Han F. Vermeulen, Arturo Alvarez Roldan. Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of European . European Association of Social Anthropologists. London: Routledge, 1995. xi + 261 S. $130.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-415-10655-9.

Reviewed by Wim van Meurs

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (April, 1998)

Writing for your own tribe or for the academ‐ as such. . S. Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (Lon‐ ic community? don 1988), pp. 83-111. No doubt, approaching the history of science In the disciplines of ethnology and anthropol‐ is one of the most intellectually challenging parts ogy, the refexive movement and the ethnological of any academic discipline. And this challenge has method of participant observation have led to pe‐ increased signifcantly in the past decade or so, culiar efects as far as the history of science is now that the history of science is no longer the concerned: after years and years of studying exot‐ story of Great-Men-Making-Great-Inventions-in-a- ic tribes in the jungle, anthropologists and ethnol‐ Flash-of-Genius.Studies of this kind tended, on the ogists came home and developed an interest in one hand, to ignore the intellectual precursors "home-made" exotic . They began to see and the academic setting of inventions and dis‐ academic institutes or disciplines (including their coveries while, on the other hand, taking the own) as exotic tribes, with rituals, traditions, and sacrosanctity of science for granted and leaving beliefs of their own. aside the Bourdieu-ian aspects of academe. Nowa‐ The compilation 'Fieldwork and Footnotes' is days, moreover, history of science is no longer the product of the second workshop on the histo‐ limited to the history of technology, natural sci‐ ry of European anthropology, part of the confer‐ ences, and medicine. (Although, by the way, the H- ence by the European Association of Social An‐ Net list H-SCI-MED-TECH still tends to uphold this thropologists (EASA) held in , August 1992. defnition of the feld.) In the social sciences and A frst-ever workshop on this topic had been part humanities, the history of a discipline used to be of a previous EASA conference in Coimbra in Sep‐ an integral part of the discipline itself. For the tember 1990. The History of European Anthropol‐ most part, history of science was a practical help ogy Network and its newsletter, initiated for the and a starting point for future research, rather third workshop in Oslo June 1994, seem to have than a refection on the why and how of science lead a marginal existence since. The sixteen con‐ H-Net Reviews tributors of the book are from Spain, Scotland, be an expert in this subdiscipline or has to have Germany, Mexico, Romania, Sweden, Denmark, read the whole book attentively before. Poland, Slovenia, the Netherlands, the Czech Re‐ The frst part of the book discusses the early public, and Hungary. Their short biographies al‐ origins of ethnography and its institutionalization ready outline the subject of the book and the in Europe and the United States, as well as its paradoxes of European anthropology. The names philosophical and historical roots, in four chap‐ of their institutes range from "social and/or cul‐ ters. The frst chapter by Michael Harbsmeier up‐ tural anthropology" to "anthropology and history" holds the fction of a debate on the origins of an‐ to "ethnology and (cultural) anthropology" or thropology. Like the editor in his introduction, he even "comparative studies" (pp. vii-viii). too admits that one's dating of the beginnings of The introduction by the two editors is a good anthropology is bound to be infuenced by the example for explaining my ambiguity towards concept of anthropology one uses: Is it a Begrifs‐ this book. The introduction and the issues it raises geschichte of "ethnology" and its equivalents, the - the question of the origins and periodization of institutionalization in the nineteenth century, or anthropology and the institutional development is it the much older European habit of "some kind of anthropology (a.k.a. ethnology) in Europe - of eye-witness observation [...] and the art of de‐ whet the appetite of the reader. Nevertheless, this scribing 'other' cultures and societies"? (p. 20). introduction (and the book as a whole) might The other two chapters in this part - the one have been much more readable if the editors and on the philosophical roots and Hegel by Gheorghi‐ authors had kept in mind that the history of an‐ ta Geana and the one on historical roots and the thropology is a minor subdiscipline, chief occupa‐ works of Adolf Bastian by Klaus-Peter Koepping - tion for only a few. The pace and depth of their es‐ again have all the characteristics of a scientifc pa‐ says suggest that they tend to forget this, although per presented for a small inner circle of special‐ they said so themselves in their acknowledg‐ ists. Again, the approaches are interesting, but for ments, that this book is "a small independent a chapter in a book one might have wished to see place to exchange their ideas [on the history of some didactic concessions to the reader. European anthropology]." Therefore, a more ex‐ The second part of the book introduces some tensive contextualization for the general anthro‐ well-chosen great anthropologists and their fa‐ pological reader might have been appropriate. vorite objects of study as stepping stones in the The current introduction is bound to confuse your development of anthropological thinking. The ordinary mortal: The existence of a debate on the chapter by Alan Barnard on Lord Monboddo and developmental stages of anthropology is suggest‐ the "nobility" of the Orang Outang discusses ques‐ ed, but it is not borne out by the rest of the book. tions of the sociability of mankind and the rela‐ The editor Vermeulen, moreover, later on admits tion between animal and man. Monboddo (like that it is just a word game; as long as one distin‐ Rousseau) accepted the idea that Orang Outangs guishes between the raising of anthropological were essentially human, as intellect, not speech, questions and the institutionalization of anthro‐ was their defning characteristic of mankind. An‐ pology, there is "a consensus on the main stages other chapter in this part which made some fasci‐ that a chronological scheme of the history of an‐ nating reading is Jan de Wolf's essay on H.J. thropology should cover" (p. 7). The second ques‐ Nieboer and the study of slavery, although the di‐ tion of the introduction (on institutionalization) is dactic problem pops up again. Having used two approached by the editor Roldan from such an an‐ pages for his bibliography, De Wolf has fourteen gle and using so much detail that one either has to pages left to make his argument: "While it is com‐

2 H-Net Reviews monplace knowledge that the emphasis on the and a fnal chapter on the paradoxes of the histo‐ collection of primary data contributed to the new‐ ry of of Europe. Tomas Gerholm ly emerging functionalist paradigm early in this argues that while Swedish anthropology (defned century, it is less well known that secondary anal‐ as the discipline dealing with non-European peo‐ ysis through systematic comparison of many dif‐ ples and societies) was peripheral in the interna‐ ferent societies could have a similar anti-evolu‐ tional community of anthropologists, ethnology tionist efect. In this chapter I should like to much less so because of the international stand‐ demonstrate this through the work of the Dutch ing of Sigurd Erixon (1888-1938). He argued that scholar H.J. Nieboer (1873-1920) on slavery." European ethnology should be part of general eth‐ Rather than using this limited space to make a nology (i.e., anthropology). Nevertheless, two sep‐ clear and consistent argument, De Wolf feels he arate disciplines became consolidated in Sweden, should also "contextualize this work in relation to and both follow the lead of the international cen‐ his [Nieboer's] mentor Steinmetz as well as to ters, rather than working with their colleagues some broader political and economic issues and next door. their social policy implications" (p. 113). This The next two chapters deal with anthropology leaves him all of four pages to demonstrate his in Slovenia and Poland. With all due respect, the views on Nieboer and slavery. history of the discipline in these two states in the He then distinguished between two traditions twentieth century presupposes a separate chapter in Dutch anthropology: Wilken and the study of on the development of anthropology in Russia native peoples of the Dutch East Indies, Steinmetz and the USSR which is not really as unknown and and the theoretical concerns with savages as a undocumented as the editors seem to suggest, . specifc category of human being, as well as the See, for instance, 'Soviet and Western Anthropolo‐ implications for the study of one's own society. gy', ed. E. Gellner (London: 1980) or W. van Meurs, Steinmetz searched for laws as descriptive regu‐ "Ethnographie in der USSR: Jaeger oder Sammler? larities and empirical generalizations of develop‐ in: 'Inszenierung des Nationalen', eds. B. Binder, P. mental stages. From this perspective, colonial peo‐ Niedermueller ( 1998), forthcoming. al‐ ples represented the closest thing at hand for the though the infuence of Soviet ethnography on study of early developmental stages of mankind. East European academic traditions might be (p. Nieboer, being Steinmetz' student, applied the 10). In the Soviet Union, the name of the game methodological ideas of his professor in his dis‐ was "ethnography" and it has been on the rise sertation on slavery, focusing on sociological laws ever since the 1960s (under Bromley) and basical‐ of current phenomena rather than on the early ly even since Sergei Tolstov became director of history of mankind. Evidently, having defned the Academy institute in 1943. In Slovakia, the dis‐ slavery, Nieboer found it impossible to come up cipline also gained ground in the 1960s when it with a bullet-proof set of iron rules of factors got an institute of its own. Quite remarkably causing slavery. The article does have a point of (compared to the Soviet model), however, this in‐ demonstrating that in a strict sense Nieboer was stitute was called the Department of Ethnology, to neither a functionalist nor an evolutionist, al‐ be renamed Department of Ethnology and Cultur‐ though the food of details and specialists' infor‐ al Anthropology recently. (The institute in Mos‐ mation might detract the reader. cow was renamed Institute for Anthropology and The third part of the book, "Anthropological Ethnology in 1991 as well). traditions in Europe," contains fve national case A faw of the book in this respect is its lack of studies on the development of the discipline(s) consistency in the use of the terms "anthropolo‐

3 H-Net Reviews gy," "ethnology," and "ethnography." This may pology virtually disappeared (like in the Soviet seem a truism and an unfair or even illogical Union). In contrast to the Soviet example, howev‐ point of criticism as the defnitional history (Be‐ er, Polish ethnography never became a study of grifsgeschichte) of these concepts is exactly what primitive peoples, which makes sense as Poland this book is all about. With so many possible dis‐ lacked the far-away places and "primitive" peo‐ tinctions between anthropology, ethnology, and ples in its own state that the multinational Soviet ethnography, a separate systematic chapter would empire had. According to the authors Jasiewicz have been extremely helpful. Basically, we are and Slattery, the main task of Polish post-commu‐ discussing two (related) problems: Question 1) nist ethnography is now to re-introduce elements What criteria came to predominate in a national of ethnology and re-establish contact with West‐ tradition to distinguish disciplines within this ern institutions. feld--historical versus non-historical, descriptive The last two case studies of this part, on Ger‐ versus comparative, European versus non-Euro‐ many and Mexico, also illustrate the "unity pean? Question 2) What labels (anthropology, eth‐ through diversity" of European anthropology ex‐ nology, and ethnography) were used to describe emplarily. All in all, however, the national case each of the disciplines thus defned? The authors studies leave the reader confused, bedazzled, and of the chapter on Slovenia, for instance, write, bewildered. I, at least, could not see the wood of "the vague demarcation between anthropology unity for the trees of diversity. Therefore, Schip‐ and ethnology (or ethnography, which dominates pers' fnal chapter on "anthropologies of Europe," in Slovakia) ..." (p. 171). Here, like in most East Eu‐ which does identify some common denominators ropean states, the study of the own people pre‐ in the national histories of the discipline, should dominates. This is--according to the authors have been placed at the beginning of the third Smitek and Jereznik -ethnology or ethnography, part. He identifes an all-European trend to distin‐ whereas the study of other non-Western peoples guish between physical and social/cultural an‐ (anthropology) is virtually non-existent in Slove‐ thropology before World War I. He also identifes nia. In the nineteenth century, ethnology or the absence/availability of "primitive peoples" ethnography had a role to play in nation-building, (colonies) as one of the explanations for the na‐ and after World War II the study of modern soci‐ tional predominance of either nomothetic Eng‐ ety (e.g. social stratifcation in a kolkhoze) was in‐ lish-oriented feldwork ethnology or cumulative- fuenced by Soviet materialist ethnography rather descriptive German-oriented ethnography, a dis‐ than by subjectivist Western cultural anthropolo‐ tinction which developed in the interwar period. gy. After World War II, the schism was between An‐ In Poland in the nineteenth century, the oppo‐ glo-American ethnology, which predominated in sition between ethnography as the study of (Pol‐ Western Europe, and Soviet ethnography, which ish) folk traditions and anthropology was mediat‐ dominated in Eastern Europe. Ethnology, howev‐ ed by an ethnology of non-European peoples er, came "home" and no longer distinguished be‐ which had both descriptive and comparative ele‐ tween European and non-European societies. His ments. In the interwar period, however, the disci‐ scheme does not replace the chapters on national pline with a task in bringing the peoples and cul‐ diversity, but it is a much-needed guide to see the tures of previously divided Poland together into diversity in the right perspective. one national culture was called "ethnology." Un‐ A question not raised at all in this book is the der communism, ethnology became part of de‐ development of the "world out there": When an‐ scriptive ethnography studying contemporary so‐ thropology was young in the early nineteenth cial processes, while social and cultural anthro‐

4 H-Net Reviews century, it was at least hypothetically possible to encounter "natives", "virgins" in terms of anthro‐ pological investigation. By the end of the twenti‐ eth century, every tribe has its own web-site and western development-aid workers, every group subjected to ethnological investigation uses the re‐ sults refexively to present and represent itself. . R. Speth, Review of Kulturen - Identitaeten - Diskurse, ed. W. Kaschuba (Berlin 1995) in: Politis‐ che Vierteljahresschrift, No. 3 (1996), pp. 630-631. Fortunately, the reverse side of this issue, which is closely related to the persistence of professional stereotypes and disciplinary profles, recently produced a major discussion in H-SAE (17-23 Jan‐ uary 1998--"Absence of Europe in the introductory textbook"). Is Europe completely modern and therefore "none of an anthropologist's business? In terms of breadth, price and structure, this book would make a really excellent introduction in the history of anthropology for students, but - as I said - it would have required a bit more efort and empathy on the part of the authors and the editors.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Wim van Meurs. Review of Vermeulen, Han F.; Roldan, Arturo Alvarez. Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of European Anthropology. European Association of Social Anthropologists. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. April, 1998.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=16105

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5