Han F. Vermeulen, Arturo Alvarez Roldan. Fieldwork and Footnotes: Studies in the History of European Anthropology. 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 reflexive movement and the ethnological of any academic discipline. And this challenge has method of participant observation have led to pe‐ increased significantly in the past decade or so, culiar effects 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 cultures. 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 Prague, August 1992. definition 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 reflection 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 culture 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 influenced by the example for explaining my ambiguity towards concept of anthropology one uses: Is it a Begriffs‐ 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 scientific 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 defining 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 anthropologies of Europe. Tomas Gerholm ly emerging functionalist paradigm early in this argues that while Swedish anthropology (defined 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 effect. 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, . specific 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 (Berlin 1998), forthcoming. al‐ ples represented the closest thing at hand for the though the influence 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.