, a grant in the amount of $29,683 to the Wenner-Gren Sci- Before embarking on his trip to Peru, Wenner-Gren met with entific Expedition to Hispanic America. The expedition’s new Nelson Rockefeller, then serving as the coordinator of the mandate was to uncover and survey pre-Columbian ruin sites Office of Inter-American Affairs. According to an FBI report, in the Cordillera of Rio Vilcabamba in Peru. In addition to he conveyed to the US official “that he has located three providing the necessary funding, Wenner-Gren decided to cities in South America that have to be unearthed. Wenner- get personally involved as an active participant. He sailed for Gren also remarked to Mr. Rockefeller that he has contrib- Peru in July 1941 to join the expedition, preparing himself by uted to the Viking Fund.”41 Wenner-Gren’s effort to inform learning basic Spanish and reading books on Peru.38 Having the authorities of his plans in Peru did little to allay the passed the Panama Canal, he notified President Prado of his concerns of US authorities, who suspected that the expedi- impending arrival.39 On July 30, he was welcomed at the har- tion was a cover for fascist Germany to gain a strategic foot- bor of Callao by a delegation of Peruvian officials and Paul hold in South America. Even the fact that Rockefeller had Fejos.40 already secured an eyewitness account of the expedition’s According to Fejos, the expedition was involved in the activities that attested to the expedition’s purely archaeolog- clearing and discovery of the following sites: Phuyu Pata ical nature could not alleviate Washington’s fears. During the Marka, Sayac Marca, Inty Pata, Chacha Bamba, Choquesuy- fall of 1940, Fejos’s team had been joined by Paul Hanna, a suy, Wiñay Wayna, and some smaller sites. In Fejos’sview,“all professor of education at Stanford University. Hanna, who six of the larger sites may be considered cities” (Fejos 1943:59). had been tasked by Rockefeller to investigate whether the ex- Of these six sites, all except one were “cleared, mapped, and pedition was bona fide, became convinced that “Fejos loathed photographed, while preliminary explorations were under- Hitler,” and the espionage assignment ended with the two taken at the site of a sixth city, Wiñay Wayna” (Fejos 1943:14). men entering a friendship (Dodds 1973:70–72). Fejos was careful in noting the Wenner-Gren expedition’slim- The Wenner-Gren expedition was not the only undertak- itations. He emphasized that the expedition made “several thou- ing in the Amazon region that sounded alarm bells in Wash- sand pictures showing each site in all stages of clearing,” ington. In the same FBI memorandum in which J. Edgar Hoo- whereas the leadership refrained from any excavations be- ver, the head of the FBI, alerted Adolf Berle, the assistant cause “none of the members of the expedition was qualified secretary of state (with a copy to Nelson Rockefeller), of “sus- either by training or by experience to conduct such work” picious activities” related to the Swedish-sponsored expedi- (Fejos 1943:19, 45). tion, a “French Scientific Expedition to the Amazon” was also The most significant contribution of the expedition was considered “a front for an ulterior purpose.”42 The French having recognized the potential significance of a site, close to explorations, which also took place during fall 1941 and ex- Machu Picchu, that today is known as Wiñay Wayna (Que- plored “the sources and course of the Amazon river,” were chua for “forever young”) and competes with Machu Picchu funded by the Vichy government. Thus, US authorities sus- in terms of extensive and intricate masonry. Fejos wrote that pected that “the inspiration behind the mission may be Ger- “the site was previously unknown locally at the time of the man.”43 discovery by the expedition, and it had not been previously Already in May of 1940, “immediately after the fall of reported” (Fejos 1943:49). He credited Julio C. Tello, “the fa- France there was unanimity within the Roosevelt adminis- ther of Peruvian archeology,” with suggesting the name Wiñay tration that something had to be done about Latin America” Wayna during Tello’s own exploration of the site that was (Kramer 1981:76). Facing the reality of war being brought to funded by the foundation (Fejos 1943:50). its side of the Atlantic, the United States sought to solidify its The high-level attention the expedition received and the ties with Latin America so as to have a united hemispheric academic and government distinctions bestowed on the expe- opposition to the Axis powers. This necessitated improving dition’s leadership were rooted in the hope that the expedition fi Wenner-Gren sponsored would lead to signi cant archaeo- fi fi ’ 41. Wenner-Gren FBI le, FBI memorandum of June 20, 1941. The le logical discoveries. Peru s authorities also acted in anticipation is considered to be one of the most extensive of all FBI files concerning private individuals. It contains thousands of documents. 38. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” July 22, 1941. 42. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Hoover to Berle, May 11, 1942. 39. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” July 23, 1941. 43. Wenner-Gren FBI file, D. H. Allen to Rockefeller, October 16, 40. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” July 30, 1941. 1941. S312 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 the image of the United States in the region, strengthening towns asking questions. This won’t happen as soon as it business ties and eliminating potentially threatening foreign might because the Rockefeller grant for research in Peru political and economic forces in the area. FDR spoke publicly makes me a contact man between the field workers and the of “potential Nazi inroads into South American commerce government.” . . . Lothrop was referring to the [Nelson] and...a‘Germania Corporation’ that would subjugate the Rockefeller Foundation, which financed twenty archaeolo- United States’ neighbors as surely as the Wehrmacht subju- gists who were excavating in Peru, Chile, Colombia, Mex- gated Western Europe” (Reich 1996:177–178). ico, Venezuela and Central America. In fact, Lothrop was The coordinator of the Office of Inter-American Affairs was considered a valuable agent who collected important in- in charge of making sure that any efforts toward German formation on Peruvian politics and leading public figures of penetration into Latin America were discovered. The Amazon a nature usually difficult to secure. An FBI evaluation re- region was a particularly sensitive area, and any ethnographic ported that headquarters “occasionally receive[s] informa- undertakings were of special concern. Rockefeller, who em- tion of sufficient importance from Mr. Lothrop to transmit ployed several distinguished anthropologists as informants, to the President.” (Price 2000) knew of course that ethnographic expeditions were not always Wenner-Gren and Fejos’s Peru expedition was, of course, a bona fide, especially during times of conflict. One of the in- prominent target for Samuel Lothrop’s intelligence services. formants in his employ was Samuel Lothrop, the Harvard Lothrop informed on Wenner-Gren, starting with the Swede’s scientist whose professional integrity had been challenged as arrival in Peru. As Wenner-Gren’sFBIfile documents, “Ac- early as 1919, though his identity was not publicly revealed at cording to information furnished by former Special Employee the time. S. K. Lothrop, Wenner-Gren arrived in Peru on his yacht ‘The Franz Boas, the German American anthropologist, also Southern Cross’ in July of 1941, ostensibly to inspect an ar- known as “the father of American anthropology,” alerted the chaeology expedition being carried out there under his pa- scientific community on December 20, 1919, “that four mem- tronage.”45 Thus, in addition to Stanford professor Hanna, bers of the anthropological community, whom he did not Rockefeller had Lothrop spying on the expedition. Based on name, had abused their professional research positions by the record, neither Fejos nor his biographer Dodds was ever conducting espionage in Central America during the First aware of this. World War” (Price 2000).44 Only recently did a freedom of The activities of the Viking Fund during the war years information (FOI) request, filed by David Price, lead to the (1942–1945), albeit of a different nature, constitute evidence revelation that one of the four accused scientists was the em- of the close links between the anthropological and intelli- inent Harvard archaeologist Samuel Lothrop (Price 2000). gence communities. A few months after Fejos’s return from Based on Price’s research, Peru, while still under suspicion of acting on behalf of Ger- ’ fi Lothrop s FBI le establishes that during World War I he man interests, the institution demonstrated its loyalty toward “ indeed spied for Naval Intelligence, performing highly the United States. Its leadership became openly and actively ” “ commendable work in the Caribbean until his identity as engaged in supporting the US war effort. Significantly, the ” an Agent of Naval Intelligence became known. What is collaboration was entirely aboveboard. Nothing less could be more, World War II saw him back in harness, serving in the expected from a US institution than to help in the war effort. Special Intelligence Service (SIS), which J. Edgar Hoover Paul Fejos summarized the fund’s contributions during the created within the FBI to undertake and coordinate all in- war years in the foundation’s 10-year anniversary report: telligence activity in Central and South America. Lothrop In September 1942, the Office of Strategic Services (Pictorial was stationed in Lima, Peru, where he monitored imports, Division) in New York City requested the Viking Fund to exports and political developments. To maintain his cover compile a catalogue of scholars residing in the United States he pretended to undertake archaeological investigations. . . . who had executed field work outside North America, and By August 1941 he became concerned that his lack of sig- thus might possess information of strategic value. Informa- nificant archaeological progress might lead to the discovery tion, including field notes and surveys on various areas was of his true work in Peru. Lothrop reported his fears of being given, upon request, to representatives of Military Intelli- detected to FBI headquarters: “As regards the archaeologi- gence, Naval Intelligence and the Office of Strategic Services cal cover for my work in Peru, it was based on the under- during 1943–1944. (Fejos 1951) standing that I was to be in the country six months or less. It is wearing thin and some day somebody is going to start Fejos himself took leave during 4 months in 1943 and 1944 asking why an archaeologist spends most of his time in “to serve as Visiting Professor of Anthropology at Stanford University, California, in order to introduce applied anthro-

44. Ten days after Boas’s revelation, at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, its governing council voted to 45. At the time of the February 1945 memorandum, Lothrop was no censure Boas. He was removed from the council and pressured to resign longer officially working on behalf of the US intelligence community. from the National Research Council. Wenner-Gren FBI file, FBI memorandum, February 2, 1945. Luciak Vision and Reality S313 pology into a specialized training program in overseas ad- Gren met Göring was on September 11, 1936. Ironically, this ministration for U.S. Army personnel” (Fejos 1951). encounter occurred just a few months after President Roose- The US government had legitimate interests in detecting velt had invited the Wenner-Grens for a weekend at the White any foreign activity in its “backyard.” The problem was to House with the intention to draw on the savvy Swede’s eco- distinguish between alleged and true threats. Suspicions were nomic expertise.48 easily aroused in the days before and during World War II, The Swedish tycoon had two additional reunions with Gör- and FBI sources would infer Nazi activities and sympathies ing, on May 25 and June 9, 1939. The day before the May 25 from the most innocuous behavior. In some instances, al- meeting, Wenner-Gren hosted Swedish crown prince Gustaf legations and rumors that were entered into FBI files subse- Adolf at the inauguration of the Wenner-Gren Institute in quently became established truths. Such “evidence” was also Stockholm. On this occasion, the two men discussed Wenner- conveniently used to contain and eliminate real or potential Gren’s plan to serve as a peace emissary between the British economic and political competition. and the German governments. The Swedish crown prince Significantly, from the very beginning of the US investi- wrote a letter of introduction, dated May 31, 1939, to Prime gation concerning the Fejos expedition, Wenner-Gren’sPeru- Minister Neville Chamberlain.49 The royal note opened the vian investment plans featured prominently in the report gath- door for Wenner-Gren to convey his understanding of the ered by FBI field agents. The report alleges that the financier German position regarding a possible approach to avoid con- proposed in a private meeting with President Prado to form a flict with England.50 On June 6, Wenner-Gren had his only joint cooperation with the Peruvian government with a cap- meeting with Chamberlain, and they discussed ways to avoid ital of $7.7 million of which the Swede would contribute 50%. the confrontation between the two powers. In the end, the “The purposes of this projected corporation were to construct defeat of the totalitarian Nazi vision required a sustained mil- (1) dams on the Santa Riva for hydroelectric power, (2) a itary effort. cement plant, (3) a nitrogen plant for fertilizer, (4) steel mills Wenner-Gren saw Göring once more in March 1940 after and also (5) to develop the adjacent harbor at Chimbote, the Nazi regime had invaded Poland. Suffice it to say, Wenner- which is the finest natural harbor in Peru.”46 A series of Gren did not succeed where experienced men trained in the documents in Wenner-Gren’s FBI dossier contain testimony art of diplomacy had failed. Leifland (1989), based on a de- by US investors who were incensed about having to face tailed account of the failed peace mission, reached the con- competition from the wealthy Swede who had President Pra- clusion that Wenner-Gren’s failing consisted in inserting him- do’sear. self onto a diplomatic stage that he did not understand and the In Wenner-Gren’s case, the FBI could have spared itself complexity of which he never fully grasped. His “mediation the considerable effort to establish whether he knew of Jap- efforts” werenaiveatbestandareflection of a dangerous over- anese war plans or had ties to high-ranking German officials estimation of his influence as a “statesman.” However, there or extensive business interests in South America. The Swede, was nothing sinister about his motives (Leifland 1989:55–83). with easy access to the powers in Washington, tended to in- Wenner-Gren paid dearly for his naivety, which some would form the key US officials personally. In 1938, coming from a argue was grounded in vanity. The successful businessman private meeting with the Japanese foreign minister in Tokyo, simply failed to understand that his business acumen did not he was so alarmed that upon returning from Japan he ob- translate into anything similar in the realm of politics. The tained on short notice a meeting with former president Her- failed peace mission would cost Wenner-Gren dearly. “Based bert Hoover in San Francisco. He shared with Hoover that on [the] alleged association with Hermann Göring, Wenner- the Japanese official had warned about the possibility of his Gren [became a] subject of FBI inquiry in July 1940.”51 Ac- country taking a more belligerent position. Importantly, the cording to the FBI record, inquiries were terminated in June business tycoon and amateur diplomat—prone to overesti- 1945 although the file remained open. mate his importance on the world stage—personally informed President Roosevelt,47 as well as the top State Department of- 48. Wenner-Gren gushed about his weekend with FDR in his diary. It ficials, of his European endeavors and mediation efforts in was one of the absolute highlights of his life. 1939 and 1940. As discussed, he also communicated his plans 49. Seeking to protect “his future King,” Wenner-Gren never revealed for Peru. Alas, this was the age of never-ending suspicion. his identity to the US authorities. Gustaf Adolf was Swedish crown Wenner-Gren was suspected of pro-Nazi activities as a re- prince from 1907 to 1950. On October 29, 1950, he assumed the throne sult of his “appeasement” efforts during the summer of 1939. as King Gustaf VI Adolf and governed until his death on September 15, During this time, he served as a self-appointed private emis- 1973. 50. The Swedish royal family was closely related to the British mon- sary between field marshall Hermann Göring and British fi archy. The Swedish crown prince had been married to Princess Margaret prime minister Neville Chamberlain. The rst time Wenner- of Connaught, a grandchild of England’s Queen Victoria. Following Margaret’s death in 1920, he married Lady Louise Mountbatten, also a 46. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Hoover to Berle, May 11, 1942. grandchild of the queen. 47. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Wenner-Gren to President Roosevelt, 51. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Hoover from the Special Agent in Charge, September 6, 1939; Roosevelt to Wenner-Gren, September 7, 1939. Washington Field Office, October 20, 1959. S314 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

The timing of the start of this particular FBI investigation intimate friend of Roosevelt—they had gone to school to- (the agency had been following Wenner-Gren’s daily life for gether—turned out to be a formidable enemy indeed. years) coincided with the conclusion of a diplomatic mission United States ambassador George Messersmith is another by Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles, which took him key figure in the relentless persecution of the Swedish tycoon. to Italy, France, England, and Germany during spring 1940. Messersmith held important diplomatic posts that permitted President Roosevelt wanted to explore whether there were any him to closely observe Wenner-Gren’s real and imagined ac- possibilities for a negotiated solution. Wenner-Gren’s brother tivities. Serving as US consul to Berlin during the 1930s, he Hugo sent a telegram from Berlin in which he shared Göring’s claimed to have known of the Swede’s close connections with strong interest in the US peace mission. In a coded message the Nazi government as early as 1933. Supposedly, Göring Hugo alerted Wenner-Gren to the “Matter of Wells [sic]jour- had shared in a 1934 conversation that “the Nazi movement ney. Hermansson [Göring] very interested of Roosevelt me- would really penetrate the world,” and Wenner-Gren “would diation.”52 Without any hesitation, the self-appointed diplo- be the leader of this movement in Scandinavia.”58 Starting in mat “shadowed” Welles throughout his journey to Europe. December 1941 and continuing during the crucial war years, Before the trip, Wenner-Gren conferred with State De- Messersmith headed the US mission in Mexico. Thus, he partment officials regarding any contributions he could make was in a key position to give advice about whether Wenner- based on his connections with Göring. He also attempted to Gren should be delisted or at least be granted a visa to reenter see Welles, who claimed to be ill-disposed. On the cruise from the United States. Messersmith faced considerable pressure New York to Naples, Wenner-Gren tried on several occasions from his superiors to permit Wenner-Gren to travel to Wash- to talk with Welles, who remained unapproachable. The under ington. When he learned from Under Secretary of State Edward secretary clearly regarded Wenner-Gren as an unwelcome in- Stettinius, who had replaced Welles in 1943, that President terloper in his sensitive diplomatic mission. As he shared with Roosevelt was in favor of allowing Wenner-Gren to return to a friend on his return from Europe, “I have not a shred of the United States, he came close to subordination; Messer- evidence but I have a very strong feeling that this man acts as a smith went on record stating that “in case I am in charge of spy for the German government” (Expressen, July 3, 1946).53 the mission and such direct orders came from the Depart- At some point during their transatlantic journey, Wenner- ment to issue a visa to Wenner-Gren that I would resign be- Gren talked in public about Welles’s “moral failings.” At the fore such action was taken.”59 In one of the many unbelievable time, Welles was involved in a scandal, having solicited a black twists in the Wenner-Gren case, Messersmith completely reporter for sex on a night train from Alabama to Washington.54 versed his position on Wenner-Gren in December 1944. In Apparently, once Welles learned of Wenner-Gren’s remarks, an extensive memorandum for the State Department, he put the Swede had made an enemy who sought to destroy him. forth the reasons why the Swedish tycoon should be removed Based on numerous entries in his diary, the industrialist was from the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US always convinced that Welles was a central figure behind his Department of State et al. 1945). Meeting with President blacklisting. Wenner-Gren believed his “moral failings remark” Roosevelt, he argued, ’ 55 was the basis for the under secretary sanimosity. During the past three years Wenner-Gren had been im- fi For example, on January 12, 1942 (2 days before the of cial mobilized; none of the agencies of the United States Gov- “ announcement), he wrote, Washington is going to put me ernment have any critical information which could be on the blacklist. The news is as wicked as surprising but very termed enemy activities or trading with the enemy; that the ’ ”56 much in style with Welles s character. In his account of Proclaimed List covering Mexico now contains only those January 9, 1943, he attributed his lack of success in being names of enemy nationals and a few Mexicans, Wenner- removed from the blacklist to his belief that the under sec- Gren being the only neutral left on the list; and that more “ retary was continuing his personal vendetta and now blames pro-Axis persons than Wenner-Gren have already been me that he had no success in organizing a Latin American deleted from the list and his remaining on the list would ”57 economic conference that he had planned. Welles, being an cause comment and notice of an unfavorable nature toward the United States Government.60

52. Wenner-Gren FBI file, “Petition for delisting, brief and exhibits,” Astonishingly, Messersmith went as far as claiming, “You Exhibit 17, January 4, 1943. will be surprised to hear me say that I am beginning to have a 53. See Leifland (1989:127). certain amount of sympathy for Wenner-Gren.”61 Even though 54. In light of this scandal, Welles eventually resigned from the State Department. 55. Wenner-Gren shared this view with several confidants, including 58. University of Delaware, Messersmith Archive, December 24, Fejos. 1947. 56. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” January 12, 1942, and January 9, 59. University of Delaware, Messersmith Archive, December 24, 1943. 1947. 57. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” January 12, 1942, and January 9, 60. Wenner-Gren FBI file, FBI memorandum, February 2, 1945. 1943. 61. Wenner-Gren FBI file, FBI memorandum, February 2, 1945. Luciak Vision and Reality S315

President Roosevelt agreed with the professional judgment of similar significant agencies.63 Understandably, the business his ambassador to Mexico, the Swede remained on the list. The tycoon avoided entering the country whenever possible. FBI leadership, seeking further evidence on one of its favorite targets, decided to interrogate Paul Fejos and Inga Arvad The Blacklisting from a Personal Perspective: during February 1945 in New York. The timing of the in- Paul, Inga, and Axel terviews, shortly before the end of the war, is an indication of the significance US authorities attached to Paul and Inga’s The apprehension of US authorities regarding Wenner-Gren’s relations with their benefactor. The businessman was simul- intentions in Mexico and Peru has been well established. What taneously questioned in Mexico City. No incriminating evi- has been missing from the record, however, is the fact that dence came out of these meetings. the personal background of his close friends, Fejos and Arvad, With Wenner-Gren’s nemesis Welles out of the picture, would considerably heighten these concerns. having been forced to resign in 1943, Messersmith’s doing an The US embassy in Lima and the FBI’s representatives on about-face, and FDR’s being in favor of the delisting, the location “received instructions to follow Wenner-Gren’s un- most plausible explanation why Wenner-Gren was forced to dertakings.”64 Remarkably, a few months before Wenner- remain in Mexican exile is J. Edgar Hoover. Only the head of Gren departed for Peru in 1941, President Roosevelt had per- the FBI could play by his own rules. Leifland (1989:303) argues sonally suggested “to plant someone” on the crew of Axel correctly that Hoover’s immediate superior, Minister of Justice Wenner-Gren’s boat.65 When J. Edgar Hoover briefed Presi- Francis Biddle, had the formal power to keep Wenner-Gren on dent Roosevelt in April 1942 of his suspicions regarding the the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US Depart- Wenner-Gren expedition, “the FBI’s fantasies roam[ed] free” ment of State et al. 1945). (Leifland 1989:180). The expedition’s sponsor, Axel Wenner- On record for despising Wenner-Gren, Hoover ordered two Gren, was accused of being “the traveling bank for the Nazis,” FBI special agents to Nüremberg to inquire about Wenner- and Paul Fejos, its leader, was derided for lacking the perti- Gren’s activities during the war. The FBI director chose to con- nent scientific expertise, having (supposedly) primarily aca- sult the only authoritative source that could establish whether demic training as a physician to his credit. The expedition’s Wenner-Gren was indeed a “Nazi spy”—Hermann Göring. sophisticated radio equipment and the suspected mapping of On June 8, 1945, Göring personally confirmed Wenner-Gren’s the Amazon, an area of potential strategic interest to Nazi account. The Reichsmarschall, imprisoned and facing a likely Germany, raised further suspicion.66 death sentence from the war-crime tribunal in Nüremberg, The fact that Fejos was at the time married to Inga Arvad, had no reason to hide any evidence against Wenner-Gren. Two widely known as “a former favorite of Hitler” and suspected interrogations by the special agents brought nothing new to of being a German agent, did not help. Fejos met Arvad in light. Amazingly, Wenner-Gren’s peace endeavors were even 1934 when she auditioned for his first Scandinavian movie, discussed during Göring’s trial itself. The result was the same. Millions in Flight. Inga was selected to star in the movie, The super-spy scenario had simply no basis in fact. The active which was based on a Fejos screenplay. The movie was a bust, FBI investigation and surveillance of Wenner-Gren was ter- and Arvad elected to use her talents as a freelance reporter. minated in June 1945, only days following the Göring inter- Her initial claim to fame (which turned out to be her life’s views. Not even Hoover could justify a continued active in- curse) consisted of two interviews she conducted with Adolf vestigation. In the end, Wenner-Gren had to file a lawsuit Hitler in 1935 and 1936. The budding writer met the German against the US government to finally be removed from the chancellor, who had assumed his position on January 30, 1933, blacklist. It took until September 14, 1946, for the Ameri- through Hermann Göring. The Reichsmarschall had invited can public to be informed that “Axel Wenner-Gren, multi- her to his April 10, 1935, star-studded wedding.67 Most prom- millionaire Swedish industrialist, was cleared last night of inent among the 300 guests was, of course, the “führer” himself. suspicion of Nazi collaboration, and the bars were lifted to Hitler granted Arvad her first interview on October 17, 1935 permit his entry into the United States.”62 At that point the (Farris 2016). The articles of Arvad’s encounter with Hitler, Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US Department of State et al. 1945) had officially ceased to exist. Nevertheless, Wenner-Gren continued to have problems obtaining a visa to fi the United States. At times, negative decisions were only re- 63. Wenner-Gren FBI le, January 27, 1947. US Mexican embassy to ’ versed under pressure from the Swedish foreign ministry or Hoover regarding the entrepreneur s visa request to visit the Viking Fund. 64. Wenner-Gren FBI file. 65. Wenner-Gren FBI file, April 17, 1941. 62. “State Dept. lifts ban on Swedish magnate,” Washington Post, 66. Wenner-Gren FBI file. September 14, 1946. The article reported that “Wenner-Gren has been 67. Inga’s personality, daring and open to adventure, led her to granted a visa permitting him to enter the United States from Mexico simply show up at Göring’s private residence, where Emma Sonnemann, and to stay in New York for two weeks of business conferences before his soon-to-be wife, was charmed by the young reporter. Subsequently returning to Stockholm.” she managed to get herself invited to the impending wedding. S316 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 published in Berlinske Tidningen (a main Danish newspaper), her testimony that she had enjoyed the privilege of a private described the chancellor in glowing terms. Hitler, equally lunch with the “führer” before their joint public appearance.71 enchanted, called her the “perfect Nordic beauty.” Arvad was Arvad’s broadly publicized Nazi sympathies led President also on friendly terms with other high-ranking Nazi officials. Roosevelt to personally note on a memorandum that is part of Amazingly, Wenner-Gren never came close to this kind of Arvad’s extensive FBI file, “I think it makes sense to put her access. Apart from Göring, he did not meet any key figure of under special observation” (Leifland 1989:181). The president the Third Reich. The reason why Göring was accessible to the was apparently not aware that Hoover’s agents already watched famous Swede had to do with the fact that Göring’s first wife, every step Arvad made. born Baroness Carin Fock, was Swedish. After World War I, Inga departed Denmark several months after her husband Göring had worked for several years in Sweden, where he met and arrived in New York on February 29, 1940, aboard the Carin, the true love of his life. For the future number two of the Italian liner SS Conte di Savoia. It had been the plan that Inga Third Reich, “Apart from Germany, no country had more would join the expedition in order to be with her husband.72 significance than Sweden” (Fontander 2008:11). In Fontander’s This plan did not come to fruition. Instead of traveling to Peru, words, “Göring entertained a love-hate relationship with Swe- the Danish beauty started a job as a reporter and enrolled in den.”68 Columbia University's journalism program. Inga also had In March 1936, the International News Service published a several extramarital affairs, the first one with Nils Bloch, a photo of Inga with the caption “Meet Miss Inga Arvad, Dan- Danish compatriot who had previously been married to one of ish beauty, who so captivated Chancellor Adolf Hitler during Inga’s friends. A few months later, Inga fell in love with the a visit to Berlin that he made her Chief of Nazi Publicity in man of her life, future president John F. Kennedy. The en- Denmark” (Farris 2016). The dissemination of this photo put counter with Inga made a lasting impression on Kennedy. Arvad in the FBI’s crosshairs (Farris 2016). Unbeknownst to him, meeting Arvad made the young Ken- In their February 1945 FBI interviews, both Fejos and Arvad nedy a celebrity figure in the FBI’s case against Wenner-Gren. did their best to distance themselves from Germany’s regime. Fortunately, in terms of his political future, the affair did not Fejos, who had married Arvad on January 28, 1936 (she di- become public knowledge for a long time. While Arvad was vorced him on June 3, 1942), claimed that his wife’s intimate alive, “only one journalist mentioned her relationship in print” connections with the Nazi leadership led to serious disagree- (Farris 2016). The well-guarded secret of their affair has so far ments between them. Fejos, professing his antifascist views to received limited public attention with the publication in Dan- the FBI, maintained that when Arvad wanted to accept Hit- ish of an Arvad biography, written by Ann Mariager (2007). ler’s invitation to accompany him to the 1936 Summer Olym- Scott Farris’s (2016) forthcoming biography provides exten- pics, he objected vehemently, and the married couple returned sive new information. to Denmark.69 Inga, on the other hand, insisted that Fejos had Starting in October 1941 and ending in November 1946, accompanied her to the Olympics. She claimed to have been in “when they made love for the last time,” Kennedy had an in- Berlin only because Fejos had to be there for business, and this tense love affair with the Danish beauty who was still married led to Hitler’s invitation to join him at the Olympics. The rec- to Fejos (Farris 2016). Among the many affairs throughout ord shows that both Arvad and Fejos lied to the FBI. At the Kennedy’s life, this relationship stands out as special. JFK, who time of the Olympics, Fejos was in Madagascar and could not at the time served in the Office of Naval Intelligence, was in- have been in Berlin.70 Significantly, Arvad chose to “omit” in troduced to Inga by Kennedy’s sister, Katherine. Katherine and Inga shared an apartment in Washington, where both worked for the Washington Times-Herald (Farris 2016). ’ 68. In 1925, as a result of his morphine dependency, Göring had been The FBI, on Hoover s orders, recorded in detail every phone locked up in a Swedish psychiatric ward, an experience he would never conversation and sexual encounter between the future presi- forget. On the other hand, had Göring not been cured in Sweden, his rise to dent of the United States and the Nordic beauty queen. The power in Germany would have been unthinkable, and he would have never FBI investigation eventually revealed that while Inga was be- met Carin. A very personal insult that enraged Göring vis-à-vis Sweden traying her husband, she was not an agent for German in- occurred in October 1933 when his wife’s Swedish tomb was vandalized by terests.73 In 1941, however, Inga was a high-level FBI target a group of antifascists. He chose to bring her remains to Germany, where warranting 24-hour observation. Her marriage to Paul and he built Carin Hall, a mausoleum. He minced no words in expressing his the suspected intimate relations between Inga and Wenner- disgust, threatening his second home country with German might: “Such a little shit country as Sweden. We will trample you to death if you quarrel” (Fontander 2008:12). Hitler considered Göring his Swedish expert and 71. Arvad FBI file, folder 3, pt. 1. would rely on him to “manage” Sweden during the war. Already in the 72. Arvad FBI file, folder 3, pt. 1. mid-1930s he would pester Göring “to quiet the malicious, Nazi-hostile 73. Inga Arvad FBI file, July 21, 1944. Ironically, Inga Arvad obtained Swedish press” (Fontander 2008:128–134). a divorce from Paul Fejos on June 3, 1942, in Reno, Nevada, “on the 69. See the testimony in the Inga Arvad FBI file. grounds of desertion for more than one year and failure to fulfill mar- 70. I am indebted to Scott Farris, whose research on Inga Arvad es- riage conditions on the part of the husband.” The claim of desertion was tablished this time line. based on his absence while leading the Peru expedition. Luciak Vision and Reality S317

Gren—Inga was falsely believed to be a mistress of Wenner- As Wenner-Gren’s diary documents, just hours before his Gren—was an essential puzzle piece that fit perfectly into the departure for Paradise Island he was informed that Japan had case the FBI was constructing against Wenner-Gren. attacked Pearl Harbor.76 Nevertheless, having a daughter of In an apparent scheme to tarnish Wenner-Gren’s reputa- General Camacho onboard, he chose to proceed with his tion and to eliminate him as a source of competing interests, plans. Several hours into his journey, however, he reconsid- the State Department recommended in late 1941 that Wenner- ered the wisdom of his decision to proceed to the Bahamas Gren be excluded from entering the United States. Although and returned to Mexico. According to his personal diary, the the recommendation was based on seemingly justified con- industrialist’s change of heart came upon learning that Mex- cerns of Wenner-Gren being a German agent, Under Secretary ico and Panama had declared war on Japan. He was also of State Adolf Berle expressed his conviction that he was in greatly concerned for the safety of the Southern Cross.77 The “doubt whether Wenner-Gren is engaged in low-grade espi- self-described “last Viking,” who valued his freedom as a onage. He is conducting what are, in and of themselves, per- global actor beyond everything, was now captive in an im- fectly legitimate talks with American businessmen, and there posed exile. Wenner-Gren never imagined that he would re- is no legal method of stopping this. While we can watch him main in Mexico for the next 5 years. here in the United States and find out to whom he talks, we Within a week following his return to Mexico, Wenner- should have nothing but an endless trail of not very conclusive Gren indeed became a serious problem for the strategic in- financial intrigue with which, at the moment, we have no legal terests of the United States. Already in November, Wenner- machinery to cope.”74 History shows that Berle’s view did not Gren had laid out a plan to invest $100 million in Mexico. prevail. Throughout the years, despite a number of legal chal- Because of his intimate relationship with the minister of de- lenges, US authorities have not revealed any evidence proving fense, he was on his way to gaining significant influence over that Wenner-Gren’s actions were in any way intended to favor Mexico’s strategic resources. On December 13, 1941, Wenner- Nazi Germany. The continued secrecy is at the core of the Gren recorded a meeting in his diary that took place at his lingering questions concerning the legitimacy of the US deci- residence: “Conference at home with the directors of the rail- sion to blacklist Wenner-Gren. way, roads and construction sector. They are supposed to work on a proposal based on my instructions.”78 Wenner-Gren was Persona Non Grata: A Victim of the about to be appointed head of a government board that would “ Monroe Doctrine control all strategic materials in Mexico. By January 8, 1942, the project had reached a point where a decree had been drawn Wenner-Gren arrived in Mexico in November 1941 subse- for the signature of President Camacho, putting the project quent to his visit to Peru. He acted on an invitation by the into effect. Substantially, the decree called for the consolida- minister of defense, Maximino Ávila Camacho, the brother of tion of all war resources in Mexico.”79 With Wenner-Gren in President Manuel Ávila Camacho. Earlier in the year, Maxi- charge of the Export Control Board for Fomenting Production mino had visited the businessman in the Bahamas with the of Strategic Materials, US strategic interests were potentially explicit intention of enticing one of the richest men in the threatened. Suddenly, lightning struck. world to invest in Mexico. Wenner-Gren was received with On January 14, 1942, Wenner-Gren was officially included full honors, usually reserved for a head of state, and his ideas in the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US De- for economic development in Mexico were met with enthu- partment of State et al. 1945).80 The blacklisting specifically siastic support. Wenner-Gren’s plan was to return to the Ba- included Mexico and Peru, the business magnate’s key in- hamas in early December, because one of his main residences vestment interests in Latin America. Interestingly, Wenner- was located on Paradise Island,75 which he had bought a few Gren was never included in the US list for Sweden. The next years earlier. day the decision was front-page news in the US media, from Fejos had shared Wenner-Gren’s voyage on the Southern the Washington Post to the Chicago Tribune. The decision was Cross from Peru to Mexico. Upon arrival in Veracruz, how- taken at the highest level, including the personal involvement ever, the two men parted ways, and Fejos continued on to of President Roosevelt. Nevertheless, the case was entirely built New York, where urgent personal and professional matters awaited him. He arrived in New York on Sunday, December 7, the day of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

76. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” December 7, 1941. 77. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” December 8, 1941. Indeed, a few 74. Wenner-Gren FBI file. days later, the Southern Cross itself was blacklisted. 75. Paradise Island is a good example for the marketing genius of 78. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” December 13, 1941. Wenner-Gren. When he bought the island it was called “Hog Island.” It 79. Wenner-Gren FBI file, FBI memorandum, February 2, 1945. seems unlikely that this island, whose name is recognized all over the world, 80. US Department of State (1946:167, 201). Wenner-Gren was also would have gained a similar reputation under the original name. It was one blacklisted by the British authorities. Officially, both Britain and the of the financier’s “golden investments.” United States withdrew their respective blacklists on July 9, 1946. S318 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 on circumstantial evidence and in hindsight had no merit.81 ley.”83 As a result of these developments, the US government, Under US pressure, the British and Bahamian governments about to enter World War II in the wake of Pearl Harbor, followed suit, blacklisting Wenner-Gren’s enterprises on Feb- decided to take action to eliminate the “Wenner-Gren chal- ruary 2, 1942 (New York Times, February 2, 1942). lenge.” No less an authority than the late Leif Leifland, former After the end of World War II, more than 15 years had to Swedish ambassador and head of the foreign ministry’s po- pass before high-ranking US government officials inadver- litical division, conclusively demonstrated in a well-documented tently created a written record proving that Wenner-Gren’s study that Axel Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting was “a miscarriage blacklisting was primarily rooted in his real and suspected of justice” (Leifland 1989:205–226). Debunking every one of economic influence in Latin America, foremost Mexico and the reasons given for the blacklisting and based on a thorough Peru. In November 1959, J. Edgar Hoover, a lifelong nemesis analysis of the facts, Leifland, a high-ranking diplomat with of Wenner-Gren, was informed by Alan Belmont, then the privileged access to all pertinent documents, argued that not a number three FBI official after Hoover and Clyde Tolson (Hoo- single official reason put forward by any US government ver’s lifelong partner), that Harry Sellery, representing the agency could have warranted this drastic action. There simply Department of Justice’s legal counsel, had requested access to was no hard evidence indicating that Wenner-Gren was a Nazi Wenner-Gren’s FBI file.84 The Justice Department, in turn, agent. New data, not available at the time of Leifland’s re- had been contacted by John Nies, one of the industrialist’s search, show that the seasoned diplomat was correct. Washington attorneys, who had requested access to the rel- The US government’s case was not without merit, albeit evant FBI reports “so that the attorney could clear the smirch on grounds that were never made public. Whereas Wenner- left on Wenner-Gren’s name resulting from the ‘blacklisting.’”85 Gren was indeed falsely accused of being a Nazi spy, US Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department nor authorities had other concerns that led to the blacklisting. In the FBI wanted to deal with this request. The memoranda an unexpected turn of events—a stroke of luck really—the flying back and forth among the three government agencies author uncovered “the smoking gun,” an essential piece of the reveal the truth behind the blacklisting. puzzle behind the blacklisting that no one had analyzed be- Initially, Wenner-Gren discussed with his lawyers bringing fore.82 a lawsuit against the US government, claiming $1 billion in The apparent final straw pushing the United States to take damages. This exorbitant amount can best be understood in immediate action against Wenner-Gren was his real and an- the context of a timely report on Wenner-Gren’s wealth, pub- ticipated influence in Mexico and Peru. Courted by the pres- lished in the widely respected newspaper Die Zeit. The Ger- idents of Peru and Mexico to invest in their countries, Wenner- man weekly reported that the US Internal Revenue Service Gren represented a potential strategic threat to US hegemony had estimated Wenner-Gren’s assets to be US$1 billion (No- in the hemisphere, and his competition with American busi- vember 1957). His lawyers convinced him, however, that such ness interests was indeed real. The presidents of Peru and Mex- a move would raise “complicated legal questions involving an ico vied for the tycoon’s investments. In December 1940, with extensive investigation.”86 The financier, apparently prioritiz- Wenner-Gren about to gain control over Mexico’s strategic ing the restoration of his good name, eventually relented, resources, Peru’s president Prado sent a telegram, dated De- focusing all efforts on getting access to his dossier. Wenner- cember 20 and addressed to his “dear friend,” in an obvious Gren would have been jubilant had he succeeded in learning effort to keep Peruvian interests present in the financier’s the truth about the real motivations behind the US govern- mind. Prado praised Wenner-Gren for his “important work ment’s actions that led to his fall from grace. for the study and promotion of our archaeological values” and A March 1, 1960, FBI document titled “The Real Reason his “special interest to bring about the construction of the Why Wenner-Gren was Placed on the Proclaimed List of Cer- Chimbote harbor and the industrialization of the Santa Val- tain Blocked Nationals” includes the following passage: In a memorandum from [D.M.] Ladd [then a special agent] to the Director [of the FBI] dated 3/6/42 it was pointed out fi 81. The decision was taken on January 5, 1942, and became of cial that the Bureau SIS reports since 12/1/1941 had covered ac- “ ” with the publication of a special Supplement on January 14. tivities of Wenner-Gren. During December, 1941, informa- 82. Initially, I discovered these documents, which reveal the true tion was developed that negotiations were under way leading intentions of the US government, in 2011 in a censored version of up to the creation of an Export Control Board in Mexico Wenner-Gren’s FBI file. Subsequently, I located the same memoranda in his “uncensored” FBI file. Both versions are available in the US National Archives. The information that was blacked out in the censored version 83. Wenner-Gren FBI file, “Petition for delisting, brief and exhibits,” is by itself highly significant. Until today, researchers have focused on Exhibit 21 (a), January 4, 1943. Wenner-Gren’s record during the war and his time on the Proclaimed 84. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Belmont to Hoover, November 24, 1959. List of Certain Blocked Nationals (US Department of State et al. 1945), See Summers (2011) on the relationship between Hoover and Tolson. January 14, 1942 to September 13, 1946. Indeed, who would have guessed 85. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Branigan to Belmont, March 1, 1960. that the essential documents exculpating Wenner-Gren from any sinister 86. Strauch to Wenner-Gren, January 13, 1960, Swedish National activity on behalf of Nazi Germany were written in 1959–1960. Archives. The letter is cited in Leifland (1989:315). Luciak Vision and Reality S319

which was to have an official status yet was to be financed quite prepared to meet any pressure on account of Wenner- exclusively by Axel Wenner-Gren. If the Board had been Gren’s political connections. . . . I suggest listing him in Mexico created in the form discussed, Wenner-Gren would have be- and letting it go at that. ...Wearenotlooking at a normal case come the economic Czar of Mexico. of commercial intelligence. The President felt that he needed A discussion was had by Special Agent Jerome Doyle watching very badly, and indeed all of us felt that this inter- with State Department authorities and it was determined national rover had best be immobilized for the time being. If that the information furnished the State Department rela- his prestige as a holder of unlimited wealth and the field agent tive to Wenner-Gren’s plans in Mexico finally convinced for American and unspecified British interests is destroyed, then them to recommend Wenner-Gren for the black list. Ac- the objective will be accomplished.”91 cordingly, just as Wenner-Gren’s Export Control Board Remarkably, the president and his inner circle of advisors plan was about to receive the written and official approval considered Wenner-Gren a threat because he tended to pre- of the President of Mexico, Wenner-Gren was placed on the sent himself as a business “agent” whose economic plans were American black list. . . . The facts furnished the Bureau in part of a broader US and British agenda. What appears strange the reports from Mexico City relative to Wenner-Gren were to the normal observer is explained by the fact that although obtained by Special Agent in charge Gus Jones. Jones’ in- Wenner-Gren competed with US companies in Peru and Mex- formant actually sat in secret meetings between Wenner- ico, several US investors were part of his ambitious plans for Gren, Maximino Camacho, and others as the official in- Mexico. Wenner-Gren’s public statements in which he claimed to terpreter of the meetings.87 be acting in the interest of FDR’s Good Neighbor Policy met with Washington’s indignation. Significantly, the memorandum indicates that Wenner- Wenner-Gren would have been astonished had he been Gren’s blacklisting was a political decision and not based on aware of official Washington’s views. Otherwise he would facts that were procedurally required for including an indi- surely have refrained from emphasizing to US authorities, a vidual on the blacklist. The document refers to a request from mere 2 months after the blacklisting, that “The Good Neighbor January 24, 1945, to the Department of State requesting “all Policy, common interests and close collaborations between information in the State Department files concerning Axel the United States and Latin America have been the guiding Wenner-Gren and the reasons that had prompted State De- principles in all plans and projects contemplated by me in partment placing him on the blacklist.” In response, Jack Neal the Hemisphere.”92 In addition to Wenner-Gren’s alleged and of the State Department “stated off the record that the placing real ties with Germany, the concern of having someone in the of Wenner-Gren on the Proclaimed List was purely political “backyard” who could not be controlled explains the urgency of but doubted very seriously if anything in the State Department the US government to eliminate this threat. files would indicate this.”88 Indeed, “word came down from In its haste to “neutralize” Wenner-Gren, the US govern- the Office of Assistant Secretary of State to put him on the list ment violated its established procedures. From the US per- and it appears he went on the list without any formal con- spective, expediency was certainly a higher priority than fol- sideration by the departmental board.”89 lowing the letter of the law. The procedural violations and the The decision to put Wenner-Gren on the Proclaimed List of truth behind Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting were certainly never Certain Blocked Nationals (US Department of State et al. intended to see the light of day. The US government avoided 1945) was taken at the highest level. A December 1941 memo- scrutiny of its own actions through secrecy and bureaucratic randum to Dean Acheson, the assistant secretary of state, con- stalling even long after the threat of fascist domination had tains the revealing comment, “The President, Mr. Welles, and ceased. The Wenner-Gren case continues to be a highly sen- Mr. Berle, are anxious to move against the man in any effective sitive matter. For example, a 1975 memorandum, exchanged manner. . . . They desire to have Wenner-Gren placed on the between the Department of State and the Intelligence Division, Proclaimed List immediately, even if it has to be done by a reporting on an FOI request from the Swedish Broadcasting supplement devoted exclusively to Wenner-Gren.”90 In antic- Corporation to get access to Wenner-Gren’s FBI file, had its ipation of Wenner-Gren mobilizing his Washington connec- original “confidential” classification prolonged to 1982. In a tions to clear his name, Assistant Secretary Berle wrote to subsequent extension, a declassification review date of Janu- Welles and Acheson on December 26, 1941, “I think we are ary 27, 2005, was established.93 This level of secrecy is hardly common. 87. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Branigan to Belmont, March 1, 1960 (emphasis mine). Not surprisingly, the information regarding the identity of 91. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Branigan to Belmont, March 1, 1960 (em- the FBI informant is blacked out in the censored version. phasis mine). 88. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Branigan to Belmont, March 1, 1960. Again, 92. Wenner-Gren FBI file, “Petition to delist,” March 20, 1942. the key fact that as late as 1945, officials in the State Department con- 93. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Cregar to Wanall, March 31, 1975. The sidered the blacklisting “purely political” is blacked out in the censored memo refers to David Nelson’s work as a freelance for Swedish televi- version. sion. Nelson acted on behalf of the Swedish film when he requested 89. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Belmont to Moore, February 26, 1960. Wenner-Gren’s file. Following an FOI request, Wenner-Gren’s record 90. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Branigan to Belmont, March 1, 1960. was released. The two-part documentary on Wenner-Gren, based on an S320 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

The explanation for keeping this memorandum classified is ness] interests are confined within the limits of the British most likely rooted in the fact that, as the document makes Empire, the United States and his native Sweden.”97 clear, David Nelson, employed by the Swedish filmmakers as Wenner-Gren had started his economic empire in Germany their Washington researcher and FBI liaison, had been an ap- and had cultivated many personal and business connections proved private special agent for the FBI. In light of this, it is over time. Alfried Krupp, who served time in jail after the war not difficult to imagine that the key documents, assuming as a substitute for his father who was too frail for prison, was a they had been released at the time and which exonerated close friend and business partner of the Swede. The German Wenner-Gren from the “Nazi-smear,” were not made avail- and Swedish tycoons shared a lifelong friendship. On his re- able to the Swedish researchers.94 Ingrid Dahlberg, the pro- lease from prison, Krupp visited his friend in the Bahamas in ducer of a two-part Wenner-Gren documentary that aired search of a friendly environment to recuperate from his ordeal. in 1976, had no knowledge of the exculpating evidence and Wenner-Gren’s diaries show that they spent many special thus had to rely on the nonsubstantiated FBI allegations.95 occasions together, including Alfried’s fiftieth and Axel’s The documentary portrayed the businessman in a very un- eightieth birthdays. Without doubt, Wenner-Gren’s reputa- favorable light and perpetuated the suspicions many Swedes tion as a “munitions king” had a basis in fact. With his interests continue to hold regarding one of their most famous com- in the arms manufacturer Bofors and through his business patriots. It should not surprise anyone that essential aspects dealings with the Krupps, Wenner-Gren was involved in the of Wenner-Gren’s blacklisting have not been revealed until manufacturing and sale of arms. today. It is quite likely that US authorities have additional The record shows that Wenner-Gren personally informed information that remains classified.96 US authorities, including President Roosevelt, of his ill-fated Access to his complete FBI record would have permitted mission to prevent war between Germany and Great Britain. Wenner-Gren to clear his name during his lifetime and might Wenner-Gren’s naivety as an amateur diplomat was indeed have constituted the basis for a successful lawsuit against the legendary. His diplomatic adventures were no grounds, how- US government. The enormous financial losses Wenner- ever, to accuse the Swedish tycoon of having acted in the Gren suffered as a result of the blacklisting notwithstanding, interest of Nazi Germany. In fact, powerful Swedish families, the damage to his personal reputation was even more dev- including the Wallenbergs, could boast about their signifi- astating to the Swede and was apparently undeserved. In the cant business ties with Germany. It remains an apparent mys- eyes of some, the Wenner-Gren name remains under the tery why US authorities focused precious resources on the cloud of having been at least a Nazi-sympathizer if not a spy. pursuit of Wenner-Gren when they could have targeted some As many businessmen who headed global industrial em- of the financier’s compatriots who held similar if not greater pires at the time, including prominent US entrepreneurs, economic power. This reality strengthens the case that Wenner- Wenner-Gren had commercial interests in Germany before Gren’s blacklisting was rooted in his significant political and and after World War II, in particular with the Krupp family. economic leverage in Mexico and Peru. These interests were limited, however. Wenner-Gren claimed Ironically, Wenner-Gren was publicly accused of espousing in 1943, in one of his appeals to US authorities to have his political views that he frequently condemned publicly, includ- good name restored, that “approximately 90% of his [busi- ing in his widely disseminated book Call to Reason (Wenner- Gren 1937, 1938), in which he outlined his political beliefs. The book, published well before World War II, with fascism on the rise in Europe and Realsozialismus having shown its ugly face, represents an early, unequivocal condemnation of authoritar- FBI record that missed key evidence, aired in 1976 a portrait of Wenner- Gren that depicted him as a suspicious figure with Nazi ties. ian regimes regardless of their political persuasion (Wenner- 94. The Swedish film team and Leifland were never privy to all Gren 1937). documents that are now in the Wenner-Gren file. Had the 1959–1960 Wenner-Gren’s private thoughts—recorded in his diaries documents been made available to the producers, their Wenner-Gren series with daily entries that start on January 3, 1926, and end on would have shown a very different picture of the famous Swede. Based on October 6, 1961—reveal his grave concerns in light of fas- several conversations with Leifland and Dahlberg, neither one of them saw cism’s rise in Europe.98 The same cannot be said of the views the documents in question. They expressed great astonishment when I expressed by his American wife, Marguerite. It was common ’ brought the documents existence to their attention. Unfortunately, both knowledge (documented by the FBI) that Marguerite was prone Leifland and Dahlberg recounted recently that they had destroyed all materials collected for their research, including their respective FBI files. 95. Ingrid Dahlberg, interview by Ilja A. Luciak, November 30, 2011, Stockholm. 97. Wenner-Gren FBI file, “Petition for delisting, brief and exhibits,” 96. According to Leifland, the British government also has Wenner- January 4, 1943. Gren documents that have not been released. The most interesting case, 98. Although daily entries start January 1926, when Wenner-Gren however, concerns SÄPO, the Swedish intelligence agency. The agency bought the first 5-year diary volume, he entered a couple of important maintains that it does not have a single document about Wenner-Gren in events from 1924. The first entry dates from February 21, 1924, when the its possession despite the fact that he was a key target of US intelligence. tycoon records the purchase of his magnificent Stockholm villa. Luciak Vision and Reality S321 to make anti-Semitic remarks. Gene Gauntier, Axel’ssister-in- in Berlin and serving as Axel’s main conduit to Göring, to law, expressed similar sentiments in her personal diary.99 leave the country. Hugo Wennergren, whose business career In February 1945, in order to demonstrate his true beliefs, started as manager for some of Axel’s European enterprises, Wenner-Gren, of his own volition, submitted his diaries for owned at the time two Bakelite factories in East Berlin. As a FBI inspection. Although he was clearly flattered by the at- financial inducement, Axel offered his brother compensation tention he received from Göring, at no point did he express any for all potential losses such a move could entail. In 1942, sympathies for Germany’s totalitarian regime. On the con- heeding his brother’s advice, Hugo abandoned his home and trary, the public record shows that Wenner-Gren went to factories and returned to Sweden.102 considerable length to denounce fascism. The US government had little sympathy for Sweden’s During a 1938–1939 voyage around South America, Wenner- position during the war years. Sweden’s historic enemy was Gren visited Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. In November 1938, Russia, and many Swedish citizens held strong sympathies for shortly after the tragedy of Germany’s Kristallnacht,100 he was Germany and England. This reality is also reflected in the in Brazil, “upset about measures taken against Jews in Ger- blood ties of the Swedish royal family. Members of the royal many” (Leifland 1989:23, 302). In discussions with Foreign family tend to choose English and German spouses. For ex- Minister Oswaldo Aranha, Wenner-Gren explored whether ample, Prince Gustaf Adolf, who died in a plane crash on Brazil would be prepared to accept 30,000 Jewish families, January 26, 1947, was alleged to have Nazi sympathies and was assuming the financial implications could be sorted out. The frequently seen in the company of Germany’s leadership. Pho- tycoon’s offer of financial support was made in the hope “to tographic evidence, for example, on the occasion of the 1936 induce Brazil to accept Jewish refugees from Germany” (Leif- Olympics, depicts a smiling prince with his father-in-law, Duke land 1989:23, 302). Karl Edvard von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, in Hitler and Wenner-Gren’s personal meetings with Göring were fol- Göring’s company. In 1932 the prince had married Sybilla von lowed by an exchange of letters and memoranda. The cor- Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, a family known for its early sup- respondence contains a letter in which Wenner-Gren “export of Hitler’s rise to power. Secret correspondence between presses criticism of Nazi Germany’streatmentofJews” his father, Crown Prince Gustaf Adolf and Einar af Wirsén, the (Leifland 1989:23, 302). The most remarkable document Swedish minister in Berlin, indicates the efforts made to avoid a articulating Wenner-Gren’s critical position vis-à-vis the Third public scandal on the occasion of the royal wedding. The fear Reich is his 1939 “peace proposal.” This was intended for Adolf was that Nazi youth would use the wedding for propaganda Hitler’s eyes, but Göring refused to pass Wenner-Gren’s pro- purposes and stage pro-Hitler actions. The concerns were not posal on in the knowledge that it would have enraged the without basis. Hitler, already an honorary citizen of Coburg, “führer.” visited the town the next day.103 In the memorandum for Hitler, Wenner-Gren advocates Historian Klas Åmark (2011) has emphasized that US with astonishing naivety that Germany’s leader should avail resentment of Swedish policy was rooted in the apparent himself of the historic choice to be remembered as the “Prince appeasement of the Nazi leadership. For most of the war, of Peace” or the “Lord of War.” He urges the “führer” to rec- Sweden’s dependence on German coal forced the country to ognize, in the interest of peace, that “A broad-minded amnesty deliver Swedish iron, which had obvious military implica- whereby concentration camps disappear entirely or be reduced tions. Being the only Scandinavian country that managed to to a minimum is absolutely necessary,” and “the same freedom escape Nazi occupation raised suspicion among the Allies that science demands must also be granted to faith. The Ger- that Sweden benefited unduly from Göring’s special protec- man nation . . . must not force the conscience of the individual tion and preserved its neutrality by making concessions to into the predicament of choosing between God and Vaterland, German war needs. One particular controversy entailed the between Christ and Führer.”101 It is no wonder that Göring was permission granted to the German high command to trans- shocked. Only Wenner-Gren’s illusion of grandeur prevented port during 1940 to 1943 more than 2 million German sol- the Swede from realizing that he could be endangering his life diers through Swedish territory. This allowed Germany to by conveying this kind of antifascist heresy. Already in September 1940, convinced that Germany was doomed, Wenner-Gren urged his brother Hugo, then living 102. Private archive of Hugo Wennergren. The advice given by his brother proved to be prophetic. Hugo’s home, located next to Göring’s residence, was destroyed by allied bombs, and his factories were occupied 99. Gauntier, “The world cruise of the Southern Cross: personal di- and expropriated by Soviet authorities. ary.” See also Wenner-Gren FBI file, May 20, 1942. 103. Einar af Wirsén, private family archive. “Strictly confidential” 100. During the night of November 9, 1938, an estimated 200 syna- exchanges between Einar af Wirsén and the Swedish royal family. Wirsén’s gogues were destroyed, thousands of Jewish shops were looted, and tens outspoken denunciations of Nazi policies persecuting German Jews ended of thousands of Jews were detained for deportation to concentration his posting in Berlin, when Hitler declared the Swedish ambassador in 1937 camps. persona non grata. The ambassador, in violation of traditional diplomatic 101. Wenner-Gren FBI file, “Petition for delisting, brief and exhibits,” protocol, had a deserved reputation for blunt assessments. He commonly Exhibit 8-1, January 4, 1943. referred to the German leaders as “a bunch of gangsters.” S322 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 reinforce the Norwegian and Finnish fronts and to prepare the founding president, communicated to the US authorities their attack on the Soviet Union, a reality detrimental for the in a letter dated January 29, 1942, “As we have explained to allied forces’ military success (Åmark 2011:122–151). representatives of the Treasury Department, Mr. Wenner- Wenner-Gren’s reputation as a successful businessman and Gren reigned as a Director of this corporation some months innovator who created a global empire earned him a weekend ago and has no control over it whatsoever.”108 The Viking at the Roosevelt White House in March 1936. Thus, his fall Fund’sofficial position that its sponsor was not involved in from American grace a few years later devastated the proud the foundation’s decision making became a well-established Swede, who was accustomed to being treated as an equal by myth. In the late 1970s, John Dodds, a key board member, presidents and kings all over the world. His numerous at- maintained that “Wenner-Gren himself had of course never tempts to clear his name were unsuccessful despite the fact been a member of the Board of the Foundation, and never that many powerful friends assured him constantly that he influenced its activities” (Dodds 1973:78). This assertion was would be rehabilitated any day. made even though Dodds was surely aware of the facts to the The 60-year-old business magnate remained in Mexico for contrary. Dodds is a good example for a generation of foun- the duration of the war, and contact between the foundation dation officials who felt the need—even more than 30 years and its benefactor was interrupted. Supposedly there was no after World War II—to erase any memory of the founder’s contact from the time of the blacklisting until summer 1946, intimate connection with his philanthropic enterprise. For when Wenner-Gren was planning to visit New York for the the past 20 years, the leadership has taken the opposite ap- first time following 4 years of isolation in Mexico.104 proach by supporting a number of projects to clarify the past. As in so many instances concerning Wenner-Gren’slife,some Fallen from Grace: The Foundation and Its established myths have by now become reality and are in- fi Benefactor during the War Years creasingly dif cult to debunk. The lack of contact between Wenner-Gren and his asso- Wenner-Gren, well connected in Washington, was aware of ciates at the foundation during the war years is such a myth, the FBI’s efforts to build a case against him. In apparent in particular as it concerns Hunt, the foundation’s president. anticipation of hostile US government actions and in an Despite public assurances to the contrary, there was contin- effort to protect the Viking Fund from any potential fallout, ued contact between the disgraced patron and the New York he resigned his position as president of the Viking Fund on foundation. Following the blacklisting, Hunt continued to October 31, 1941.105 In a cable to the Viking Fund, sent from serve as Wenner-Gren’s personal legal counsel. In this func- the Southern Cross while in Callao, Peru, he stated, “As it tion, Hunt communicated with Wenner-Gren on a regular seems to me that it might be preferable to the Fund to have a basis. The exchange of letters between Wenner-Gren and Hunt Board consisting solely of American citizens under the pres- following the blacklisting are proof of continued contact. It is ent state of emergency, I herewith tender my resignation as a reasonable to assume that Hunt kept other foundation offi- member of the Board. The resignation is to take effect upon cials informed as Wenner-Gren fought to clear his name. For receipt of this letter.”106 The board of directors accepted his example, in February 1942, Hunt shared with Fejos that resignation, and because it “automatically created a vacancy Wenner-Gren was in Mexico and had bought a house in the in the Chairmanship,” decided to leave this position “vacant capital.109 for the time being.”107 According to Wenner-Gren’s diary, Fejos alerted the en- Subsequently, the foundation took care to distance itself trepreneur on January 8, 1942, about important news he had officially from its founder. Richard C. Hunt, who succeeded received from Peru’s president Manuel Prado, who had been informed of the decision to blacklist the financier, conveyed “ 104. Wenner-Gren was not taken off the blacklist until September 13, through Fejos that the innuendos are initiated by the com- ”110 1946, despite the fact that the official end of the Proclaimed List of petition. United States business leaders indeed complained Certain Blocked Nationals (US Department of State et al. 1945) was to the US authorities that competition from the Swedish announced on July 9, 1946. It appears that Wenner-Gren was never businessman was endangering their planned Peruvian invest- officially informed of the delisting. For the rest of his life, the industrialist ments. Thus, Fejos had early knowledge that his patron’s prob- had concerns entering the United States. Indeed, in 1950, he was initially lems were related to his business ventures in Latin America denied a visa. The decision was reversed when the US embassy in and served as a messenger for Peru’s president. Stockholm protested. The September delisting was prompted by a lawsuit It seems that during the time of the blacklisting (Janu- fi Wenner-Gren had led on April 25, 1946, against James F. Byrnes, the ary 14, 1942–September 13, 1946), Fejos had only sporadic US secretary of state. official contact with his “disgraced” benefactor. The scientific 105. Wenner-Gren and Fejos met that day onboard the Southern Cross. 106. Wenner-Gren’s letter of resignation, October 31, 1941. Minutes 108. Wenner-Gren FBI file, Treasury Department memorandum, of November 1941 board meeting of the Wenner-Gren Foundation. July 5, 1943. 107. Wenner-Gren FBI file. See also minutes of the November 1941 109. Hunt to Fejos, February 3, 1942. board meeting of the Wenner-Gren Foundation. 110. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” January 8, 1942. Luciak Vision and Reality S323 director was busy writing up his research in Peru, and the war FBI harbored other suspicions concerning Fejos. In 1942, had reduced foundation business to a minimum. Whether Fejos immediately remarried upon his divorce from Inga. the foundation could make major decisions, however, such as Marianne Arden, his fourth wife, was of Austrian descent and the acquisition of its new headquarters in 1945, without Wenner- had grown up in Germany. She was also on the FBI’s radar Gren’s agreement, remains an open question. screen.114 Guilt by association was common during the days As in the instance of resigning as the foundation’s presi- of wartime paranoia. As Wenner-Gren used to say, “The dent immediately before the blacklisting, Wenner-Gren could truth is but a dream.” certainly have thought that a policy of no official contact Despite the Viking Fund’s contributions to the war effort would be in the foundation’s best interest. The exchange of and its attempts to distance itself from its founder, official letters between the foundation and Wenner-Gren, starting Washington continued to view the organization’s activities again in mid-1946, indicates that Wenner-Gren was not of- with great suspicion. FBI memos from June 1943 show that ficially informed of the foundation’s activities during the war. the FBI continued to emphasize “that Wenner-Gren con- Wenner-Gren also had other priorities during the war years. trolled the Viking Fund.”115 This hurt the reputation of the He was fighting for the survival of his economic empire. In Viking Fund and caused considerable growing pains during April 1946, being close to bankruptcy (the blacklisting se- its early years. On the conclusion of World War II, however, verely restricted access to his European and North American the cloud over the foundation started to slowly dissipate. capital) and going through a marital crisis, he was close to fi “ giving up. In desperation, he con ded in his diary, My heart The Foundation’s Struggle for Autonomy: Personal, ”111 is so tired as if it does not want to work anymore. Political, Business, and Philanthropic Interests Fejos himself had good reasons to distance himself from his old friend. He was aware that his former wife Inga Arvad Already during the war, Fejos started to defend the foun- was alleged to be a Nazi spy. Ironically, Inga had divorced dation’s institutional interests. Notwithstanding his close as- Paul in order to distance herself from Wenner-Gren so she sociation with Wenner-Gren, he defended the foundation’s could marry John F. Kennedy. According to Arvad’s FBI file, autonomy with great devotion even when he had to go against the Wenner-Gren connection was one reason why Kennedy’s the interests of his “Lord and Master.” father strongly objected to a liaison between his son and the During the war years some foundation officials engaged beauty queen. In one taped phone conversation the two lov- in actions that would have astonished and greatly offended ers talk explicitly about the potential fallout from having a Wenner-Gren had he gained knowledge of them. The most Wenner-Gren connection. Once Kennedy joined the war ef- remarkable instance involved Fejos, one of the founder’s fort and was shipped out, the relationship appeared over. An most trusted friends, to whom he even gave power of at- indication of the strong bond between Inga and JFK is the torney in 1954.116 Fejos, being interviewed by the FBI during continuing visits of the future president. For example, Ken- February and March 1945 in connection with Wenner- nedy visited Inga in 1944 in Hollywood. At the time, Arvad Gren’s blacklisting case, vouched for the businessman’s was considered “one of the three most influential women” in anti-Nazi credentials. Yet at the same time, he severely dam- the movie mecca (Farris 2016). Arvad wrote an article about aged Wenner-Gren’s prospects to be taken off the blacklist. Kennedy’s wartime exploits that was widely read and that laid According to the FBI record, Fejos emphasized that ’ “ ” the foundation for JFK s war hero status. Following his dis- In his honest opinion WENNER GREN is not now, and was charge in April 1945, Kennedy and Arvad had another en- never sympathetic with Nazi regime and his present flight 112 counter (Farris 2016). [sic; obviously it should be plight] is result of his well- Fejos probably was not aware that he was an FBI target intentioned but naïve meddling in international politics. himself. In mid-1943, FBI agents searched his home, but no Fejos declares WENNER GREN a Pacifist in attitude and 113 incriminating evidence was found. Apart from Inga, the described his earnest attempts to forestall European war. . . . According to Fejos WENNER GREN is a “victim of cir- “ ” 111. Wenner-Gren, Personal diary, April 12, 1946. A few weeks cumstances” who personally believes that the reason behind later, Wenner-Gren managed to get US$1 million from his Swedish the blacklisting is rooted in a personal vendetta Sumner accounts, and his liquidity crisis was temporarily solved. Welles, Under-Secretary of State, wages against him. He has 112. According to Arvad biographer Scott Farris (2016), Inga’s son, not seen nor communicated with WENNER GREN since Ron McCoy, claims that according to his mother, Kennedy and Inga also ’ met in November 1946, and on that occasion they were intimate. The latter s blacklisting. . . . [According to the FBI account of the “ veracity of this claim is highly questionable. Ron McCoy was born in interview] Fejos was not advised of reasons for Depart- August 1947 and thus could technically be a child of JFK. 113. Fejos was under surveillance himself. According to an FBI memorandum, “a spot search of the FEJOS residence at 6 East 65th Street, New 114. Wenner-Gren FBI file, War Department memo concerning Mari- York City, on October 6, 1943, by agents of the New York Field Division was anne Fejos and the Peru expedition, September 3, 1942. conducted, but no contraband or other suspicious material was located.” 115. Wenner-Gren FBI file, memos from June 2 and 25, 1943. Inga Arvad FBI file, March 16, 1945. 116. See letter of May 2, 1954, Wenner-Gren Foundation archives. S324 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

ment’s [FBI] present interest in instant matter [at the time the U.S. government was considering taking Wenner-Gren off the Blacklist], but volunteered opinion that for personal reasons he hoped WENNER GREN would not be allowed to enter US at this time because he feels if entrance is allowed, WENNER GREN will immediately institute an attempt to convince the American public he is innocent of any collaboration or pro-Nazi sentiments. He explained WENNER GREN, because of his tremendous wealth, is accustomed to important people being at his beck and call and does not realize probable unfavorable reaction of US public to such a campaign, as he would undoubtedly engage in. . . . [Fejos] frankly admitted that such an attitude on his part was wholly selfish, inasmuch as the activities of the VIKING FUND, INC, would be seen seriously prejudiced because it is commonly known that the fund operates on endowments from WENNER GREN; and probably scientific and educational institutions in this country would have nothing to do with the FUND if WENNER-GREN should conduct a blatant campaign of publicity.117 This is a clear instance where Fejos chose to abandon his loyalty to Wenner-Gren, giving priority to his own personal and professional future as well as the foundation’s institutional wellbeing (fig. 6). Considering that Fejos was fully aware that the connections of his estranged wife to top-level Nazi officials had added fuel to the FBI case against his benefactor during 1940– 1942, his FBI testimony is remarkable. Judging by the hundreds of documents in Inga’s FBI file, she was erroneously considered a high-level Nazi spy. The FBI investigation on Arvad was officially closed in 1944, having concluded that there was no substance to the allega- tion that Arvad was acting on behalf of German interests. At Figure 6. Paul Fejos in his home at 800 Riverside Drive, New the time of his blacklisting, however, Wenner-Gren’s close York (Wenner-Gren Foundation archives). relationship with the alleged Nazi spy aroused FBI suspicion and became a part of the case being built against him. Start- ing with the very beginning of her 1940 arrival in the United serving the interests of Germany, while others regarded the States, Arvad was treated as a member of the Wenner-Gren disbursement as evidence indicating an intimate sexual rela- family. The attention she received from Marguerite and Axel tionship. The reality was much more mundane. Instead of Wenner-Gren went beyond anything she could have expected “payments to his mistress” as the FBI record states—which as the wife of a trusted friend. Inga spent her first weeks after would have made Wenner-Gren Inga’s lover at the same time arriving in the United States as a guest at Wenner-Gren’s she was together with JFK—the payment was simply ad- Bahamas estate. Marguerite, enchanted by the Danish beauty, vanced on behalf of Fejos, who was away on the Peruvian ex- used her extensive connections to find her employment. After pedition. several failed efforts on behalf of their friend, Axel played a Beginning with their 1937 meeting in Malaysia, Fejos was pivotal role to secure Inga a coveted job at the Washington the link between his benefactor and Arvad. Unfortunately for Times-Herald. The business tycoon also provided the finan- both of them, the friendship carried a high cost. Axel and cial help that Arvad needed to enroll and eventually graduate Inga’s connection gave the FBI grounds to see their suspi- from Columbia University’s School of Journalism. cions confirmed that both were agents of Germany. The con- When FBI leadership learned that Wenner-Gren had writ- nection with the Nordic beauty queen became an important ten a $5,000 check to Inga, all kinds of motives were attrib- link in the Swede’s blacklisting case, and Inga ended up with a uted to this transaction. Some considered the payment evi- broken heart when Wenner-Gren became one of the reasons dence that Inga was employed as the financier’s personal spy, that made her joint future with John F. Kennedy impossible. Fejos’s reservations with regard to Wenner-Gren’s demand 117. Inga Arvad FBI file, February 29, 1945. of absolute control over his economic empire, including his Luciak Vision and Reality S325 philanthropic enterprises, appear to have been justified. In 1948, Wenner-Gren, rising like a phoenix from the ashes of his once formidable economic empire, officially rejoined the Viking Fund as honorary chairman (fig. 7).118 In May 1951, the fund was officially renamed the Wenner-Gren Founda- tion for Anthropological Research, announcing to the world that the patron was back. The initiative of the renaming came from Wenner-Gren and was communicated by President Hunt. Interestingly, Fejos was initially left in the dark. Following his return to New York, Wenner-Gren pressured the foundation to give an enormous grant to the Wenner- Grenska Samfundet in Stockholm. In 1948, the New York foundation gave the Swedish Wenner-Grenska Samfundet a donation of $150,000 ($1,480,985 in today’s money), a very considerable amount in terms of overall foundation assets. The transfer of funds was made at the direct request of Wenner- Gren. The “donation” generated considerable controversy between the New York and Stockholm institutions. From the Swedish perspective the donation was needed because “the war and the general economic situation in Sweden has caused losses and reduced income for Wenner-Grenska Samfundet and thus free scientific research is in critical danger of having to be abandoned to a great extent.”119 The Swedish officials pointed out that Wenner-Gren personally could not provide financial support because of his own financial problems. He had “indicated, however, that your financial posi- ” Figure 7. Arne Lindroth and Axel Wenner-Gren at Andros tion is very strong. The Swedes stated from the beginning Town, Bahamas. Arne Lindroth was Axel Wenner-Gren’s busi- “ that with the donation they would be able to support the ness manager in the Bahamas (courtesy of Örjan Lindroth, Nas- Wenner-Gren Institute,” one of Wenner-Gren’sfavoriteproj- sau, Bahamas). ects.120 Hunt, advocating in his role as foundation president, tried president, he served as Wenner-Gren’s legal counsel and was to resist the pressure from Wenner-Gren. He emphasized a member of the boards of Electrolux and Servel (both Wenner- “such a grant would deviate considerably from our established Gren-controlled companies). policy.”121 Hunt also expressed legal concerns about the way Birger Strid can be seen as Richard Hunt’s counterpart in the transaction was supposed to take place. Wenner-Gren Stockholm. Strid, a close collaborator with Wenner-Gren over wanted to receive the $150,000 personally while one of his a number of years, is another case of Wenner-Gren mixing his companies, as an installment of an outstanding debt, would business and philanthropic interests. Strid was on the board of transfer 750,000 Swedish Crowns to the Wenner-Grenska the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet and played important roles in Samfundet. Over all objections, the transaction was carried several Wenner-Gren businesses. Upon Wenner-Gren’s death, out the way Wenner-Gren had conceived it. Strid became the executive president of Fulcrum, the holding A key characteristic of the foundations created by Wenner- company for all Wenner-Gren assets. His authority was based Gren was the interlocking membership of the board mem- on the blind trust placed in him by Marguerite Wenner-Gren bers. In both New York and Stockholm, the boards were (fig. 8). Legally, Strid had full power of attorney.122 headed either personally by Axel Wenner-Gren or by his The board members of Wenner-Gren’s enterprises enjoyed business confidants. For example, in the case of New York, great prestige and often benefited from their multiple roles. Wenner-Gren served as founding president of the Viking For example, Fejos was given preference over other strong Fund during the first year. When he resigned his position as candidates when Hunt died in 1954. Wenner-Gren made it president in October 1941, Richard C. Hunt, his successor, entirely clear that he would personally play the fundamental was certainly the man to represent Wenner-Gren’s interests. role in choosing a successor. In a letter to Hunt’s son, who In addition to succeeding Wenner-Gren as the foundation’s was a likely choice to succeed his father, Wenner-Gren em-

118. Wenner-Gren to Viking Fund board, March 3, 1948. 122. The record does not show when Fejos’s power of attorney was 119. Sahlin to the foundation, August 26, 1948. rescinded. It is clear that Fejos held it for a number of years. A 1958 entry 120. Sahlin to the foundation, August 26, 1948. in Wenner-Gren’s diary states, “Paul F. signed my name based on an old 121. Hunt to Wenner-Gren, September 30, 1948. power of attorney.” S326 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

ample, was a world-famous scientist who received the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1955. He played a key role in the creation and development of the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet and later in the Stockholm Wenner-Gren foundations. In the case of New York, the central figure was Paul Fejos, who built the New York foundation into an important asset in anthropology. As many other philanthropists had before and after him, Wenner-Gren sought to exercise control over “his” foundations. He did so either by assuming the role of lifetime governor or making sure that close business associates were in control. In the case of the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet, the lack of clear boundaries between philanthropic funds and business assets had catastrophic results. With the notable exception of Birger Strid, many board members agonized over how to reconcile the conflicting demands on the fiduciary trust their various positions placed on them. As in the noteworthy case of the 1948 New York foundation’s “donation” to the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet, the industrialist showed no hesitation to move significant funds from one foundation to another when it suited his interests. This led to rivalries and infighting between his foundations. Even more importantly, he made promises of additional endowment funds that, albeit good intentions, were often not forthcoming and resulted in controversy.

Figure 8. Marguerite Wenner-Gren with Chihuahuas at Shangri- Cooperation and Rivalry: The New York La, Paradise Island, Bahamas (courtesy of Örjan Lindroth, Nassau, and Stockholm Foundations Bahamas). In 1936 and 1937, Axel Wenner-Gren made two large donations for the benefit of Swedish scientific research: the phasized the distinguished work of Fejos and ordered that “I Wenner-Gren Institute for Experimental Biology, Physio- therefore, would like to ask that no steps are taken or changes logical Chemistry and Metabolic Research at Stockholm Uni- made within my Foundation until we have had the oppor- versity (Wenner-Gren Institute) and the Wenner-Grenska tunity to study the new situation and make appropriate rec- Samfundet (Wenner-Gren Society for the Promotion of Sci- ommendations to the remaining board members.”123 Not entific Research and Nordic Cooperation).125 The Wenner- surprisingly, Fejos emerged as the choice for the presidency. Gren Institute was in essence created to support the path- Wenner-Gren assured Fejos in February 1955 that he was the breaking research of John Runnström, its first leader. Nelson financier’schoice:“As to our friend Dick Hunt Jr. and his Rockefeller was one of the first to support Runnström’s re- letter I fully agree with you that he must have found out the search, yet Wenner-Gren eventually contributed substantially impossibility to block our wishes. I do not expect any diffi- more. As a result of Wenner-Gren’s significant donations, culties from him or from any other old board members.”124 “the working team decided, in order to honor its Maecenas, to Although Fejos was proud to have his distinguished service ask Dr. Wenner-Gren whether the Institute might bear his recognized, he remained vigilant to any signs that the foun- name” (Lindberg et al. 1959). Permanent operating support dation’s autonomy was in danger. came through yearly grants from the Wenner-Grenska Sam- An examination of the development of the Stockholm and fundet. The official decision to create the institute was made New York foundations over the years reveals Wenner-Gren’s in January 1937, and Gustaf Adolf, crown prince of Sweden strengths and weaknesses as a philanthropist. He was well (future King Gustav VI Adolf), inaugurated it in May 1939. served by his desire to have the best and brightest minds The Wenner-Grenska Samfundet, on the other hand, leading his foundations, and as the record shows, he was very evolved into an important funding source for basic science. successful in attracting great leaders. Hugo Theorell, for ex-

125. Wenner-Gren also endowed a laboratory at the University of 123. Wenner-Gren to Hunt (junior), December 15, 1954 (emphasis Kentucky, which was engaged in the development of the MAWEN (Mar- mine). guerite Wenner-Gren) airplane engine. Kentucky received the ﬁrst grant 124. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, February 23, 1955. awarded by the foundation. Luciak Vision and Reality S327

The two founders, Axel and Marguerite Wenner-Gren, were Most of the 1948 grant from New York went to support lifetime members of the board, which in total consisted of the Wenner-Gren Institute, whereas Fejos demanded that the seven members. World-renowned scientists, including Manne funds be allocated in support of anthropological research. He Siegbahn (Nobel Prize in physics) served on the board, which insisted every year on an accounting of how the money from was headed by Hugo Theorell. Apart from the significant his foundation was being spent and resented the cursory ac- support for the Wenner-Gren Institute, grants were given to counting coming from Stockholm. In December 1955, in the support a variety of scientific activities. Crown Prince Gustaf wake of Wenner-Gren’s decision to create a new foundation Adolf was honorary chairman, and Wenner-Gren’s talent of in Stockholm and not New York, Fejos became more strident persuasion led the Swedish authorities to grant the Wenner- in his quest for a full accounting. A furious Fejos learned that Grenska Samfundet tax-exempt status, a privilege that not more than half of the original grant remained. His anger can even the Nobel Foundation had attained. be easily understood in light of the fact that the grant was Wenner-Gren’s final and arguably most significant phil- given because of Stockholm’s pressing financial needs at the anthropic contribution was announced to the world by the time. Over Fejos’s objections that the remaining funds be al- Swedish media in November 1955. “Dr. Wenner-Gren” had located in support of research in the field of anthropology, manifested his generosity once again through a donation to Stockholm decided in 1956 to give almost the entire remain- create “The Foundation Wenner-Gren Center for Scientific ing funds to the Wenner-Gren Institute.129 Research.” The aim was to promote international cooperation Fejos’s disappointment concerning how the grant from his in research within the fields of natural sciences, medicine, foundation had been allocated by Stockholm paled in com- and technology, in the first place by acquiring and providing parison to the pain he must have felt over Wenner-Gren’s 1955 premises in a building in Stockholm.126 decision to endow Stockholm’s Wenner-Gren Foundation for Initially, relations between New York and Stockholm were Scientific Research. When the news reached New York, dis- amicable. On some occasions, the two foundations funded belief and anger were the predominant emotions. Paul Fejos similar scientific research endeavors. This was the case in the felt betrayed. For several years, in close coordination with grant support for Willard Libby. Libby became world re- Wenner-Gren, Fejos had been diligently working on a dream nowned when he was recognized with a Nobel Prize for the project, which in its proposed scale constituted a revolution- discovery of carbon-14 as a method for dating fossil remains. ary philanthropic approach. New York supported the scientist’s work with a substantial In the early 1950s, Fejos was the key person tasked with grant of $35,000. In 1953, Stockholm provided 20,000 Swed- conceiving one of Wenner-Gren’s most ambitious philan- ish crowns (then less than $4,000) in seed funding to the Swed- thropic plans. The Swedish entrepreneur was about to enact ish carbon-14 committee.127 Stockholm also used funds it had the plan for “The Endowment,” which would be a global phil- obtained through New York’s 1948 “donation” to support ac- anthropic undertaking to be financed in every country with tivities that were part of the foundation’s core mission. For the proceeds of ALWEG (Axel Leonard Wenner-Gren mono- example, Swedish scientists were awarded travel grants to rail system). The scientific luminaries of the time, including participate in international anthropological meetings.128 Niels Bohr, a father of the atomic bomb, and Julian Huxley, Starting in the late 1940s, the relationship between Stock- the first director of UNESCO, had signed on to be on the holm and New York became strained. The roots of the con- foundation’s executive board. Paul had been given the prom- flict are to be found in the large “donation” Wenner-Gren ise that he would be the executive director of this world en- forced on New York to benefit Stockholm and the competing terprise. desires of the respective leadership to see their foundations To Fejos’s bewilderment, Wenner-Gren never publicized become the beneficiaries of Wenner-Gren’s wealth. this ambitious undertaking despite a scheduled June 1955 public announcement at Princeton University that Fejos had arranged at Wenner-Gren’s request. The pronouncement was 126. Wenner-Gren donated 8 million Swedish crowns (about US$16 to be at the landmark Wenner-Gren symposium “Man’s Role million in today’s terms). The Swedish State contributed with a plot of in Changing the Face of the Earth.” It “brought together 70 land free of charge and a complex of buildings. The Wenner-Gren Center scholars from North America, the Middle East, and Asia— was inaugurated in 1962. Subsequently, an additional foundation with with specializations ranging across more than 20 conven- essentially the same general objective was established, the Axel Wenner- tionally defined disciplines from anthropology to zoology— Gren Foundation for International Exchange of Scientists. Today, these who were selected for their common interest and curiosity two foundations and the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet coordinate their about what man has been doing to and with his habitat.”130 activities, and the three foundations operate under the name Wenner- This interdisciplinary event would have been the ideal forum Gren Foundations. “ ” fi 127. Archive of the Stockholm foundations. to share The Endowment Plan with the scienti c com- 128. For example, Professor Gerhard Lindblom received funding to attend the 1952 International Symposium on Anthropology, organized 129. See the final grant analysis in the archives of the Wenner- by Axel Wenner-Gren and the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthro- Grenska Samfundet. pological Research. 130. See www.wennergren.org. S328 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 munity. Not surprisingly, Paul was deeply disappointed when Wenner-Gren, having been throughout his life a great rival of the announcement was aborted. He felt ownership in the Nelson Rockefeller, must have loved the idea of having a planned World Foundation because the concept for it was building that equaled in grandeur and vision the Rockefeller largely a product of his mind. Center.133 The roots of the “betrayal” had to do with the fact that In April 1955, a desperate Fejos, sensing that the Swedish Swedish scientists with their own plans surrounded Wenner- competition was winning the “endowment battle,” warned Gren. In the competition with New York, Wenner-Gren’s Wenner-Gren. “If you do not announce [the Endowment] as loyalty to his birth country won out over the admiration he originally planned the illustrious people will be angry.”134 felt for the United States and the exceptional relationship he Wenner-Gren did not like to be called to task. His response, shared with Fejos. The fact that the US government had hu- albeit in a polite fashion, conveyed Fejos’s limits: “I regret this miliated and almost financially ruined him with the black- time not to be in agreement with all of what you write.”135 The listing decision was a key factor in why he chose not to leave key warning sign that Sweden was closer to Wenner-Gren’s his fortune to a US enterprise.131 heart than Fejos and the foundation came during May 1955. At the same time that Fejos was elaborating the ideas for Wenner-Gren informed Fejos that “time has run too short to “The Endowment Plan,”132 Wenner-Gren was under pressure make it possible to present at Princeton the idea” and advised by Swedish luminaries who presented their own visions of him to “hold the plans for the international endowment in scientific research to the potential benefactor. Hugo Theorell abeyance for a year or two.”136 had approached Wenner-Gren in 1954, laying out plans for a When Fejos shared his great disappointment with Wenner- “grandiose center for the integration of science.” The Swedish Gren that he had chosen Stockholm over New York, the plan was a joint effort of Manne Siegbahn and Ragnar Nils- business mogul assured him that he was rich enough to fund son, who served as the vice chancellor of the University of both ideas. Wenner-Gren’s promise that he wanted to pro- Agriculture and had a reputation “as an influential player in ceed with the “Endowment” encountered a now skeptical Fe- Swedish research policy” (Jonsson 2012:43–44). jos who demanded “a firm, irrevocable commitment as to the Wenner-Gren was eager to create something spectacular so finances of the Endowment.”137 Wenner-Gren, not surpris- that he would be remembered by following generations as a ingly, never made such a commitment while holding out the great philanthropist and leading industrialist and not as the carrot that Fejos’s plan would be realized in the near future.138 suspected Nazi collaborator the US government had alleged As late as New Year’s Eve 1959, Wenner-Gren held out car- him to be during the war years. John Örtengren, Wenner- rots to his old friend. The diary entry for this day references a Gren’s personal public relations consultant, conceived the idea “discussion with Paul about [a] new Wenner-Gren Fund for of branding the scientific center as the Wenner-Gren Center, 5,000 of the world’s leading anthropologists.”139 which is today a “world-recognized landmark.” Although Fejos’s original concept was never realized, there fi One day in the autumn of 1955 Axel Wenner-Gren called was indeed a consolation prize ( g. 9). In 1957, Wenner-Gren 140 me to his office and asked for my suggestion to how his acquired Burg Wartenstein, a medieval castle in Austria. personal goodwill could be preserved in the long run. At The castle was given to the New York foundation and served that time he informed me of his idea to assemble the var- as an international conference center. Between 1958 and 1980, ious offices of his, including those involved in medical re- the foundation organized 86 anthropology symposia and hosted 141 search to one single place. He wondered how such a project more than 2,000 scholars from around the world. Thus, one of ’ could best serve his ambition to create long-term goodwill Fejos s dreams became reality. Until his death in 1963, he took for himself. I suggested that he could do as Rockefeller, who great pride in playing the role of the Schlossherr, hosting the had named his building complex in New York, Rockefeller Center. Why reinvent the wheel? 133. Interestingly, the New York foundation’s original offices, where He suggested that I should present the idea to Hugo Fejos started on his quest to build the field of anthropology into a sig- Theorell who was the Chairman of an informal Research nificant scientific discipline, had been located at 10 Rockefeller Plaza. Council consisting of leading Swedish scientists. . . . Hugo 134. Fejos to Wenner-Gren, April 1955. Theorell liked the idea, which was thereafter discussed in 135. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, May 2, 1955. 136. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, May 9, 1955. the Research Council. It was rapidly decided that Wenner- 137. Fejos to Dodds, November 15, 1955. Gren Center would be an appropriate name of the building 138. Brita Procopé-Heidenstam, Wenner-Gren’s private secretary, cau- complex to be. (Örtengren 2012:43) tioned Fejos that the financier was unlikely to make a binding commitment, noting that Wenner-Gren “is almost as allergic to signing documents as he is to Taxes.” Letter from Procopé to Fejos, October 18, 1955. 131. Wenner-Gren made his view known to US ambassador Hill 139. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” December 31, 1959. during a meeting in Mexico. Cable from US embassy in Mexico to State 140. Lindee and Radin (2016) report that the purchase of the castle Department, Wenner-Gren FBI file, March 8, 1960. meant a significant tax break for the shrewd businessman. 132. See Fejos’s “Prospectus concerning the Wenner-Gren Endow- 141. See the foundation’s website for specific information on the ment,” Wenner-Gren Foundation archives. symposia. Luciak Vision and Reality S329

The experience of the “donation” and the never forthcoming funding for the “Endowment” strengthened Paul Fe- jos’s determination to shield the New York foundation from any pressures coming from its benefactor or Wenner-Gren’s business associates. New York’s hard-gained autonomy from Wenner-Gren’s business and philanthropic enterprises served the foundation well. After Wenner-Gren’s death, his business empire went into a tailspin. Birger Strid lacked the capacity to hold the overleveraged enterprise together, and by the mid- 1970s his business dealings landed the Wenner-Gren holdings, including the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet, in court. In the wake of Wenner-Gren death in 1961, the board of the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet made the unfortunate decision to financially support the deceased donor’s estate, which in time led to several board members being prosecuted for breach of trust. Most were acquitted of criminal charges, but they were compelled to pay considerable damages to the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet. As a consequence of the economic and legal turmoil, the society, which had awarded 1 million Swedish crowns in research support in 1970, was forced to reduce its funding support by half.143 New York also had concerns about the potential fallout from the judicial proceedings concerning Wenner-Gren’ses- tate that were taking place in Stockholm. The foundation’s leadership sought information from Per Hanner, the state- appointed administrator of the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet, regarding the financial and legal problems engulfing the Swedish foundation. Hanner’s news brought relief to New York. He shared that although the Wenner-Grenska Sam- fundet’s endowment had experienced a catastrophic loss, “the Figure 9. Lita Binns, Axel Wenner-Gren, and two members of separate Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Center in Stockholm the foundation staff, Cleo Mullas and Kenneth Honea, in the is reported to be entirely outside this trouble, the reason being courtyard of Burg Wartenstein, 1958 (Wenner-Gren Foundation that it—like your own happy Foundation—refused to lend archives). any money to the Wenner-Gren estate.”144 New York was not a stranger to funding requests that were most eminent anthropologists of his time at a location close to outside the foundation’s mission. Marguerite Wenner-Gren, his Hungarian homeland. for example, insisted on getting reports from the foundation With Stockholm being victorious in this competition, con- and shared her views on the foundation’s mission. A year tact between the foundations became sporadic. There were before her death in 1973, when Marguerite was experiencing only a few exchanges after 1955. Hugo Theorell visited the financial difficulties, she approached the foundation and of- Wartenstein conference center in Austria, and several New fered to sell portraits of her husband and herself to the foun- fi York of cials came to see their Stockholm counterpart. In the dation. After careful consideration, a cautious leadership re- wake of the legal troubles surrounding the Wenner-Grenska spectfully declined.145 Samfundet in the mid-1970s, however, contact ceased. It took In the wake of the Wenner-Gren estate’s legal problems, fi 25 years for a mutually bene cial relationship to emerge again. Swedish journalists started to explore Wenner-Gren’s phil- ’ The initiator was Leslie Aiello, the New York foundation s anthropic legacy in New York. For example, an article in president, who came to Stockholm in 2011 in order to meet Dagens Nyheter, one of the main Swedish newspapers, alerted fi with of cials of the Swedish foundation. A year later, both its readers to the flourishing Wenner-Gren Foundation in the “ foundations collaborated in the international conference Re- United States where “in an old patrician house near Central ”142 ality and Myth: A Symposium on Axel Wenner-Gren. Park at Manhattan’s 71 Street there is a reminder of Wenner-

142. The event, held in Stockholm, brought Wenner-Gren experts, 143. Sydsvenska Dagbladet, November 11, 1971. including some relatives, from across the globe together in the ﬁrst 144. Hanner to Osmundsen, October 26, 1973. comprehensive examination of Wenner-Gren’s legacy. The conference 145. Exchange of letters between Fredrik Ahlin and Osmundsen, proceedings are available at the New York foundation’s website. March-May, 1972, Wenner-Gren Foundation archives. S330 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016

Gren’s economic empire.”146 Hoping to discover some juicy Wenner-Gren of his own failing health and shared how sorry new aspects in the Wenner-Gren saga, Swedish journalists he was that he could not see him as planned. He expressed his visited the New York foundation, and collaborators of the great disappointment, regretting the fact that “it is an un- foundation such as the British Museum voiced concerns commonly long time since I last was able to see you.”150 In his about its future financial viability. Lita Osmundsen, the foun- last letter to Fejos dated September 1961, Wenner-Gren con- dation’s director, did her best to put distance between New veyed in turn that “especially your last letter made me very York and Stockholm. In response to inquiries from collabo- unhappy, because from its contents I understand that your rating institutions, she felt compelled “to clarify, first and health is causing you trouble” and expressed his strong desire foremost we have not and never have had legal, financial or to see him.151 Thus, the two friends parted with great affection Board personnel links with the Wenner-Gren private or for each other, both suffering health problems. Only Fejos public enterprises.”147 The institutional autonomy from would emerge from the hospital to live another 2 years. Wenner-Gren and his associates, including the Stockholm At the time of his death, Wenner-Gren was once again foundations, became one of Fejos’s lasting legacies. recognized as one of the leading businessmen and philanthropists of his time. His reputation in the United States, how- Conclusion: Vision and Reality ever, continued to be under a cloud, although Wenner-Gren claimed publicly that it had been restored. Wenner-Gren was Wenner-Gren’s last public appearance was on September 29, convinced that being an invited guest at President Harry 1961, at the funeral of his longtime friend, Dag Hammar- Truman’s 1949 inauguration was evidence of this. Indeed, the skjöld,148 secretary general of the United Nations. Hammar- leadership of Congress, where he had powerful friends, had skjöld had been tragically killed in the Congo while on a peace invited the Swede to celebrate this important occasion. The mission. On October 2, a few days after the funeral, Wenner- White House, however, kept its distance (Leifland 1989:305– Gren checked himself into Stockholm’s Röda Korset hospital to 306). be examined by Clarence Crawfoord, an internationally known Two events in the year before his death illustrate the es- medical expert and Wenner-Gren’s private physician.149 As a teem he enjoyed in his native Sweden and internationally. result of the exam, Crawfoord recommended immediate sur- King Gustaf VI Adolf bestowed one of the highest Swedish gery, which led to a devastating discovery. honors on Wenner-Gren, and in October 1960 Israel’s pres- The fact that Wenner-Gren was terminally ill was hidden tigious Weizmann Institute of Science conferred on him the from relatives and business associates alike. Brita Procopé- 29th Honorary Fellowship (in essence an honorary doctor- Heidenstam, the Swede’s private secretary who had shared an ate).152 Wenner-Gren regarded the Weizmann recognition as intimate relationship with Fejos for many years, informed her his final redemption.153 old friend that his benefactor was fatally ill with stomach Wenner-Gren’s last will, dictated in October 1961 from his cancer. Neither Wenner-Gren nor his wife Marguerite (then hospital bed to Brita Procopé, was a distinct disappointment in Mexico) were fully informed of this bitter reality. The once for the New York foundation. Wenner-Gren concluded a life- powerful man who had throughout his life had the most time of creating major philanthropic enterprises in the United important political and economic news of the day at his States and Europe by leaving his remaining fortune to the fingertips was never told about the severity of his condition Wenner-Gren Stiftelserna in Stockholm. In the end, loyalty to and his impending demise. Wenner-Gren briefly recuperated his native Sweden won over his admiration for the United for a couple of weeks after the operation. On November 25, States and his close ties with Paul Fejos. Wenner-Gren never 1961, after a fall in the bathroom, he was declared dead. forgot his fall from grace in the United States. Marguerite, his Crawfoord, together with the king’s private physician, Gun- wife, shared her husband’s sentiment. Although an American nar Björk, jointly announced his death. citizen, she left her estate to the Stockholm foundations with Fejos could not be by the side of his old friend because he was seriously ill himself. In September 1961, Fejos informed 150. Fejos to Wenner-Gren, September 22, 1961. 151. Wenner-Gren to Fejos, September 25, 1961. 146. Dagens Nyheter, November 20, 1973. 152. Historic Israeli figures honored Wenner-Gren with their pres- 147. Oral history of Lita Osmundsen, August 1979. Wenner-Gren ence, including Abba Eban, then the president of the Weizmann Institute Foundation archives. and the country’s renowned foreign minster. The “Fellowship” was 148. Before his UN career, Hammarskjöld had served as the chairman presented by the surviving spouse of Israel’s first president, Chaim of the Swedish Central Bank (1941–1948). In this position he was closely Weizmann. At a time when Israel was engulfed in the Eichmann trial, no involved with Wenner-Gren’s financial dealings during the war years. In Israeli politician would have met, even less honored, a suspected Nazi March 1960, true to his visionary self and only a few months before the sympathizer. demise of both men, Wenner-Gren discussed his idea of a “World Uni- 153. He shared the news of his honor with former president Herbert versity” with the secretary general. The project received initial funding Hoover, who in his response emphasized, “It is of course true that I from the Stockholm foundation. protested against the unjust treatment that you were a target of during 149. Wenner-Gren, “Personal diary,” October 2 and 6, 1961. the war” (Leifland 1989:301, 316). Luciak Vision and Reality S331 the mandate to endow a foundation for the arts. Her wish trary to all allegations contained in the FBI records, Wenner- never became reality, because Marguerite’s remaining prop- Gren was never a Nazi collaborator. The previously undiscov- erty was in the care of Birger Strid, the incompetent and ered government records presented in this article establish dishonest executor of her estate. Before Strid deservedly went beyond any reasonable doubt that the United States black- to jail for his fraudulent activities, which destroyed Wenner- listed Axel Wenner-Gren for one main reason: under the cover Gren’s economic empire, he paid several outstanding debts to of alleged sinister connections between Wenner-Gren and Wenner-Gren’s niece and a few privileged associates. All Nazi Germany that supposedly warranted Wenner-Gren’s other assets simply disappeared.154 Marguerite’s precious jew- inclusion in the Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals elry collection, for example, was auctioned off in London, and (US Department of State et al. 1945), the US government the proceeds could never be traced. effectively eliminated a challenge to its economic and political Axel Wenner-Gren was one of the most important phil- hegemony in the country’s “backyard.” anthropists of his time. His lifetime ambition was to strengthen Wenner-Gren and Fejos shared illusions of grandeur (fig. 10). scientific exchange at a global level. Although a part of his Axel considered himself “the last Viking” on a quest to con- bold agenda was not realized because of the collapse of his quer the world. He believed that he had the Midas touch and economic empire, his legacy is significant. It has been argued that all his business ventures would turn to gold, as had in- that no single Swedish philanthropic contribution matched in deed been the case with Electrolux as well as other business size the amount Wenner-Gren contributed over his lifetime ventures, including the acquisition of Paradise Island in the to the pursuit of scientific study. At least in the case of the Bahamas and the Mexican phone company. Paul, on the other most famous Swedish philanthropic enterprise—the world- hand, imagined himself as Lord of the Castle Wartenstein, renowned Nobel Foundation—one could make this case. running an innovative global foundation with a $1 billion en- Alfred Nobel’s 1885 donation was estimated at 31 million Swedish crowns. By 2011, the Nobel Foundation assets had grown to 3.1 billion Swedish crowns ($450 million), with the current prize money allocated each year for the five original Nobel prizes amounting to 50 million crowns.155 The Wenner- Gren foundations in Stockholm and New York have a combined endowment that exceeds that of the Nobel Foundation. Scholarships awarded by the two foundations are held in very high regard in the scientific community. For thousands of graduate students and established academics, these stipends were key in furthering their careers. For example, current Su- preme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held a fellowship from the Stockholm foundations in the 1960s while living at the Wenner-Gren Center. The New York and Stockholm foundations made sound business decisions in the 1980s, substantially decreasing their operating costs by selling key assets. In 1984, Stockholm sold its buildings to a major pension fund for $100 million, thereby ensuring the long-term health of its endowment. A couple of years earlier, the New York foundation had sold both Burg Wartenstein and its New York office building (for $1.2 million) in an effort to reduce operating costs and to diversify the endowment. The historical evidence indicates that the cloud of suspicion under which the Wenner-Gren foundations in New York and Stockholm had to operate was decidedly undeserved. Con-

154. Documents in the archive of the Wenner-Grenska Samfundet reveal that Wenner-Gren’s niece, Anita Axell, his secretary Elizabeth Sturk Gustafsson, and his Mexican business associate William O’Connell all received considerable amounts of money. Officially the payments were loan repayments. 155. According to Lars Heikensten, the current director, the foundation spends, including the prize money, about 120 million Swedish crowns on a yearly basis. Jan Almgren, “Prissumman på spel,” Svenska Figure 10. Paul Fejos and Axel Wenner-Gren onboard the South- Dagsbladet, October 8, 2011. ern Cross, 1940 (Wenner-Gren Foundation archives). S332 Current Anthropology Volume 57, Supplement 14, October 2016 dowment for the benefit of humanity. Whereas their dreams ———. 1944. Archeological explorations in the Cordillera Vilcabamba, southeastern Peru. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 3. New York: fell short of reality, the legacy of Fejos and Wenner-Gren is Viking Fund. impressive. Fifty years after their deaths, the record shows that ———. 1951. Highlights of the first ten years: 10-year-anniversary report. New Wenner-Gren and Fejos left a significant imprint on scientific York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. Fontander, Björn. 2008. Görings Sverige: en hatkärlek. Stockholm: Carlsson. discovery and research. Wenner-Gren, the philanthropist and Hemming, John. 2004. The conquest of the Incas. London: Pan MacMillan. businessman, donated his entire fortune to science, and Fejos, Jonsson, Inge. 2012. The history of the Wenner-Gren foundations. In Wenner- who became famous first as a Hollywood movie director, Gren Center: 50 years: promotion of international scientific exchange 1962– 2012. Bertil Daneholt, ed. Pp. 43–44. Stockholm: Wenner-Gren Foun- ended a brilliant career as a creative force that changed the dations. discipline of anthropology. Kramer, Paul. 1981. Nelson Rockefeller and British security coordination. Journal of Contemporary History 16(1):73–88. Leifland, Leif. 1989. Svartlistningen av Axel Wenner-Gren. Stockholm: Askelin & Hägglund. Acknowledgments Lindberg, Olof, John Runnström, Björn Afzelius, Harry Boström, Lars Ernster, Tryggve Gustafson, Berndt E. Hagstöm, Tore Hultin, and Peter Perlmann. Research for this article has been supported by grants from 1959. Wenner-Grens Institut 1939–1959. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksells/ the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Wenner-Grens Institut. and the Stockholm-based Wenner-Gren Stiftelserna. The ma- Lindee, Susan, and Joanna Radin. 2016. Patrons of the human experience: a history of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, terial presented here is based on my forthcoming book, “The 1941–2016. Current Anthropology 57(suppl. 14):S218–S301. Swedish Sphinx: The Rise and Fall of Axel Wenner-Gren, the Luciak, Ilja. 2012a. Axel Wenner-Gren’s legacy to science. In Wenner-Gren fi – Electrolux King.” I gratefully acknowledge the helpful reviews Center: 50 years: promotion of international scienti c exchange 1962 2012. Bertil Daneholt, ed. Pp. 7–26. Stockholm: Wenner-Gren Stiftelserna. of three anonymous experts as well as the excellent suggestions ———. 2012b. The life of Axel Wenner-Gren: an introduction. In Reality and offered by several staff members of the New York foundation myth: a symposium on Axel Wenner-Gren. Ilja Luciak and Bertil Daneholt, – in revising the original draft of this article. Leslie Aiello and eds. Pp. 12 30. Stockholm: Wenner-Gren Stiftelserna. Mariager, Ann. 2008. Den skandaløse skandinav. Copenhagen: Gylendal. Bertil Daneholt, the respective presidents of the New York and Örtengren, John. 2012. Designing public relations for Axel Wenner-Gren. In Stockholm Wenner-Gren foundations, have been particularly Reality and myth: a symposium on Axel Wenner-Gren. Ilja Luciak and Bertil – supportive of my research. Daneholt, eds. Pp. 42 44. Stockholm: Wenner-Gren Stiftelserna. Price, David. 2000. Anthropologists as spies. Nation, November 2. Reich, Cary. 1996. The life of Nelson A. Rockefeller: worlds to conquer, 1908– 1958. New York: Doubleday. References Cited Rowe, John H. 1944. An introduction to the archaeology of Cuzco. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 27, no. 2. Allison, Amy. 2003. Machu Picchu: building history. Farmington Hills, MI: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lucent. Summers, Anthony. 2011. The secret life of J. Edgar Hoover. Ebury. Åmark, Klas. 2011. Att Bo Granne Med Ondskan: Sveriges förhållande till Thomson, Hugh. 2003. The White Rock: an exploration of the Inca heartland. nazismen, Nazityskland och Förintelsen. Stockholm: Albert Bonniers. New York: Overlook. Bingham, Hiram. 2003. Lost city of the Incas. Washington, DC: Phoenix. Unger, Gunnar. 1962. Axel Wenner-Gren: en Vikingasaga. Stockholm: Bon- Bogar, Margot Langhammer. 1959. Pionier der Zeitenwende: Axel Wenner- niers. Gren. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann. US Department of State. 1946. Bulletin July 21, 1946. Washington, DC: Boman, Ragnar, and Ingrid Dahlberg. 1975. Dansen kring Guldkalven: Axel Government Printing Office. Wenner-Gren. Stockholm: Askild & Kärnekull. US Department of State, US Department of the Treasury, US Department Burger, Richard, ed. 2010. The life and writings of Julio C. Tello: America’s first of Justice, US Department of Commerce, US Foreign Economic Ad- indigenous archaeologist. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. ministration, and US Office of Inter-American Affairs. 1945. The pro- Dodds, John. 1963. Eulogy for Paul Fejos (1897–1963). Current Anthropology claimed list of certain blocked nationals: Revision IX, February 28, 1945, pro- 4(4):405–407. mulgated pursuant to Proclamation 2497 of the President of July 17, 1941. ———. 1973. The several lives of Paul Fejos. New York: Wenner-Gren Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Foundation. Wenner-Gren, Axel. 1937. Vädjan till envar. Stockholm: Bonniers. Farris, Scott. 2016. Inga: Kennedy’s great love, Hitler’s perfect beauty, and J. ———. 1938. Call to reason: an appeal to common sense. New York: Farrar & Edgar Hoover’s prime suspect. Guilford: Lyons. Rinehart. Fejos, Paul. 1943. Ethnography of the Yagua. Viking Fund Publications in ———. 1961. Mitt intresse för forskning. Stockholm: Särtryck of Svensk Anthropology, no. 1. New York: Viking Fund. Naturvetskap. 2016 1− 194 PRESS LITA OSMUNDSEN 5 YEARS CHICAGO PAUL FEJOS VOLUME 57VOLUME SUPPLEMENT 14 OCTOBER 2016 UNIVERSIT Y O F RADIN JOANNA THE

t Curren

Current Anthropology October 2016 Volume 57 Supplement 14 Pages S211−S332