Talk:History of anthropology

message: Brief History of Anthropology including the prominent personalities of this science.
This article does not serve its subject well at all.  
There is no mention of key anthropological concepts and debates.  Most of the important figures in anthropological history are missing.  
Some of the things that ought to be included or referenced:
Frazer (Golden Bough) ought to be mentioned as a founder of comparative anthropology
and Edward Burnett Tylor for cross-cultural analysis
Functionalism: Radcliffe-Brown, Malinowski
Culture and Personality: Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Cora Dubois
Franz Boas and the American School 
-- "participant observation"
-- dissemination v. independent invention to explain similarities in culture (and material culture) 
The Manchester School of Thought -- conflict within social systems: Max Gluckman, Victor Turner
Ecological anthropology: Leslie White
Claude Levi-Strauss: structuralism
Edward Sapir
Paul Radin
MArshall Sahlins
Vine Deloria 
Kroeber and acculturation
Not complete, of course
Some internet resources that might help:
http://www.aaanet.org/gad/history/index.htm 
http://www.anthrobase.com/Browse/home/hst/hist-links.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/anthros.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~wanthro/sociocultural_theory.htm
I'd classify this article as it stands as a stub, and a problematic one at that.
74.220.66.80 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is a good outline of the main currents; we could add more. I'd suggest that we might separate the current scope of the main Anthropology article and this History of Anthropology article, as I've been attempting to do. Previously the two seemed to have substantial overlap, and the Anthropology article was almost entirely about 19th-century scientific racism/polygenism/colonialism, with almost no discussion of actual modern anthropology. 
I can see a few ways that we might want to take this. One would be to have this page deal in more detail with 1800 up to 1980s/1990s or so, while Anthropology only covers enough to give a broad overview. Another would be to split off some of the very early material, or the scientfic racism/colonialism article into a third article, while expanding the list proposed here on the talk page into a fairly good coverage of sociocultural anthropology c. 1890-1980s. Yet another option would be to have this History of Anthropology page itself mainly give an overview, while expanding the topics listed here into individual entires (which they probably all deserve eventually; some already have them, such as Levi-Strauss). 
Thoughts? Anyone able to contribute to this? Mccajor 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good outline, let's talk 

message: User:Jagged 85 has added a section on Muslim antecedents of anthropology. However, it is not clear from the new section what exactly these medieval Muslim scholars did that constitutes an antecedent to modern anthropology. A number of earlier scholars wrote about other peoples. For example, Herodotus (484 BCE–ca. 425 BCE) is sometimes called the "father of anthropology" as well as the "father of history", as the first writer in the Western tradition to attempt a comparative description of various peoples and their customs; similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus (ca. 56 – ca. 117 CE) is our source for knowledge of the customs and social organization of many peoples of northwestern Europe, and has matched up well with the archaeological record. I suspect there are likely similar scholars in medieval or ancient China, India, Japan, etc. 
It would be interesting to know more about the Muslim scholars cited, if the current entry could be expanded, and whether their writings had any sort of historical connection with modern anthropology. If they have not had any particular connection to modern anthropology, then perhaps it would be more appropriate to put them in a section or separate article along the lines of "Comparative studies of culture in the pre-modern period". On the other hand, if they have contributed to or have been taken up by anthropologists or sociologists in the modern Muslim world, perhaps Jagged 85 could add a new section on "Anthropology in the Muslim World" or something along those lines. 
I am also a bit concerned at present that the tone is rather uncritical. The first article cited, for instance, is commentary by an anthropological historian, in the context of discussing whether an objective anthropology is compatible with Islam, and citing these two medieval Muslim scholars as evidence that it is possible to practice comparative study of cultures without compromising one's faith in Islam or one's objectivity. Fine and good, but for this section to frame the material adequately really requires far more treatment than is currently present. I am going to edit it a bit to frame it somewhat, but it would be good if Jagged 85 or some other interested party followed up with Akbar's later book to address some of these issues. Mccajor 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with most of your points. I was just stating a few passages from the cited articles, and was thinking about expanding it later on when I have more time. I provided a few sources, just in case other editors might want to expand it in the mean time. For now, I agree with your last edit. The section could do with some more explaining, but I think it might also be a good idea to get some references for the other parts of the article as well. Jagged 85 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'll be interested to see it as it develops. Mccajor 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim antecedents of anthropology 

message: would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies?  I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion.  More important, I think others need to comment on it.  I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article of concern 

message: ...and talking about what to do with the very separate histories of cultural anthropology and biological anthropology, etc., etc.  This article needs to merge the subject matter that's on the Anthropology page and be linked back to it.  History of bio, linguistics and archaeology needs to be worked on here.Levalley (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging some of the material that's on the page for Anthropology 

message: Together with German Otto Casmann philosopher Magnus Hundt is regarded as the founder of modern anthropology since they invented and popularized the term anthropology. 178.3.30.47 (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Inventing the term does not mean founding the discipline. Kant also claimed to do anthropology. Really he just did geography combined with racist musing about people from different countries. I have yet to read a work on the history of anthropology that dedicates more than a line to either Hundt or Casmann. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnus Hundt and Ott Casmann missing in article 

message: The following sentence appears twice: At the same time, the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment produced thinkers such as Herder and later Wilhelm Dilthey whose work formed the basis for the culture concept which is central to the discipline.Kdammers (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitious 

message: Footnote (nr. 2?) has a reference to a work by two authors (somebody and Murph) for which no further informaiton is given. Kdammers (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive supplied the title of Erickson and Murphy's book.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  unidentified reference 

message: I was previously too hasty about Harris. I like Harris. We don't say very much about him however; in fact, not enough to say anything much at all. Too condense. It seems as though the three sentences are unrelated and when you have finished all you have is a big question mark. It needs a little expansion. The ref on that is not very good. No page numbers. Bad format. I probably will stick with this until the refs are well-formatted and accurate, which is basically a follow-up task. If I can keep your writing I will.Botteville (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Harris and the Greeks

message: This is manifestly non-encyclopedic but I put it here just in case.
"He first formulated some of the persistent problems of anthropology.-ref- Harris, 1968, op cit. pp. 8-52; Leaf 1970, op cit. pp. 1-13; Erickson and Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory, 2003, pp. 21-25 -/ref"
He didn't do any such thing nor does Harris say he does. Harris mentions Herodotus a few times with regard to his ethnic information and that is all. In general attempts to see implied stages of civilization in Herodotus are strictly etic. He had nothing to say, not even the three ages of song and story. He does do a lot in the line of ethnology. For Leaf, what Leaf is that? That section of Erickson and Murphy is about Marx and does not mention Herodotus.
I bring this up because the main weakness of the content is its practically sole reliance on Harris. The editors (no doubt some time ago) just filled in here with fluff and phony references. It's demeaning. Harris is great, I like Harris, as far as he goes. He isn't the spokeman for the entire huge field of anthropology. I can add some material from more people, which I am in the process of doing. We don't have to be brilliant, dazzling and obscure here. We aren't trying to impress the professors and get an A. A basic diet of meat and potatos will do.Botteville (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent problems passage

message: Even from reading the introduction, it was clear that there was more of a focus on Western/United States Anthropology. While the roots and trajectories of Western Anthropology in the US, Britain, France etc. have a robust literature, Anthropology in other countries should have more than just a small section. With an incomplete evaluation of the history of anthropology, it might be helpful to consider literature that details the history of Anthropology in other places. Also, the references should probably be updated as some of them are now inactive. One last point to consider-- I would perhaps include bits that reference native and applied Anthropology. The traditional traveling to /faraway/ places to study /exotic/ peoples is not the only kind of Anthropology. Native, applied, medical, and countless other branches within the Anthropological field could be included in this article. But! This would provide a nice outline to add to with some adjustments!J Smithx (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broaden the Focus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on History of anthropology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231041925/http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Publications/Source_pages/AnthroHist.htm to http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Publications/Source_pages/AnthroHist.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904194548/http://www.aaanet.org/sections/gad/history/011rowe.pdf to http://www.aaanet.org/sections/gad/history/011rowe.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071202133549/http://www.aaanet.org/gad/history/044stocking.pdf to http://www.aaanet.org/gad/history/044stocking.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071106055917/http://www3.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521450489 to http://www3.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521450489
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419231431/http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu/~rdandrad/Sadstory to http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu/~rdandrad/Sadstory
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: About spanish "cronicas" and "cosmography", the article has a clear Anglo-saxon bias, lacks of all anthropology traditions in Spanish imperial era. That error made the article completely futile, because the Spanish and Portuguese records are the base of the enlightenment anthropology, creating a vacuum.   The etnographic record of the spanish empire is very very important.--Fitmoos (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  antropology traditions in spanish imperial era