Anthropology and History

James D Faubion, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Abstract

Anthropology engages history not as one but instead as many things: (1) sociocultural change or diachrony; (2) a domain of
events and objects that make manifest systems of signification, purpose, and value; (3) a domain of variable modalities of the
experience and consciousness of being in time; and (4) a domain of practices, methods, and theories devoted to the recording
and the analysis of temporal phenomena. It emerged, and continues to serve, as that branch of ‘natural history’ which
investigates the psychophysical origins and diversification of the human race. As ‘ethnohistory,’ it investigates the documents
of the pasts of native or ‘first’ peoples, paying special attention to the dynamics and consequences of colonization. Emile
Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1995/1912) opens the arena of an ‘anthropology of history’ with its
argument for the social causation of the experience and conceptualization of time, but anthropologists remain divided over
what the anthropology of history is or should be. Their disagreements are instructive because they recapitulate a much larger
and more enduring controversy over whether anthropological knowledge is a mode of historical or instead a mode of
scientific knowledge. The controversy is probably also irresolute, at least until either anthropology or history comes to an end.

For anthropology, history is not one but many things. First, it is remained the largely uncontested source of the methods and
the past, especially the past that survives in archives and other aims of both. Questions of origin and development continued
written or oral records; ‘prehistory’ is its more remote coun- to have pride of place. The ‘savage’ or the ‘primitive’ became all
terpart. Second, it is change, diachronic as opposed to the more entrenched as a disciplinary preserve, among other
synchronic process. Third, history is a domain of events and things as the rudimentary pole of any number of ambitious
artifacts that make manifest systems of signification, purpose, reconstructions of the probable steps or stages that had
and value, the domain of human action. Fourth, it is the marked the human passage to ‘civilization’ or ‘modernity.’
domain of all the diverse modes of the human experience and E. B. Tylor’s Primitive Culture (1871), Henry Lewis Morgan’s
consciousness of being in time. Finally, it is a domain Ancient Society (1877), and the several volumes of James
encompassing all those practices, methods, symbologies, and Frazer’s Golden Bough (1890) are classic examples of the genre.
theories that human beings – professional academic historians Such far-reaching treatises would strike the more meticulous
among them – have applied to the collection, recollection, and of the subsequent generation of their readers as undisciplined,
comprehension of the past, the present, and the relations even whimsical. By the 1920s, and despite all their other
between the two. differences, Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski, and A. R. Rad-
cliffe-Brown were inaugurating a turn away from ‘speculative
history’ in favor of meticulous observational attention to the
Anthropology and Natural History ‘ethnographic present.’ Not even these sober empiricists were,
however, opposed in principle to reconstructive or evolutionary
At the end of the sixteenth century, anthropology emerged in analysis. With due regard for rigor, the more adventurous of
Europe not in contrast to history but rather within it. Thereafter, their colleagues would continue to pursue it; and virtually every
and for some two and a half centuries forward, it would broadly subfield of anthropology has contributed to it ever since.
be understood as that branch of ‘natural history’ which investi- Physical anthropology is now a ‘genetic’ science in both the
gated the psychophysical origins and diversification of the larger and the stricter sense of the term. Morgan’s project
human race, or races, as was very often the case. Demurring survives most explicitly in the United States, from Leslie White
throughout the period to the theological calculus of the creation to Marvin Harris, as ‘cultural materialism’ (see Harris, 1968),
of Adam, it confined itself to treating developments presumed but also endures implicitly in the technological determinism
to have transpired over only a few millennia. In 1858, miners that informs Jack Goody’s argument in The Domestication of
at England’s Brixham cave unearthed tools and other human the Savage Mind (1977). Tylor and Frazer are the precursors
remains that stratigraphers could prove to be at least 70 000 not simply of Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism (see infra)
years old. Theological authority suffered a blow from which it but also of the burgeoning interdisciplinary and neo-
would not recover; anthropological time suddenly acquired Darwinist vocation known as ‘evolutionary psychology.’ Boas
much greater archaeological depth. Meanwhile, a growing himself is among the bridges between an older ‘comparative
scholarly coalition was coming together to support the doctrine philology’ and efforts to trace the family tree of all the world’s
that ‘culture’ was that common human possession which made languages (see Kroeber, 1935).
manifest the basic psychic unity of all the putative races of
mankind. In 1854, James Pritchard would accordingly launch
‘ethnology,’ and send the racialists off on their separate ways Anthropology and Ethnohistory
(Stocking, 1987). ‘Cultural’ and ‘physical’ anthropologists
would never again keep their earlier company. Yet, even A more modest anthropological tradition of diachronic
through the turn of the twentieth century, natural history research has borrowed its methods less from natural history

746 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.12012-4
 Anthropology and History 747

than from empirical historiography. It has a partial fore- Anthropology’s current troupe of interpreters espouses,
shadowing in the particularistic study of the drift and however, an even stronger postulate: that sociocultural
dissemination of traits and artifacts from the centers to the phenomena, as historical phenomena, permit only of inter-
peripheries of cultural production with which ‘diffusionists’ in pretation; that they permit of contextual understanding, but
England, Germany, and the United States were occupied not of general explanation. ‘Interpretive anthropology’ thus
between the 1890s and the 1930s. It has its more definitive stands starkly at odds with the loftier versions of the natural
commencement in the immediate aftermath of the Second history of culture, but further with any empirical historiog-
World War. Its most familiar designation is still ‘ethnohistory,’ raphy that has the inductive abstraction of general types or
however misleading the suggestion of affinities or parallels causal relations as its end. It now comes in many versions of
with ‘ethnoscience’ or ‘ethnomethodology’ may be. In any its own. The most venerable of them commences with the
event, the signature task of ethnohistory has always been the Boasians. In 1935, Alfred Kroeber would accordingly remark
investigation and documentation of the pasts of those native that the ethnographies that Ruth Benedict and his other
or ‘first’ peoples whom anthropologists had until rather colleagues were busy producing were ‘historical’ in type. True
recently proprietarily or conventionally claimed as ‘their own.’ enough, their temporality was synchronic, not diachronic.
In the United States, its more concrete initial impetus came Their mode, however, was particularistic; their method con-
with the 1946 ratification of the Indian Claims Act, which textualist; their analyses rarely if ever causal; and their model
soon led to anthropologists serving as expert witnesses – consequently that of what Wilhelm Dilthey, pursuing
sometimes for the plaintiffs, sometimes for the defense – in a ‘critique of historical reason,’ had defined as the Geist-
the readjudication of the treaties of the pioneer era. In eswissenschaften – ‘sciences of spirit,’ literally, but better glossed
the United States and elsewhere, it would have a catalyst in the as ‘sciences of meaning’ or simply ‘hermeneutics’ (Dilthey,
granting of public access to the administrative archives of the 2002). In fact, Kroeber was quite correct; Benedict, Margaret
pioneers, the missionaries, and the bureaucrats of European Mead, and the other cultural anthropologists of Boas’s circle
colonization. Hence, its characteristic focus: the dynamics of were indeed hermeneuticians. They were hence establishing
contact and conflict between the subaltern and their would-be the methodological legacy to which Clifford Geertz is the
overlords: pioneering, missionary, colonizing, or enslaving most celebrated heir (Geertz, 1973). It should be added that
(Spicer, 1975; Cohn, 1968, 1980; Leacock and Lurie, 1971; the long-standing, if methodologically variable, tradition of
Rosaldo, 1980; Dirks, 1988, 2001, 2006; Kirch and Sahlins, life-historical or ‘ethnobiographical’ research, in which
1992, 1994; Vansina, 2004, 2010; Hanks, 2009). The most a limited diachronic inquiry serves as the means to
wide-ranging examples remain Eric Wolf’s Europe and the a synchronically contextualizing end, is also Boasian in its
People Without History (1997) and Sidney Mintz’s Sweetness widest parameters (see, e.g., Mintz, 1986; Crapanzano, 1980;
and Power (1986). Shostak, 1981; Faubion, 2011).
Narrowly delimited, ethnohistory remains the specialist’s The more proximate wellspring of contemporary inter-
craft. Since the 1970s, however, its methods and themes have pretation flows out of the tumult of the late 1960s. Elabo-
met with an ever-widening embrace, and if ‘historical ethnog- rating in 1972 upon the call for a ‘critical and reflexive
raphy’ and ‘historical anthropology’ are not yet synonymous anthropology,’ Bob Scholte was among its earliest manifes-
with standard disciplinary practice, they are certainly of a piece tologists, though he borrowed many of his own philosophical
with it. The anthropological gaze is now less often ‘from afar’ and methodological tenets from Johannes Fabian’s slightly
than it is longitudinal. Such a vantage has been pivotal in the earlier exposition of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s revision of
renovation of political economy. It has also brought fresh and Dilthey’s thought (Scholte, 1972; Fabian, 1971, see also
stimulating perspectives to the address of kinship, race, 1983). The channels thus opened have remained critical and
national and personal identity, and gender (e.g., Stoler, 1995). reflexive, if perhaps not always so politically committed as
Its deployment and impact may or may not be indications of Scholte might have hoped. Gadamer’s heremeneutics has,
greater disciplinary enlightenment, but they are by no means moreover, served as only one of many subsequent grounds
indications of passing intellectual fashion alone. The on which to establish interpretive license (see Rabinow and
lengthening of the anthropological gaze has rather gone hand Sullivan, 1988). Walter Benjamin (see Taussig, 1993) and
in hand with the ascendance of a postcolonial order in which Giambattista Vico (see Herzfeld, 1987) have won admirers
social and cultural boundaries have become increasingly of their own. Geertz’s inspirations were diverse: Suzanne
permeable and structures increasingly indistinguishable from Langer; Gilbert Ryle; Ludwig Wittgenstein; above all, Max
processes. It has gone hand in hand as well with the Weber.
ascendance of the postcolonial demand that anthropology Such a well-populated census might suggest that, as much
offer a reckoning, not simply of its relation to the colonial now as at its beginnings, anthropology belongs to history (as
past but also of the status of the knowledge that it claims to a discipline) no less than in it (as contingent process). Yet, even
produce (Hymes, 1972; Asad, 1973; Clifford and Marcus, many of those who label themselves ‘historical anthropolo-
1986). gists’ or ‘interpreters’ of one or another stripe would object to
such a subsumption. No doubt, professional territorialism
plays a part in their resistance. Often very palpable differences
Anthropology and Hermeneutics of professional sensibility play another part. Matters more
strictly intellectual, however, play a part of their own, and their
In our postcolonial order, anthropology itself needs inter- stakes are no more evident than within the anthropology of
preting; so, too, do many other sociocultural phenomena. history itself.
748 Anthropology and History

The Anthropology of History sense of the relationship among the past, present, and future
in Madagascar (2003). Penelope Papailias (2005) has delved
Durkheim’s Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1995) into the writings of modern Greek historians to discover
opens the arena of the anthropology of history with its senses of the same relationship that are very far from the
argument for the social causation of the experience and boiling point. The list could continue at length.
conceptualization of time. Maurice Halbwachs’ Collective For all this, Lévi-Strauss never retreated from his division
Memory (1980) expands it and, after many decades of neglect, between historical and properly anthropological knowledge.
has come to be among the foundational texts of a recent On the contrary, from the outset of his career, he consistently
surge of ethnographic and comparative inquiry into the counted history among those disciplines limited to the merely
techniques, the media, and the politics of remembering and statistical representation and analysis of their objects. His
forgetting (see, e.g., Boyarin, 1994; Shryock, 1997). Paul anthropology is for its part a model-theoretic discipline, an
Connerton is the most systematic of Halbwachs’ followers, axiomatic and deductive science. Its object remains what it was
and moves beyond Halbwach’s own emphasis on the spatial for Tylor: the psyche. Its quest, however, culminates not in the
objectification of collective memory to a consideration of the hypothetical reconstruction of the path toward enlightened
embodiment of memory in and as habit (1989). modernity but instead in the formal exegesis of the universal
The most imposing shadow hanging over the broader ‘grammar,’ the structural and structuring properties, of the
anthropology of history is, however, Lévi-Strauss’s The Savage mind itself. ‘Structuralism,’ thus construed, is far less influential
Mind (1966). A treatise devoted to the analysis of the than it was in the 1960s, but by no means bereft. In ‘cognitive
analogical – and ahistorical – matrices of mythic and totemic anthropology,’ it has its most secure contemporary home; and
thought, The Savage Mind, concludes with an extended there, history (as intellectual or epistemological paragon)
polemic against the ‘historical, structural anthropology’ that continues to meet with a cool reception.
Jean-Paul Sartre had advocated in the introduction to his For Lévi-Strauss as for other philosophical and scientific
Critique of Dialectical Reason (2004). Sartre had no time for rationalists, there is an insuperable gap between the ‘facts’ and
totemists. His anthropology instead rested with the charting, their theoretical intelligibility. For positivists and empiricists,
and the heightening, of ‘historical consciousness.’ Against it, the relation between facts and theories is putatively more
Lévi-Strauss had two general rejoinders. The first was that seamless. Unabashedly positivist anthropologists are a rather
‘historical consciousness’ was the expression not of dawning rare breed at present, at least in the sociocultural field, though
wisdom but instead of a collective devotion to ‘development,’ many cultural materialists and evolutionary psychologists
and its absence was not of the expression of error but instead might quietly reckon themselves as such. The positivist
of a collective devotion to homeostasis. Some societies ran anthropology of historical consciousness or the ‘historical
historically ‘hot’; others ran ‘cold.’ All were equally human. sensibility’ is rare indeed, but has a singularly unabashed
The second was that history – as narrative, as diachronic spokesperson in Donald Brown. In History, Hierarchy, and
interpretation – was always ‘history-for,’ always biased. Human Nature (1988), Brown offers a cross-cultural survey of
Stripped of its bias, it amounted to nothing more than the those traits – from divination to record-keeping – most
methodical application of temporal scales of measure to the suggestive of a preoccupation with the meaning and
flow of human and nonhuman events alike. If not that, then significance of events. Among literate peoples, he discerns
it amounted simply to the preliminary ‘cataloging’ with a relatively stable correlation: between the presence and
which any ‘quest for intelligibility’ – the anthropological prominence of such a preoccupation and the absence of caste
quest included – had to begin. But it could be a beginning or other fixed hierarchies. He concludes that history (as
only: ‘as we say of certain careers, history may lead to sensibility, as worldview, and as mode of inquiry) takes its
anything, provided you get out of it’ (Lévi-Strauss, 1966). most regular nourishment from an ideology of social
Lévi-Strauss came to grant that his division between ‘hot’ mobility. Whether or not correct, the conclusion is
and ‘cold’ societies was in need of much refinement; that compatible with Lévi-Strauss’s own considered judgments.
instead of functioning as a strictly binary opposition, the Here, too, the anthropologist takes history as an analytical
division could better be conceived as defining a continuum. It object.
is good that he did so, since a great deal of ethnographic Marshall Sahlins offers an alternative, which also takes
evidence had already pointed and continues to point to just history as its analytical object, but further as its analytical
that. The classic cases are those of millenarian movements and mode. It preserves the structuralist principle that systems of
so-called cargo cults, which have been widely documented in signification are never mere derivatives of their social or
Melanesia and Polynesia (Worsley, 1957; Burridge, 1960, material environment. Yet it casts them less as revelations of the
1969), Amazonia (Hill, 1988), Africa (Peires, 1989), Native grammar of the psyche than as interfaces or differentials
North America (Mooney, 1896), the Caribbean (Littlewood, between the past and the future of given social practice. Their
1992) and elsewhere, many but not all of them emerging in effect is threefold. First, they determine the internal historical
the aftermath of one or another colonial encounter and ‘temperature’ of practice, which is relatively colder when gov-
many but not all of them influenced by the New Testament erned by prescriptions, warmer when not. Second, they vary in
Book of Revelation (see also Lindstrom, 1993; Faubion, their capacity to accommodate potentially anomalous or
2001). Historically grounded studies of Christianization offer disruptive events. They are more or less historically ‘sensitive,’
more complex versions of the same theme (Comaroff and and the greater their sensitivity, the more the continuity of
Comaroff, 1991, 1997; Robbins, 2004). Michael Lambek has practice is itself at risk. Finally, they influence the symbolic
explored a decidedly non-millenarian but far from chilly ‘weight’ or import of actors and their acts. Where some men are
 Anthropology and History 749

kings, and their authority unchallenged, the historian is right to of Marking Time (2007), however, and in the work since
monitor them with especial care; where democracy holds sway, (Rabinow and Stavrianakis, 2013), Rabinow has been
he or she would do better to monitor status groups or classes or developing his own diagnostics not merely of the present but
parties. Hence, the best historian should be a good anthro- also of the near past that precedes it and the near future that
pologist, and the best anthropologist always prepared to be might follow it. Drawing from Foucault but also from John
a good historian as well (Sahlins, 1985). Dewey and Gilles Deleuze, he offers an ‘anthropology of the
Sahlins’s standard of goodness is still the standard of contemporary’ that would track ‘ratio(s) of modernity,
objective accuracy. It thus stands in partial contrast to the moving through the recent past and near future in a (non-
standard that has at least implicitly guided interpretive anthro- linear) space’ and serving as ‘gauges’ in light of which one or
pology since the Boasian ‘golden age.’ Though subject to diverse another aspect of the modern can be registered as ‘becoming
formulations – some more vividly critical than others – the latter historical.’ Once again, a history-for but also as much an
standard is practical or pragmatic, a matter of consequences. anthropology-for, it borrows some portion of its critical
Perhaps for a majority of interpretive anthropologists, it has framework from Foucault’s late formulation of a ‘critical
been nothing short of ‘liberation,’ whether from psychosexual ontology of ourselves,’ an exercise that in its successes would
repression, as for Benedict and Mead, or from political extract ‘from the contingency that has made us what we are,
domination and economic exploitation, as for Scholte. Many the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking as we
of its prominent inflections remain reformist, though of more are, do, or think’ (1997). If the specific temporality of
qualified scope. For the Geertzian, however, the pragmatic Rabinow’s anthropology of the contemporary is of modest
proof of an interpretation lies in its facilitating conversation, scope, it is in accord with the modesty that Ulrich Beck et al.
its translational efficacy. For Geertz and others, it lies in (1994) have implicitly endorsed in their account of the ‘risk
a broadening or enrichment of our imagination of the ways of society’ in which we now all live and that Niklas Luhmann
being human. For a few others still, it lies in therapeutic (1998) has similarly endorsed in his account of the
release – perhaps from prejudice, perhaps from alienated increasingly global ‘ecology of ignorance’ with which we now
isolation. Interpretation must in every case be factually all have to cope. Both accounts underscore that relations
informed; but at its best, is always also ‘informative.’ Its between the recent past and the near future are about the
analytical mode is historical; but however much Lévi-Strauss only relations in whose understanding we might dare to have
or Sahlins might disapprove, it is always also ‘history-for’ and some confidence. Contemporaneity is thus our lot. It is the
‘anthropology-for’ alike. So, too, the interpretive history of distinctive order of the day. An anthropology of the ratios
anthropology and the interpretive anthropology of history between the recent past and the near future could accordingly
must occupy the same epistemological plane. Here, historical be thought to afford an analytical lens through which we
and anthropological knowledge are of precisely the same kind. might examine the environment – epistemic, sociocultural,
Consistent with such a position is Matti Bunzl’s proposal for and political – that is in fact all of our own.
the development of a ‘neo-Boasian’ anthropology, a hybrid of In any event, it is clear that history is not simply a thing of
the Boasian tradition of particularistic contextualization and many anthropological refractions. It is also a thing of plural
Michel Foucault’s genealogical ‘history of the present’ (Bunzl, and incompatible anthropological estimations. These in turn
2003; Foucault, 1998). In Foucault’s first sustained are among the most telling indices of the most persistent and
articulation of it, genealogy has as its exemplar Friedrich most persuasive of plural and incompatible visions of the
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals (1956). Following in basic enterprise of anthropology itself. One can hence
Nietzsche’s footsteps, it is grounded in the marshaling of condemn the discipline for its intellectual indecisiveness or
evidence of the partiality of the presumptively universal. It incoherence. One can applaud it for its perspectival diversity.
exposes the contingency of the presumptively necessary. It is One can in any event note that its many byways have
most definitely a history-for. It does not, however, offer a common point of departure in the question of whether
a design for historical inquiry in close accord with Dilthey’s human nature itself is transhistorically fixed, or instead
or other standard historical precedents. It is ‘meticulous,’ but historically variable. This is anthropology’s first question,
its aim is not merely nor even primarily to elucidate the and if the past is any indication of the future, it is likely
contextual nexus that unites a historical ensemble into to remain so, at least until either Man or history comes to
a meaningful complex. It is not hermeneutical in this sense. an end.
Its aim is instead to bring to light that one or another aspect
of the present need not be taken as much for granted as at
first sight it might seem to need to be. Bunzl rightly notes Bibliography
that the rhetorical force of Foucault’s ‘genealogy of the
present’ notwithstanding, it does not as a matter of its own Asad, T. (Ed.), 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. Humanities Press,
Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
methodological constraints arrive at the present as such.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., Lash, S., 1994. Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and
Bunzl’s proposal is that a synthesis of Foucauldean genealogy Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
and Boasian hermeneutics could yield a genealogical Boyarin, J. (Ed.), 1994. Remapping Memory: The Politics of Timespace. University
hermeneutics or hermeneutical genealogy not merely of the of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
present but also in it. Brown, D., 1988. History, Hierarchy, and Human Nature. University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, AZ.
Bunzl points to Paul Rabinow’s French Modern (1989) as the Bunzl, M., 2003. Notes toward a neo-Boasian anthropology. American Anthropologist
first anthropological installment of a history of (if not yet 106 (3), 435–442.
quite in) the present. In the work leading to the publication Burridge, K., 1960. Mambu: A Melanesian Millennium. Methuen, London.
750 Anthropology and History

Burridge, K., 1969. New Heaven, New Earth: A Study of Millenarian Activities. Basil Kroeber, A., 1935. History and science in anthropology. American Anthropologist
Blackwell, Oxford. 37 (4), 539–569.
Clifford, J., Marcus, G. (Eds.), 1986. Writing Culture: On the Poetics and Politics of Lambek, M., 2003. The Weight of the Past: Living with the Past in Mahajanga,
Ethnography. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Madagascar. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Cohn, B., 1968. Ethnohistory. In: Sills, D. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Leacock, E., Lurie, N.O. (Eds.), 1971. North American Indians in Historical Perspective.
Sciences. Macmillan, New York, pp. 440–448. Random House, New York.
Cohn, B., 1980. History and anthropology: the state of play. Comparative Studies in Lévi-Strauss, C., 1966/1962. The Savage Mind. (La Pensée sauvage). University of
Society and History 22 (12), 198–221. Chicago Press, Chicago.
Comaroff, Jean, Comaroff, John, 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution, Volume 1: Lindstrom, L., 1993. Cargo Cult: Strange Stories of Desire from Melanesia and
Christianity, Colonialism, and Consciousness in South Africa. University of Chicago Beyond. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Press, Chicago. Littlewood, R., 1992. Pathology and Identity: The Work of Mother Earth in Trinidad.
Comaroff, John, Comaroff, Jean, 1997. Of Revelation and Revolution, Volume 2: The Cambridge University Press, New York.
Dialectics of Modernity on the South African Frontier. University of Chicago Press, Luhmann, N., 1998. Observations on Modernity (W. Whobrey, Trans.). Stanford
Chicago. University Press, Stanford, CA.
Connerton, P., 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cam- Mintz, S., 1986. Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. Viking
bridge, UK. Press, New York.
Crapanzano, V., 1980. Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan. University of Chicago Press, Mooney, J., 1896. The Ghost-dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890.
Chicago. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Dilthey, W., 2002/1910. In: Makkreel, R., Rodi, F. (Eds.), The Formation of the Morgan, L.H., 1877. Ancient Society. Holt, New York.
Historical World in the Human Sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Nietzsche, F., 1956/1887. The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals
Dirks, N., 1988. The Hollow Crown: Ethnohistory of an Indian Kingdom. Cambridge (F. Francis Golffing, Trans.). Doubleday Anchor Books, Garden City, NY.
University Press, Cambridge, UK. Papailias, P., 2005. Genres of Recollection: Archival Poetics and Modern Greece.
Dirks, N., 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Peires, J., 1989. The Dead Will Arise: Nongqawuse and the Great Xhosa Cattle Killing.
Dirks, N., 2006. The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IL.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Rabinow, P., 1989. French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Environment. MIT
Durkheim, E., 1995/1912. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (K.E. Fields, Press, Cambridge, MA.
Trans.). Free Press, New York. Rabinow, P., 2007. Marking Time: On the Anthropology of the Contemporary.
Fabian, J., 1971. Language, history, and anthropology. Journal of the Philosophy of Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
the Social Sciences 1 (1), 19–47. Rabinow, P., Stavrianakis, A., 2013. The Demands of the Day: On the Logic of
Fabian, J., 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. Columbia Anthropological Inquiry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
University Press, New York. Rabinow, P., Sullivan, W., 1988. Interpretive Social Science. University of California
Faubion, 2001. The Shadows and Lights of Waco: Millennialism Today. Princeton Press, Berkeley, CA.
University Press, Princeton, NJ. Robbins, J., 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New
Faubion, J., 2011. An Anthropology of Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Guinea Society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cambridge, UK. Rosaldo, R., 1980. Ilongot Headhunting, 1883–1974: A Study in Society and History.
Foucault, M., 1998. Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In: Faubion, J. (Ed.), Essential Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Works of Michel Foucault. Aesthetics, Method, Epistemology, vol. 2. The New Sahlins, M., 1985. Islands of History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Press, New York, pp. 369–392. Sartre, J.-P., 2004/1960. The Critique of Dialectical Reason, Volume 1: Theory
Foucault, M., 1997. What is enlightenment? In: Rabinow, P. (Ed.), Essential Works of of Practical Ensembles (J. Rée and J. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). Verso, London.
Michel Foucault. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, vol. 2. The New Press, New York, Scholte, B., 1972. Toward a critical and reflexive anthropology. In: Hymes, D. (Ed.),
pp. 309–320. Reinventing Anthropology. Vintage Books, New York, pp. 430–457.
Frazer, J.G., 1890. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Macmillan, Shostak, M., 1981. Nisa, Portrait of the Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. Harvard
London. University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York. Shryock, A., 1997. Nationalism and the Genealogical Imagination: Oral History and
Goody, J., 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge University Press, Textual Authority in Tribal Jordan. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Cambridge, UK. Spicer, E., 1975. Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. University of
Halbwachs, M., 1980/1950. The Collective Memory (F.J. Ditter Jr. and V.Y. Ditter, Chicago Press, Chicago.
Trans.). Harper Colophon Books, New York. Stocking, G.W., Jr., 1987. Victorian Anthropology. Free Press, New York.
Hanks, W., 2009. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. University of Stoler, A.L., 1995. Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality
California Press, Berkeley, CA. and the Colonial Order of Things. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Harris, M., 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Taussig, M., 1993. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. Routledge,
Crowell, New York. New York.
Herzfeld, M., 1987. Anthropology through the Looking-Glass: Critical Ethnography in Tylor, E.B., 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology,
the Margins of Europe. Cambridge University Press, New York. Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Customs, vols. 2. John Murray, London.
Hill, J. (Ed.), 1988. Rethinking History and Myth: Indigenous South American Vansina, J., 2004. Antecedents to Modern Rwanda: The Nyiginya Kingdom (J. Vansina,
Perspectives on the Past. University of Illinois Press, Chicago, IL. Trans.). University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Hymes, D. (Ed.), 1972. Rethinking Anthropology. University of California Press, Vansina, J., 2010. Being Colonized: The Kuba Experience in Rural Congo, 1880–1960.
Berkeley, CA. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
Kirch, P., Sahlins, M., 1992. Anahulu: The Historical Anthropology of the Kingdom of Wolf, E., 1997/1982. Europe and the People Without History. University of California
Hawaii. In Historical Ethnography, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Press, Berkeley, CA.
Kirch, P., Sahlins, M., 1994. Anahulu: The Historical Anthropology of the Kingdom of Worsley, P., 1957. The Trumpet Shall Sound: A Study of “Cargo Cults” in Melanesia.
Hawaii. In: Historical Archaeology, vol. 2. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Schocken, New York.