Anthropology VS. Sociology

What is the difference between Anthro and sociology? I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher.

I was wondering the exact same thing. I'm looking at this and thinking that it's not worth studying because, if I'm right, genetics have something to do with culture, which of course is a duh statement if you look different. However, I see that sociology is the greater of the social sciences because it includes human behavior. I don't really see too much talk about human behavior here. It seems like a bunch of rubbish and looking at really old societies. "Digging through the past". So how can this be one of the greater social sciences? I think I read somewhere that it takes bits and pieces of the other sciences, but I really don't see it mixing them all together for a big picture, which sociology does. --Cyberman 00:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Soc is the study of human social interactions, while anthro is the study of humans, including our evolution and development, our language, our culture and our past civilizations. The current article on anthro is terrible, IMO and does not do anthropology justice. They both are behavorial sciences; anthro focuses on the four sub disciplines of physical, cultural, linguistic and archaeology. Sociology focuses on the origins, institutions, organizations and development of society. --JPotter 20:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Physical surroundings? Physical....? --Cyberman 02:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The way I like to think about the differences begins with the 19th century origins of the two disciplines. Sociology traces its roots to the most enduring social policy question to emerge out of the industrial revolution: "With all these positive and progressive changes occuring in society, why are the poor still around?" An early economist name Frederic LePlay in London was the first to articulate the problem and begin systematic investigations of the possible causes. Thus, for me, sociology has its roots in the analysis of class differences. As it has evolved, it has incorporated other problems and research programs, such as gender and race. Yet, class continues to be an enduring framework for understanding the primary mission of the discipline. Anthropology has its 19th century roots in a different problem altogether: "Does it matter in some ethical, moral, or aesthetic sense that people around the world look different from each?" The earliest anthropologists were physical scientists who try to measure the differences in the way people looked and then tried to relate these differences to behavior. Anthropology has its roots in racial science. A major revolution in the discipline took place in England and the U.S. just before the First World War. Rather than seeing race as the explanation of behavior, anthropologists, especially Boas at Columbia University, but also to some extent Malinowski at University College, London, began to see racial thinking as the behavior to be explained. Anthropology has evolved to include issues of class and gender in its analyses, but the deconstruction of the explanatory power of the race concept continues to be the primary motivation for focusing on local communities and global processes. 140.192.149.26 16:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Rotenberg.[reply]

The Leakeys

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the Leakeys should be mentioned? I would have expected them to be discussed in at least the British section. While I do understand that they were also Paleontologists, they pioneered much of modern anthropology and archaeology. - David J. B.

First revert

I reverted to the previous version. Here is why: the most recent change deleted holism and added transculturation as a subheading. But holism shouod not be deleted -- it is a defining concept in anthropology, if you look at virtually any intro textbook the word will be highlighted in the first or second chapter. Since it is a term anthropologists use to define their field, it ought to be in the article. Transculturation, on the other hand, is a minor (thought important) concept in anthropology. The section following the header, "transculturation," was about a lot more than transculturation, and I think transculturation is too specific a concept for much discussion in a general article. It certainly should be linked. I made sure that the set of anthropological topics links includes transculturation Slrubenstein

As Slrubenstein has correctly asserted, holism is a defining concept in anthropology. -- NetEsq 00:55 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  Homo Paranthropus Australopithecus Kenyanthropus Ardipithecus Orrorin Sahelantropus
0-x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  x 
  x      
  x      
1-x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  x       
  x           
  x  
2-x-----x----------------------------x-----------------------------------------------
        x            x               x
        x            x               x
        x            x               x
3-------x------------x---------------x-----------------------------------------------
        x            x               x
        x            x               x
                     x
4--------------------x---------------------------------------------------------------
                     x                             
                                                    x
                                                    x
5------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               x
                                                               x
6--------------------------------------------------------------x---------x-----------
                                                                         x
                                                                         x
                                                                         x
7------------------------------------------------------------------------x-----------

millions of years

ASCII picture from [1], where should i put it? --Nerd 08:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't put it anywahere until you have looked at all the relevant articles on human evolution (e.g. Homo sapiens) -- many have this sort of information already. I also caution against putting a chart like this in it as it as not all paleoanthropologists agree on the taxa, and the dates are constantly changing. Slrubenstein

Capitalisation of names of sub-fields

I don't want to change anything yet because I'm a bit rusty on Wikipedia etiquette, but the way I read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) the sub-fields should appear like Cultural anthropology etc, that is, the second word should not be capitalised. Should I change the names of sub-fields to fix the capitalisation? --Claudine 23.may.2003

I agree, please do. - Patrick 11:52 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Done --Claudine

The article begins "The neutrality of this article is disputed". I'm expecting to find the dispute on this Talk page, but it's not. Can that line be removed?

Also, "As one social theorist has observed ..."? Slrubenstein, who, where, and when was it? If no-one knows, remove the quote, or I'll be tempted to quote myself as "one important thinker" in random Wikipedia articles. :-)

I have found and included the attribution. Since I do not know who you are, I cannot say for sure that the source is as important as you, but I know that they are more important than I ;) SLR

That's just the biggest example of how that "Anthropology in the broader context" section (broader than what, exactly?) could probably be trimmed by 50 percent or more without losing anything important. As another example, instead of "transcends the opposition between", why not say "includes both"?

because "includes both" does not mean the same thing as "transcends the opposition;" to transcend an opposition is to go beyond it, to include an opposition is to reproduce it. SLR

Sections I'd like to find here (note to myself, or whoever else gets there first):

History
Methods of study
Major theories in anthropology

-- Mpt 07:08, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the article provides a fair coverage of the history, although of course it can be improved. But in general, I disagree with this suggestion, because the history, methods, and theories of the various fields of anthropology differ. I agree that there should be lots of history, methods, and theory, but I believe it makes more sense to put it in the specific articles on cultural, physical anthropology &c. SLR

Take a look at the article's history. I inserted the neutrality disclaimer after another Wikipedian made the assertion that this article was POV. I don't agree with this view, and the other Wikipedian has not returned to defend his position, so feel free to remove the neutrality disclaimer if you are so inclined. -- NetEsq 16:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why was the ASCII-pictre deleted? The Original was made Public on Nature.--Nerd 19:15, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

see the explanation above; at best it belongs in a different article Slrubenstein

politics of anthropology

I deleted this sentence, which at the least needs work:

Over the past sixty years anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition has made intelligence work 'politically incorrect,' although changes to the American Anthropological Association's code of ethics have actually loosened restrictions on such work.

First, I think it is poor style to rely on "political correctness" as an explanation. The shift refered to can be ascribed to two forces in my opinion: the relationship between eht anti-Vietnalm war movement and anthropology in the US signalled in part by Hymes edited volumne on reinventing anthropology, and second, the fact that in the post-colonial period native peoples around the world have much more autonomy and can decide whether or not anthropologists can work among them, thus discouraging anthropologists from activities (such as spying) that could get them in trouble with their hosts. The first cause predates political correctness (as popularly understood) the second may be pragmatic or rooted in a pragmatic notion of ethics. Second, the statement about the AAA code of ethics needs some work. My recollection is the code still explicitly states that the reseaercher's first obligation is to the host community. Am I wrong? In any event, I think clarifying details are needed here, Slrubenstein

First, yes, it is poor style to refer to 'political correctness' and I will try to rewrite it :) But in general rather than just cut stuff out, wouldn't it be better to have added to the wikipedia by including say, the content of your post to the entry itself rather than the talk page?

Second, the sentence uses "anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition" as an explanation of why "Intelligence work is 'politically incorrect'" rather than the other way around. So in fact there is no appeal to 'political correctness' as an explanatory concept.

Vietnam was relevant for anthropology but in fact anthropologists did intelligence work there as well (see the kerfuffle in the New York Review of Books). Dell's book is part of a regular feature of anthropology in the United states where every twenty years a young generation demand an anthropology that is more 'relevant' than that of their professors. Hence it is part of an ongoing dynamic of 'increasingly leftist disposition' (although, to be sure, often a politically quiescent kind) rather than a 'before and after' shift.

As for the idea that formal political independence gives local peoples more power over who works with them, the Yanomami controversy pretty much lays that idea to rest. The biggest step forward in ensuring informed consent from informants has come from changes to human subjects testing requirements in powerful countries. Fourth world peoples are often not well served by independent governments headed by national majority ethnic groups, and the postcolonial state, often lacking in capacity and resources, is hardly a guarentor of grassroots empowerment.

Finally, the discussion of the AAA code essentially correct:

"Over the past several decades the explicit condemnations of secretive research have been removed from the AAA's code of ethics--the principles of professional responsibility (PPR). In 1971 the PPR specifically declared that "no secret research, no secret reports or debriefings of any kind should be agreed to or given" by members of the AAA. By 1990 the attenuation of anthropological ethics had reached a point where anthropologists were merely "under no professional obligation to provide reports or debriefing of any kind to government officials or employees, unless they have individually and explicitly agreed to do so in the terms of employment." These changes were largely accomplished in the 1984 revision of the PPR that Gerald Berreman characterized as reflecting the new "Reaganethics" of the association: In the prevailing climate of deregulation the responsibility for ethical review was shifted from the association to individual judgments. As anthropologist Laura Nader noted, these Reagan-era changes were primarily "moves to protect academic careers...downplaying anthropologists' paramount responsibility to those they study." The current PPR may be interpreted to mean that anthropologists don't have to be spies unless they want to or have agreed to do so in a contract. A 1995 Commission to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics declared that the committee on ethics had neither the authority nor the resources to investigate or arbitrate complaints of ethical violations and would "no longer adjudicate claims of unethical behavior and focus its efforts and resources on an ethics education program."" -David Price, Anthropologists as Spies

uh.... ok I'm done now :) Rex 18:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorrym, I am not pursuaded. If you insist on presenting these views in the article NPOV policy requires that they be presented as views, not as fact. But perhaps you misunderstand my points. First (and perhaps least) I still take issue with the "left-wing" terminology. Informally, I think I know what you mean and think I agree but it is poor style for an encyclopedia article because it rasies the question, "left wing" in what sense? better to provide a more specific and concrete account than rely on this catch-phrase. But to address your substantive points, i do think you misunderstand my point about Vietnam. I did not mean that all anthropologists objected to anthropologists serving as spies during the Vietnam War. i thought this was clear from my invoking Hymes' book, which specifically criticizes anthropologists' work for the US government during the war. My point was, it was a reaction against that collaboration that led to Official AAA condemnation and the growth of a general change in the sense of professional ethics. Next, I simply disagree with your dismissal of the effect of local group autonomy. The Yanomamo case actually supports my point because at the time of Chagnon's fieldwork they had not regional political authority. But this is not the case today and in manyh other parts of the Amazon, the US, Australia, etc. The need for local approval today -- not just from the host country or colonial governments but brum indigenous peoples is not the only factor in this phenomenon, but it is most definitly an important factor. I am sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was not referring to host statyes (I agree with your point about host states/governments), I was referring to local and regional quasi-autonomous organizations that represent the interests of native peoples independent of states. This is clearly what many anthropologists at various roundtables and panels on ethics at the last several AAA meetings have been responding to (among other things). I agree that the rise of IRBs is a factor, but I do not think it is the main factor especially since most human subjects review processes institutionalize a liberal notion of individual consent that may be culture-bound and not sufficient when dealing with societies with both collective identities and collective instruments of representation. Finally, Price aside, a quick look at the AAA statement on Ethics states very clearly that: the current statement does not supersede earlier dtatements and resolutions; that the anthropologist's primary responsibility is to the people studied; that anthropological findings should be made public (as long as the privacy of human subjects is maintained); and finally that anthropologists should not do covert work for their own government. If you want to represent Price's view, we also must represent this other view. I deleted the passage in question because I felt what I was deleting was short but needed to be totally rewritten. I am glad that I did not rewrite it at the time because, seeing how we disagree, you would surely have objected. If it was you who wrote what I took out, I wanted first to see if we could reach an accommodation. Perhaps we can, still. If you accept the points I make here I invite you either to rewrite this passage, incorporating the above points -- or put in the views you wish to express in a way that leaves room for me to add these points myself, and I will do so. Slrubenstein

First: I think we have very different and detailed (as well as nuanced) points of view about the history of anthropology and the ethics of fieldwork in out-of-the-way places. Second: my entire contributions to (and indeed, creation of) this section were meant to unPOV earlier, anonymous contributions to the article which stated baldly that anthropologists were leftist Jewish spies. Why should I argue with your unPOVing it further when I'm already unsympathetic?!? We both agree (at least sufficiently for the purposes of a general article) -- I just didn't feel it polite to cut out what the other person put in its entirety and tried to flesh it out in the spirit of accomodation. Its tempting to carry out this argument in the context of wiki edits because it is so interesting (and we do disagree on some points), but I don't think its in the best interest of the wiki. So maybe on IRC or something.

However, there some minor editing to do to iron out the entry as it reads right now (this disagreement has improved its quality I think), so do watch for my work there and edit it as u see fit. Rex 04:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just deleted a paragraph that I did not write, but which was ascribed to me. However, I do appreciate your reply. I had no idea about the jew-spy allegation and am glad you picked up on it and dealt with it. I am glad you think the article is improving. I look forward to reading your further contributions and hope that in those cases where we may differ we can work towards an accommodation, Slrubenstein

Unfortunately, Kevin MacDonald's scientific criticism of politics of anthropology as a part of a mainly Jewish leftist strategy has been cancelled by Slrubenstein.It's easy to cancel any uncomfortable criticism calling it "anti-Semitic".Cal State Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted by many of his American colleagues and worlwide. He answered his critics in a well-founded unemotional way, too, weakening the counterarguments essentially. Is Wikipedia also a part of this media manipulation described by MacDonald?

Wikipedia is not part of the media manipulation described by MacDonald because 1) Wikipedia is not part of a manipulative conspiracy and 2) MacDonald may not describe a manipulative conspiracy. Please feel free write whatever you like. If you are the same person who inserted the earlier comments about John Barker and Price, you will see that your contributions have led to discussion which has improved the page - thanks for that. However you'll also note that in each of these cases neither Barker nor Price ended up being particularly good sources for claims of a 'mainly Jewish left wing conspiracy'. Barker very rarely mentions Boas in his book 'Race', which is outdated in any case because it entirely predates modern genetics. The reference to Price resulted in a conversation that concluded that against the original claims posted here that anthropologists and Jews have historically been widely employed in the intelligence community. I'll take a look at MacDonald's work in more detail shortly, but judging from what's on his website it seems like a close examination of his argument might reveal a position more nuanced (although still possibly objectionable) than your representation of him. I thank you for your contributions but in the future you may want to examine your sources more closely to ensure they actually support your points. Thanks. Rex 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) Baker is not outdated, to discuss the morphology of the 40 human races it is not necessary to refer to genetics, Baker has mentioned this "trick" of the Boasians,too. Funny is the first part of your argumentation ("petitio principii"):"Wikipedia is not part of the media manipulation described by MacDonald because 1) Wikipedia is not part of a manipulative conspiracy (...)" It seems to be a typical "Boasian" argumentation.

Here are two links on MacDonald

Slate:"Evolutionary Psychology's Anti-Semite"
Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques. AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted by many of his American colleagues and worlwide. "

Name them. AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) MacDonald's view cannot be weakended essentially. As long as I cannot write about it or the AAA's involvement in secret service activities I repeat my above question. involvement in secret service ac

I want to reiterate that you are absolutely allowed and even encouraged to write whatever you like on this page -- anyone can contribute to the wikipedia. I have worked to incorporate your changes by editing the parts I found problematic and elaborating on those that I thought were worthwhile. This is how wikipedia works. Your contributions have improved the quality of the page. But no-one on wikipedia is allowed to write just what they please without being answerable to their fellow contributors, who edit contributions based on their accuracy, coherence, and the staet of expert knowledge in this area. I personally think I've gone out of my way to be accomodating. If you think that you are being censored or otherwise treated unfairly, then there is a [Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution] process that you should feel free to undertake.

Substantively: AndyL has provided substantial evidence of MacDonald's shortcomings to which you have not yet responded with any sort of evidence. If there is more that you would like to say about the secret service, please do so - although on this score contributors have sufficient evidence to alter your original claims and we've heard nothing more from you on the subject. Your main feeling seems to be that you just really really don't like Franz Boas. But as is mentioned (twice) in the article, Boas's activism and opposition to the race concept are public knowledge today and he sought great publicity for them during his lifetime. Given this fact, it's hard to see why his work should be labeled a 'conspiracy'. Rex 22:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is Littlefield 1982?

The anonymous anti-Boasian troll has repeatedly attempted to demonstrate the Kevin B. MacDonald's account of the Jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization is backed up by 'a study by Littlefield et. al.'. It this really accurate? Anonymous Anti-Boasian, could you please tell me what that is a reference to? Because if it is to "Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology" then I am going to remove it because it does not mention MacDonald at all, nor does it suggest anything other than the centrality of Boas to American Anthropology, atopic explicitly discussed in this article. Thanks, Rex 22:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Support" MacDonald's view means: it makes similar conclusions. Are you not accustomed to scientific writing ? And why have you removed "Baker" again ? Is this being slow on the uptake part of the strategy mentioned above ? On whose payroll are you ?

I don't really see the value of having the blurb about MacDonald in the article; it is hardly one of the major debates within the discipline. At the least cough up a proper citation of the 'support'. (the article mentioned by rex is in Current Anthropology > Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 641-655; and I don't see how it supports MacDonald's position). If the anonymous poster has another article (perhaps by another littlefield?) in mind, please post a citation. Ph0rk 18:58:18, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Continuing to accomodate the anti-Boasian troll

sigh* Littlefield's article (I assume I have found the right one) points out that Boas had an enormous impact on the institutional context of academic anthropology and that this impact explains the coverage of the concept of 'race' in textbooks. This is a separate issue from the idea that Boas pursuing a strategy to destroy western civilization in order to assure the victory of 'The Jews'. The wikipedia article already mentions Boas's prominence and opposition to the notion of race. I cut the reference to Baker (and am editing it again) because it was tacked on to a discussion of monographs by British social anthropologists, where it clearly does not belong. The fact that you no longer claim that Baker's book is an attack on Boas indicates you agree with the original reason I deleted it -- it does not support the claim you make. Also please note that Baker's professional speciality was cytology, not anthropology as you have claimed in the past. I am once more removing allegations that the American Anthropological Association /directly/ worked with the CIA in the 1950s. The wikipedia now has a detailed discussion of espionage and anthropology (including a discussion of Operation Camelot). If there are details of /direct/ collaboration of the CIA and the AAA I'd like to see them. As much as I respect your right to continue editing this page, if this sort of continued, baseless re-insertion of claims over and over continues I am going to opt for mediation and, if that fails, arbitration. Thanks Rex 21:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree to you that I'm a troll because of the following: 1.) Littlefield's study reveals the high percentage of Jews, women and third world scientists in Boasianism. Boasianism does not weaken the power of gentile Europeans in general as depicted by MacDonald,but especially the power of European males. All groups that have an interest in that destruction can be found in Boasianism, not only the Jews as focused on by MacDonald. 2.) I have never doubted that "Race" by Baker has been t h e greatest attack on Boas ever. The fact, that he was a cytologist primarily did not hinder him to be a great anthropologist, too, as acknowledged by other important anthropologists. 3.) The AAA has been directly involved in secret service activities.(cf. "www. thenation.com"): " The American Anthropological Association also secretly collaborated with the CIA. In the early 1950s the AAA's executive board negotiated a secret agreement with the CIA under which agency personnel and computers were used to produce a cross-listed directory of AAA members, showing their geographical and linguistic areas of expertise along with summaries of research interests. Under this agreement the CIA kept copies of the database for its own purposes with no questions asked. And none were, if for no other reason than that the executive board had agreed to keep the arrangement a secret." 4.) Your strategy is similar to the one applied by some Jewish critics of MacDonald. The discussion of some details is arranged in a manner to evoke the impression that the essential thesis of MacDonald or me would be wrong. 5.) I have got the impression that you are mere ideologues who try to censor me in an un-American way.

I'm not involved in this article, but even without knowing the details I can agree that red-flag goes up when an anonymous editor repeatedly makes significant changes without explaining them. If I may make a suggestion: get yourself a username and explain your changes. Even without changing the content of your edits, that will make your behavior seem more honest and understandable. My two cents. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) I stand corrected on the relationship between the CIA and the AAA and have made changes in the article to that effect. 2) Baker: I do not doubt that Baker was a highly emminent cytologist. I do however think it is inaccurate to label him an anthropologist when this was not his primary field. Race hardly ever mentions Boas and is not a sustained polemic, or even a deep engagement with Boas's work. It is a comprehensive summary on the literature on the physical anthropology of race as it has been practiced up to that time and is obviously an important work in that regard. 3) As for Littlefield et. al. they write about the "elite nature of anthropology in the period before 1960" and that "in spite of anthropology's commitment to the study human diversity, its practitioners were quite homogenous in terms of class origin and social background. Few women or individuals of minority background were represented in the profession" (645 of the article). They argue the shift in the way textbooks cover race is due to society-wide shifts in demographics that occurred two decades after Boas died. 3a) Littlefield also reveals that most people who argue that race is real are white southern Christian men who were first, last, or only children. Does this indicate a conspiracy on the part of white southern Christian men? No. The same could be said for people who do not believe that the race concept is valid. 4) I apologize if you took offense at being called a troll. If you would register for an account on Wikipedia then I would have a name to call you. Rex 06:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had not remarked Baker, MacDonald and Littlefield, the article would have remained totally manipulative. Boasianism is unscientific, Baker's overwhelming amount of details falsifying Boasianism cannot be denied. The whole Wikipedia is obviously leftist.But all leftists and Boasians will be tread on their heels because of their false, manipulative and destructive leftist ideology leading to the hidden holocaust of the Europeans in the inevitable,final clash of cultures in Europe.

Human

Please come help out on Human. Were facing a number of questions regarding a past poll and its results, the positioning of the taxobox and an image, the definition of "Human", if Homo Sapiens should split off into its own article, and even if the "article in need of attention" header is appropriate. I'd like as much expert involvement as possible, if you please. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please help

Will someone please help and cleanup Creation anthropology? There are misstatements and facts and no representation of the mainstream view/critique of creationist ideas. Joshuaschroeder 06:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

announcing new NPOV proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CIA Funding

According to this BBC story, yes, US anthropology students are being funded by the CIA: [[2]]. I'll note this in the article unless anyone objects strongly enough. Rattus 21:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- the David Price article on this is unclear as to their course of studies. I've put the info back in. Rex 20:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Division

I think the division into four is not recently anymore. Archaeology and linguistics are not a part of antropology, Isn't it that antropology was founded by structuralist linguists? And thus began as a part of linguistics?--212.87.102.237 16:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many schools in the US still have a four field focus, and many more have a focus in 1, 2, or 3 of the subfields at the graduate level while still covering all four at the undergraduate level. There is some debate over whether or not any of the subfields should split from the whole, but at present at least AAA is still a four-field association (five if you count applied anthropology as an extra field, as they do). --- Ph0rk 00:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US POV?

From a European perspective this article is bit too US-focused. For example:

- why deal with US anthropology before British and French anthropology? The logical order would some kind of historical sequence, and though they developed in some independence from each other the US was a latecomer (for example, the Bureau of American Ethnology, which is mentioned, was founded in 1879, and was concerned only with America; wider in scope were the Societe Ethnologique de Paris founded in 1839, or the Ethnological Society of London founded in 1843).

- Why highlight linguistic anthropology for special mention rather than other aspects of social anthropology (there's also medical anthropology, ethnomusicology &c)? Is it US anthropology faculty practice? Better dropped in the front list. Some mention of Gluckmann and power might be useful.

- there ought to be more stress (either here or in the History of Anthropology article) to 19th-century theories of social evolution: though now academically defunct, they were very influential at the time (and remain so in popular culture such as 2001 A Space Odyssey).

- Some key figures such as Montesquieu, Rousseau and Henry Maine should be mentioned (the Marx quote is interesting but long and could be excised for space).

- The hint ("it would be wrong to see anthropology as merely an extension of colonial rule and European chauvinism, since its relationship to imperialism was and is complex") that with some qualifications anthropology is more or less about colonialism, except in the US which fortunately doesn't suffer from colonialism, is misleading. This needs to say either less or (preferably) more. Mark O'Sullivan 09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article intro: "In the United States, 'anthropology' is traditionally divided into four fields" - hence the mention of linguistic anthropology (the fourth field).

I'll agree the article is US-centric, though I'd think Europeans would be more confused by the mention of archaeology than linguistic anthropology - given the link between linguistics and French structuralism. Any discussion of the four-field approach would necessarily include linguistic anthropology; though I don't see why that section can't be moved down to the anthropology in the US section. I'd imagine that would require significant restructuring, though. Ph0rk 05:17:00, 2005-09-03 (UTC) ____________

CALL FOR NEW PAGE

It would be useful to have a page on the "institutional history" of anthropology, with an inventory of ethnographic museums, departments, institutes, etc., with their dates of founding, who was their founder if that's significant, and important sources of support, by country (including other than the "big three" U.S., Great Britain, and France). I don't have the expertise to develop a preliminary page, but it would be very useful for both teaching and research. 131.230.131.30 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]