School Of Anthropology Research Articles

Stephen L. Zegura (2 July 1943–26 May 2019)

Stephen L. Zegura (2 July 1943–26 May 2019) Rebecca Rogers Ackermann1,2, Michelle Bezanson3, Michael Hammer4, and David Raichlen5 Keywords Stephen l, Zegura, Obituary, Anthropology Stephen L. Zegura passed away on 26 May 2019 at the age of 75. Born in San Francisco, California, Zegura was the eldest child of Dragomir Božo Zegura and Adele (June) Perelli-Minetti. He earned his BA in anthropology, magna cum laude and with departmental honors, at Stanford University. Even as an undergraduate at Stanford, Zegura was extremely active, brainstorming creative ways to create an academic career focusing on the study of humans. His energetic appreciation for Stanford and the inspirational professors he met there was often shared with his students—he was a devoted Cardinal. He then moved to the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where he was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and received his master's degree and doctorate in human biology in 1971. His PhD research focused on multivariate analyses of variation in native Alaskan ("Eskimo") crania. Zegura relocated briefly to New York University before moving to the University of Arizona (U of A) in Tucson, where he stayed for the remainder of his career and life. For nearly 40 years Zegura taught biological anthropology, human evolution, and human genetics at U of A. He was the recipient of the 2009–2010 Raymond H. Thompson Award in honor of his distinguished service and contributions he made to the School of Anthropology throughout his career. How do you measure the impact of a life, especially for someone as alive—as large as life—as Steve Zegura was? He was brilliant and tough and kind and generous. He was mischievous, with a slightly irreverent sense of humor. He was an extraordinary teacher, with a sharp intellect and a passion for sharing knowledge. And Zegura was an exceptional scholar, presenting theoretically rigorous and well-written contributions, with approximately 50 journal articles to his name. He leaves behind important contributions to knowledge in these research outputs, and here, we reflect on the arc of these outputs and their relevance then and now. Zegura's first works focused on measuring skulls and applying statistical methods to differentiate them from one another and from other groups (Zegura 1971), a popular pastime in biological/physical anthropology since the discipline developed in the 1800s, and one that has deep links to racial science (Gould 1981; Sussman 2014) . Even at this early stage, Zegura displayed two traits that continued to shine throughout his research career: meticulous attention to detail and a creative ability to synthesize disparate methodologies into a coherent framework for hypothesis testing. While many skeletal biologists were continuing to use older, traditional methods to examine skeletal variation in human populations, Zegura was quick to include linguistic analyses in his studies, Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 1. Stephen Zegura, early 1970s. Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Chesney Zegura. [End Page 49] Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 2. Stephen Zegura (right) and Fred Hulse at the Arizona State Museum. Photo courtesy of Elizabeth Chesney Zegura. Click for larger view View full resolution Figure 3. Stephen Zegura's lasting impact as a scholar, teacher, and mentor: citation numbers at time of writing (23 September 2019). examining degrees of correlation between these distinct data sets (Zegura 1975). This early work on Inuit populations led to numerous highly regarded publications. By integrating linguistics and skeletal biology, Zegura was ahead of the curve, and today this work is considered highly creative and synthetic. Zegura was also an early contributor to our understanding of inter- and intraobserver measurement error in craniometric studies and the importance of conducting baseline measurement error analyses in order to accurately interpret the biological significance of any results (Utermohle and Zegura 1982; Utermohle et al. 1983), a topic that still garners considerable attention (e.g., Robinson and Terhune 2017). Ultimately, Zegura's interests turned to broader questions that highlighted the degree to which racial typology and theoretical approaches had limited the research focus of the study of prehistory in the North American Arctic (Schindler et al. 1985). In this, he was in keeping with the general movement away from typological "racial" thinking...

The sociocultural realm in relation to environment, biology, and history: Notes on Van Gennep and the emerging social sciences of his day

Van Gennep’s research interests were located in the region where the fields of folklore, anthropology, sociology, and religion overlapped. His Rites de passage reflected a broad approach to ritual and social life that took into account the natural environment, biology, and history. This article scans his interests and emphases in relation to the American school of cultural anthropology that developed in the twentieth century. It assesses parallels and differences, and points to areas deserving further clarification such as Van Gennep’s understanding of language.

Hawaiian Music and Oceanizing American Studies

American studies has been dedicated to understanding cultural forms from its beginnings as a field. Music, as one such form, is especially centered in the field as a lens through which to seek the cultural “essence” of US America – as texts from which to glean insight into negotiations of intellectual thought, social relations, subaltern resistance, or identity formation, or as a form of labor that produces an exchangeable commodity. In particular, the featuring of folk, indigenous, and popular music directly responded to anxieties in the intellectual circles of the postwar era around America's purported lack of serious culture in comparison to Europe. According to John Gilkeson, American studies scholars in the 1950s and 1960s “vulgarized” the culture concept introduced by the Boasian school of anthropology, opening the door to serious consideration of popular culture as equal in value to high culture.1

Interview with Rosie Kay

Since the founding of her dance company in 2004, Rosie Kay has been involved in creating award-winning performances that range across various themes in unique settings. She is also a research associate and was one of the first Leverhulme artists in residence at the School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography at the University of Oxford. Kay was a keynote speaker at the “Architecture, Festival and the City” conference held at Birmingham City University (BCU) in November 2017. The following short interview with María José Martínez Sánchez, an organizer of the conference, is from March 5, 2018; it develops some of the topics addressed in Kay’s conference talk.

A racial triangle: physical anthropology and race theories between Germans, Jews and Poles

The last decades of the nineteenth century saw a growing prominence of German racial sciences. This article documents how East Central European scholars responded to their potential marginalization within the scientific community due to German racial theories in the field of physical anthropology and the popularization of science. Three personalities represent a sample of this variety: Ludwik Gumplowicz, a Polish-Jewish sociologist; Mateusz Mieses, a Galician Jewish amateur anthropologist; and Jan Czekanowski, professor of anthropology and spiritus rector of the Lwów school of anthropology. All three cases illustrate the contradictions inscribed into the concept of transnationalism. To varying extents, they belonged to the German-speaking scientific community, through which they gained access to international science. Their reactions to anti-Jewish and anti-Slavic positions among the dominant racial theories of their time shines light on the tensions which were present within the academic community, as well as on the tensions that appeared between their own (semi-)professional status, self-perception and their group identities. The international communication and contacts came into conflict with the exclusionary philosophy of racial theories, thus perpetually challenging their transnational position. The responses of these actors sought to redefine spatial and methodological frameworks amid the dominant discourses. Each making attempts in their own way, they aimed at reversing what they perceived as aberrations of racial theories while persistently remaining within this discourse.

Lyons, Pat and Kindlerov�, Rita (eds) Contemporary Czech Society (review)

SEER, 96, 2, APRIL 2018 392 Russia. Morozov suggests as much (p. 105), but inconsistently. Abandoning the notion of ‘the people’ as the true subaltern would not have undermined Morozov’s core argument about Russia’s intrinsic dependence on the Western normative order. Morozov’s book is a rich and insightful study of Russia’s peculiar relations with the West. It goes to the heart of Russia’s inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West by putting it in a global context. It is essential reading for anyone interested in Russian identity, foreign policy and politics. School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy & Politics Alexander Titov Queen’s University Belfast Lyons, Pat and Kindlerová, Rita (eds). Contemporary Czech Society. Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, 2016. 551 pp. Illustrations. Figures. Tables. Bibliography. Index. CZK 350.00: $14.00 (paperback). Contemporary Czech Society, edited by Pat Lyons and Rita Kindlerová, is a wide-ranging study of current attitudinal trends and changing realities, based on insights drawn largely from mass survey data. This highly engaging and thought-provoking work, which employs a social scientific framework, seeks and largely manages to present a value-free account of popular perceptions of the self and others. The publication comprises five sections: Preface; Introduction; Theory, methods and structure; fifty-seven short empiricallyinformed chapters; and Conclusion, which contains a ‘cross-validation’. The separate chapters include contributions from eighteen different scholars, although Lyons’s own input merits special recognition, not least because it exceeds that of all the other authors as a whole. The main body of the text is dividedintofivebroadlyconceivedthematicparts,whichconsiderCzechsociety from economic, historical, political science, psychological and sociological perspectives. Each chapter adopts an erotetic (question and answer) approach, and is grounded in solid scholarship, with reference to numerous secondary sources and models and frameworks, but without conventional academic citations and footnotes. The study is thus presumably intended both for a general educated market keen to learn more about the dynamics and values of Czech society, and for a more specialized readership, with an interest in particular aspects of the subject area. Amongst the questions posed in Part 1, relating loosely to economic affairs, are ‘Do Czechs know and trust official economic statistics?’; ‘Do Czechs want equality?’; ‘Are there too many university graduates in the Czech Republic?’; REVIEWS 393 and ‘What are the attitudes of Czechs towards climate change?’. Part 2: Historical Perspective, asks, inter alia, ‘Who voted for the Communists in the election of 1946?’; ‘Why did Czechs and Slovaks allow their leaders to dissolve Czechoslovakia in late 1992?’; and ‘What is current public opinion towards the Velvet Revolution?’. Questions informed by political science include ‘Are Czechs nostalgic for life under communism?’; ‘What can be learned from analysing Czech election ballot papers?’; ‘What is Czechs’ level of knowledge about refugees and asylum seekers, and is it important?’; and ‘Czexit?’. In Part 4: Psychological Perspective, Lyons addresses questions such as ‘What are the main personality traits of the Czechs?’; ‘Do Czechs think they know more than they really do?’; and ‘What does a study of a Czech internet user tell us?’. The final part looks at a range of questions from a sociological perspective, including ‘Are Czechs a nation of grumblers?’; ‘Is religion dead in the Czech Republic?’; ‘What is the nature of sexual behaviour in Czech society?’; ‘Is there equal treatment of ethnic minorities in the Czech Republic?’; and ‘How do Czechs spend their free time?’. Inevitably, with a multi-authored study of this length and breadth, there is some variation in the scope and style of the analysis, and a degree of repetition (with terms such as ‘heuristic’, ‘TOP 09’ and ‘IPSOS-MORI’ being explained more than once). Nonetheless, Lyons’s recurring voice ensures an appropriate measure of authorial continuity, while the repetition allows for the various sections and chapters to be read independent of the whole. Different readers will bring their own interests and expertise to the book, but I particularly enjoyed the chapters which employed historical and sociological perspectives, in addition to the illustrations by Miroslav Kemel, which offer a touch of light relief. Amongst the many intriguing characterizations of the Czech people is one derived from a European Social Survey (2012...

«Inter fidem et speciem»: dos consideraciones sobre el estatuto científico de la teología

The author wishes to examine the nature and the method of Theology and he poses two questions: 1. Should Theology today be contemplative? 2. What benefits can the human sciences render to Theology? It appears, in fact, that the answer to these two questions can be found in the Encyclical of Leo XIII. Concerning the first question, you have to take into account that St. Anselm has already placed theological investigation inter fidem et speciem. More precisely, the rational investigation of Theology in not only placed inter fidem et speciem, but also that it is the same movement towards beatific vision. This is something proper to the selfsame nature of Theology, which is a science of revelation, that is a contemplative look the revealed mysteries. Hence appears also the insubstitutible mission of the Magisterium, which deals with the communication of revealed facts to the beheving community. In fact, however, there are some theological groups which deny this property to Theology. They are undercurrents of the anthropological school which make man a pseudo-absolute (the rationalism of Spinoza, modernist inmanentism, bultmanian existentialism) and they want to condition the whole of this theological task on a basis in the interest of man. It is certain, on the other hand, that the interest of man is indispensable for Theology, but the mystery of man can only be clarified in the light of Revelation and not the other way round. If you do not do it in this way, you fall into a curious anthropomorphism. Other currents, which are no more than variants of the previous ones, plead in favour of action. Efficacy is the first and the principal interest of Theology and centres on a concrete political and social task. Their mistake consists of forgetting that the praxis requires a previous theory and that all the efficacy of action comes from previous contemplation. If it is right that we should remove the social and political injustices, it is also certain only in God's plan of salvation where these requirements find their exact place and justification. Referring to the second question, the author is pointing out that the attitude of the theologian faced with positive scientific disciplines (psychology, sociology, etnology, science of religions, etc.) ought to be positive at the same time, that is to say he ought to take into account that human sciences help us to get to know man better, and are a stimulus for the search for a deeper, comprehensive and critical truth, because the human sciences can have some partial or equivocal philosophical presuppositions. The solution consists of an open and dialoguing attitude, so that the theologian can benefit from the contributions of the human sciences, and thus these very sciences can also necessarily and continuously ask for a philosophical and contemplative reflection properly.

Re-membering missiology: An invitation to an activist agenda

In this article, I will argue that US mission practitioners, more than at anytime in the last century, need missiologists to bring research, writing, and teaching to bear on mission as practiced by US Christians, local parishes and congregations, and mission agencies, in part because of the profound changes in the nature and composition of what constitutes mission leadership today and the methodologies employed by those leaders. This need is rendered all the more urgent by what I will describe as the crisis in US mission practice which I will outline in detail. To respond to this sobering description of our engagement with God’s mission, I will propose the adoption of an “activist missiology,” along the lines of the growing school of activist anthropology pioneered by Charles Hale, Nancy Scheper-Hughes, and others.

Профессор Виктор Валерианович Бунак (1891–1979) – памяти крупнейшего антрополога и анатома

The article presents the life path and scientific heritage of the outstanding Russian anthropologist and anatomist, Professor Viktor Valerianovich Bunak. The main scientific directions and contribution of professor V.V. Bunak are described in the formation of the national anthropological school.

The Lives of Daniel Binchy: Irish Scholar, Diplomat, Public Intellectual by Tom Garvin (review)

not appear to have provided new revelations about the period or the person. This is perhaps unsurprising given Cosgrave’s wariness about archives, history and historians: a recalcitrant subject, he left behind no personal diaries, while other personal records did not survive the destruction of the family home during the Irish Civil War. Not all readers of this biography will feel as favourably disposed to Cosgrave as its author, but Michael Laffan’s measured and scholarly study allows readers to come to their own conclusions. As is customary with the Royal Irish Academy’s ‘Judging’ series, the book is beautifully designed, with a wealth of fascinating documents, photographs, cartoons, election leaflets and other material vividly evoking the period. Professor Fearghal McGarry teaches in the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics in Queen’s University Belfast. His The Rising. Ireland: Easter 1916 was published by Oxford University Press in 2010. Notes 1 www.irishhistoryonline.ie 2 Seán Keating, Art, Politics and Building the Irish Nation (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2013), p.135. The Lives of Daniel Binchy: Irish Scholar, Diplomat, Public Intellectual, Tom Garvin (Sallins: Irish Academic Press, 2016), xii+212 pages. Full-length biographies of Irish scholars are relatively rare. Perhaps the delivery of lectures, interaction with students and colleagues, marking of exams and occasional forays into scholarly publication are not lively material for the biographer. The small number of exceptions such as John Pentland Mahaffey, George O’Brien and Eoin MacNeill generally had in addition something of a public persona. This is also true of Daniel Binchy, the subject of this study, who was not only a leading scholar, but also a diplomat and a perceptive public intellectual, noted for his early and clear-eyed articulation of the evils of Hitler and Nazism. He always described himself as a medieval historian, but in truth, as his friend Donal Cregan observed, he was a ‘Renaissance man’. Spring 2017: Book Reviews 118 Studies • volume 106 • number 421 Binchy was born in 1899 into a prosperous middle-class family in Charleville, Co. Cork. He was educated with the La Sainte Union nuns in Banagher, Co. Offaly and at the Jesuit college of Clongowes, before going on to a brilliant career in UCD, where he concentrated on history and law, and was auditor of the Literary and Historical Society. He was called to the bar in 1920. He won a travelling scholarship to the University of Munich, graduating DPhil magna cum laude with a thesis on the medieval Schottenkloster of Ratisbon. He returned to UCD in 1925 to take up the chair of Roman law, jurisprudence and legal history. The latter discipline included early Irish law, and this brought him into the world of Old and Middle Irish linguistics, without which, as Eoin MacNeill advised him, ‘your medieval and legal qualifications won’t be much use’. He set about mastering modern and older forms of Irish, study that eventually culminated in his great publication, the formidable seven-volume Corpus Juris Hibernici. This transcription of the whole body of early Irish law manuscripts commenced during his tenure of a senior research fellowship at Oxford, but was largely the product of thirty years of subsequent labour in the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Professor Thomas Charles Edward’s opinion is that the Corpus will ‘probably never be superseded, at least not for many generations’. In 1936 he collaborated with the great Rudolf Thurneysen and others to publish the discreetly titled Studies in Early Irish Law, which dealt frankly with the position of women in early Irish law and today is recognised as a pioneering contribution to women’s studies. He made a number of other notable contributions on early law and philology, including an English edition of Thurneysen’s A Grammar of Old Irish, which he published in collaboration with Osborn Bergin in 1946. Professor Garvin is good at relating Binchy to the twentieth-century Celticists, a clear-eyed, near-legendary group of outstanding pioneering scholars, with whom he has come to be included. He argues that they represented, with the Gaelic League and the literary movement, the third pillar of the Irish cultural revival. Binchy’s qualities as an exacting, evidence-based...

Review of É. Durkheim, Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse

This introductory article situates Arnold van Gennep’s review of Emile Durkheim’s The elementary forms of the religious life. It does so by relating the review to van Gennep’s much-neglected endeavor to establish methodological foundations for the emerging social sciences in the early twentieth century, in open contrast to Durkheim and the Durkhemian school of anthropology and sociology. It also contextualizes the review by revisiting earlier publications where van Gennep decisively went up against Durkheim’s approach to religion and society. The article finally suggests that Arnold van Gennep must be considered a founding figure of ethnographic theory, of relevance still today.

Finding Dr. Dobyns: Processing the Henry F. Dobyns Collection, University of Arizona Libraries

Finding Dr. Dobyns:Processing the Henry F. Dobyns Collection, University of Arizona Libraries Lisa E. Duncan (bio) In August 2010, I was contacted by an archivist in Special Collections at the University of Arizona Libraries about a position processing a recently acquired archival collection. The archivist said the library had received a donation of an anthropologist's professional and personal papers. The collection was also quite large, a challenge I relished. I was interested. A few years earlier, I had graduated with my bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona's School of Anthropology. The anthropologist had graduated from the same program in the 1950s. I immediately applied for the position—and once hired, I moved to Tucson to process the Henry F. (Hank) Dobyns Papers. I would spend the next two years of my career almost exclusively in the company of Dr. Dobyns—or at least his papers, and the memories and stories of those who knew him.1 The experience defined me as an archivist. The size and complexity of the Dobyns collection tested my skills—and often my sanity—but, ultimately, it made me a better archivist. Henry F. (Hank) Dobyns (1925–2009) was an applied anthropologist and ethnohistorian. Dr. Dobyns spent much of his career working with native peoples of North and South America. Born in Tucson, he was raised in Casa Grande, Arizona. He graduated with a BA and MA in anthropology from the University of Arizona, and received his PhD in anthropology from Cornell University. Dr. Dobyns worked on land and water cases for several southwestern tribes and on the Cornell Peru Project, which was affiliated with the U.S. Peace Corps; he also worked at several universities, including the University of Arizona.2 He never retired, and remained active in research projects. Because of his connection [End Page 716] to the university as a graduate of its anthropology program and his friendship with anthropologist Richard Stoffle and his wife, Carla, former dean of the University of Arizona Libraries, Dobyns chose Special Collections as the repository for his papers and library. It was a natural fit. Dobyns published extensively on the native peoples of the Southwest and is best known for his work in historical demography, including "Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate" and Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1983). On my first day, I was introduced to the Dobyns collection as it stood: 600 office boxes and 8 filing cabinets, located on opposite floors of two separate library buildings and stored in four different rooms. Just seeing all of the material at once was impossible. Over the previous two years, the University of Arizona Special Collections staff had picked up the collection from Dr. Dobyns's homes. They described what they found. Dr. Dobyns had dedicated every available space to his research. Notes, manuscripts, and files were in nearly every room. Dr. Dobyns was known for meticulous and extensive research, and he was a prolific author.3 He had kept everything: Every scrap of paper, every notebook, and every file on a topic of interest were included. This is what made my job so interesting—and difficult. I had never worked on a collection which did not fit on a couple of tabletops, let alone one which flowed out of one room to another—and then another—and to still another room and another. While I was apprehensive about the size of the collection, I was excited about jumping into a new project, especially one which fit my interests so well. I had recently graduated from the University of Arizona's School of Information Resources and Library Science (SIRLS). I had several years of training in archival processing as a graduate assistant in Special Collections at the University of Arizona and I had processed collections in other institutions. I was—I am—detail-oriented, organized, and obsessed with timelines. I had confidence in my skills, abilities, and experiences. I was confident that I could tackle such a large project. Confident, that was, until I saw "the quarantine room." My first task with the...

Socio-anthropological thought: method, field research, ethnography

At this paper we present general aspects of contemporary socio-anthropological thought, and for that shows the three main axes of anthropological studies encompassed in Paleontology in Archaeology and Social Anthropology. The first point addresses developed the construction of the anthropological object from the perspective of Durkheim and Leach as representatives of the French and British schools of anthropology, respectively. Following shows the confrontation between Malinowski and Leach as their way of doing ethnography. Subsequently it is discussed the prospect of Levi-Strauss and Evans Pritchard in order to analyze the symbolic aspects of culture. Finally we present a fast cut the Lamarckian and Darwinian evolutionism as precursors of the first anthropology schools.

Jorge Luis Borges and Alfred Métraux

Missing from scholarly studies of Borges’ work are substantial analyses of his interest in anthropology and the way it found carefully meditated expression in his essays and fiction. The common thread was a concern with some of the central subjects of anthropological theory: the possibilities of symbols and language to represent the world, categories of thought, systems of classification and the risks of translation. Alfred Metraux arrived in Argentina in 1928 with the ambitious project of starting a fieldwork-based school of anthropology. I contend that Borges’ adversarial engagement with Metraux’s work led directly to stories like “Dr. Brodie’s Report” and “The Ethnographer.” An inquiry on the tension between fiction and ethnography that runs through these stories sheds new light on the unorthodox history of anthropology in Argentina, and on Metraux’s relationship with Claude Levi-Strauss.

Dornik, Wolfram; Kasianov, Georgiy; Leidinger, Hannes; Lieb, Peter; Miller, Alexei; Musial, Bogdan, and Rasevych, Vasyl The Emergence of Ukraine: Self-Determination, Occupation and War in Ukraine, 1917–1922 (review)

SEER, 94, 3, july 2016 556 interesting book, but to an extent feels like the first phase of a larger project. Hopefully Kowalsky will pursue her important research further. School of History and Anthropology K. Turton Queen’s University, Belfast Dornik, Wolfram; Kasianov, Georgiy; Leidinger, Hannes; Lieb, Peter; Miller, Alexei; Musial, Bogdan, and Rasevych, Vasyl. The Emergence of Ukraine: Self-Determination, Occupation and War in Ukraine, 1917–1922. CIUS Press, Edmonton, AL and Toronto, ON, 2015. xxx + 441 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Appendix. Bibliography. Index. $39.95 (paperback). This volume is a (shortened) translation of the book Die Ukraine zwischen Selbstbestimmung und Fremdherrschaft 1917–1922, that came out in German in 2011. Most of the analysis is conventional, though it is invaluable for its wealth of detail. There is nothing, for example, on the Donetsk-Kryvyi Rih Republic of 1918, other than a brief mention in a list of would-be statelets, despite its mythologization by the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic since 2014; even if this is maybe all it deserves in terms of its actual historical importance. Nevertheless, there are many novel framings. The editors are keen to see ‘developments after the First World War not so much as a break but as a continuity’ (p. xvi). Events in Ukraine did not happen ex nihilo and were part of the general European upheaval that lasted much longer than the official four years of war in the West (hence for some Germans it is the Urkatastrophe). The editors also argue that ‘severe doubt is cast […] on the concept of the “Russian Civil War”’ (p. xvii) — many of its conflicts were between centre and periphery and many of its participants were from outside the empire of 1914. There is an admiral emphasis on ‘transnational history’, following on from Georgiy Kasianov’s excellent edited volume with Phillip Ther (A Laboratory of Transnational History, Budapest and New York, 2009). HighlightsincludeaninterestingessaybyAlexeiMilleron‘Russia’sUkrainian Policy before 1917’. Building on his own earlier work and that of Faith Hillis, he argues that ‘Ukraine, especially Kyiv, […] became a battleground between two nationalisms deeply rooted there’. ‘Ukrainian activists and the Little Russian anti-Ukrainians were both directing their propaganda toward the same group, whose members identified as Malorossy (Little Russians) or Khokhly’ (p. 307). Indeed, for the embryonic Russian nationalist movement, ‘the Little Russian variety of the Russian character was claimed to be even more “solid” than the Great Russian variety, which succumbed all too easily to the temptations of revolutionary ideas and the deceptive imaginings of minority milieus from the periphery of the empire’ (p. 310). REVIEWS 557 Vasyl Rasevych’s chapter on the Galician Ukrainians shows how reluctant they were to liberate themselves from Habsburg tutelage, even in late 1918. Georgiy Kasianov provides an excellent overview of the ups and downs of the various Ukrainian governments after 1917, ending his account of ‘the Ukrainian Revolution’ in ‘November 1920, when Ukrainian troops engaged in the Soviet-Polish war retreated to Galicia’ (p. 76). There are many excellent maps, particularly in the material on military campaigns. Wolfram Dornik is sceptical that the occupation of Ukraine by the Central Powers in 1918 was anything but ‘a fiasco for all those involved’ (p. 399). He also raises the question of ‘whether the Central Powers were well-advised when they overthrew the Rada’ (p. 400) in April 1918. Peter Lieb and Wolfram Dornik are interesting on why the Habsburgs deferred to the Germans during the occupation (p. 62). ‘A Ukraine under the protection of Vienna was seen as a possibility, but the Austrians were realistic enough to know that it was not very likely. Their real fear was that Kyiv would come under the influence of Russia or Germany, and this would put strategic pressure on the Danube Monarchy’ (p. 403). Hannes Leidinger and Wolfram Dornik provide an excellent analysis of the (lack of) interest shown by the Allied Powers towards Ukraine, particularly after the end of the war in the West in November 1918. Bogdan Musial is very good on the vicissitudes of Poland’s policy, and on Piłsudski’s genuine desire for a ‘cessation of attacks on Petliura’ (p. 377) in 1919 and ‘attempt to restore...

The Late Pleistocene Extinction – Who is Responsible: Nature or Humans? Review of Homo Armatus and Pleistocene Extinctions. Stratum Plus No. 1. 2013. Editor L B Vishnyatsky. St. Petersburg – Kishinev – Odessa – Bucharest: High Anthropological School University. ISBN: 1608-9057; 355 pages, with 80 illustrations and maps, and 29 tables. In Russian with English abstracts. List price € 20

The Late Pleistocene Extinction – Who is Responsible: Nature or Humans? Review of Homo Armatus and Pleistocene Extinctions. Stratum Plus No. 1. 2013. Editor L B Vishnyatsky. St. Petersburg – Kishinev – Odessa – Bucharest: High Anthropological School University. ISBN: 1608-9057; 355 pages, with 80 illustrations and maps, and 29 tables. In Russian with English abstracts. List price € 20 (paperback). - Volume 58 Issue 1

Fathering volkekunde: race and culture in the ethnological writings of Werner Eiselen, Stellenbosch University, 1926–1936

Werner Willi Max Eiselen (1899–1977) has been celebrated for having consolidated the liberal functionalist school of social anthropology in South Africa. In the standard androcentric narrative, David Hammond-Tooke (1997) argues that during his decade-long tenure as head of “Bantology” at Stellenbosch University between 1926 and 1936, and in close collaboration with Isaac Schapera (1905–2003), Werner Eiselen developed the tradition of social anthropology founded in the five years before his appointment by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) at the University of Cape Town. This essay fundamentally challenges this narrative. Through a close reading of the political and ethnological writings of Meinhof-trained Eiselen, it argues that race rather than culture was the central theme in his Stellenbosch years, especially during the mid- to late 1920s. Racial classification, racial science and Afrikaner nationalism played a central role in the alternative ethnological tradition that Eiselen self-consciously crafted at Stellenbosch University. His partial shift in emphasis from race to culture in his relatively sparse ethnological writings of the early to mid-1930s was prompted by another German mentor, the linguist Diedrich Westermann (1887–1956), rather than by South African liberal scholars like Isaac Schapera.

“Broederbande” [brotherly bonds]: Afrikaner nationalist masculinity and African sexuality in the writings of Werner Eiselen's students, Stellenbosch University, 1930–1936

The importance of Willi Werner Max Eiselen (1899–1977) as the lecturer, supervisor and mentor of the first generation of volkekundiges at Stellenbosch University has been greatly underestimated. He supervised no fewer than 11 MA and doctoral theses in this field between 1930 and 1936, texts which are remarkable for the coherence of the backgrounds of their authors — male, rural, Christian, right-wing — and for the uniformity of their ethnological method — extensive reliance on German linguistics and imperial ethnography as core secondary sources, limited and detached fieldwork practice oriented towards the verbatim recording of texts from elderly men and collection of ethnographic objects on Berlin Mission Society mission stations, and an almost obsessive preoccupation with African sexuality, particularly the alleged promiscuity of women in African cultures. Through a close reading of their theses and published writing, I argue that these pious Afrikaner nationalist men of the post-“English War” generation consolidated volkekunde on the lines established by their mentor in his writings and teachings of the 1920s: that is, as a rigid ideology of difference, powerfully underpinned by concepts of race and racism, deeply informed by a masculine Afrikaner nationalism and the associated politics of segregation. An important subtheme in the theses and correspondence of Eiselen and his protégés is the threatening figure of the liberal woman anthropologist. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that there was a moment of convergence of interests and approaches during the early and mid-1930s between the English-speaking liberal school of social anthropology and “the Stellenbosch school of volkekunde,” I conclude that the latter tradition remained, as it had been when fathered by Eiselen in the 1920s, radically different from social anthropology in its racial politics, its anthropological method and its ethnographic focus.

Schumpeter as a diffusionist: a new interpretation of Schumpeter’s theory of socio-cultural evolution

Joseph A. Schumpeter’s theory of socio-cultural evolution has been widely studied. Many researchers have sought the origins of this theory in several sources, notably in the work of Karl Marx, in the historical debate on methods between the German and Austrian economic schools, and in business cycle theory. However, most researchers have not adequately attended to the influence of one of the early anthropological schools of thought, namely, diffusionism, on Schumpeter’s theory. Emphasizing the importance of diffusion in cultural change, early diffusionists rejected the ideas put forward by evolutionists who posited the deterministic and unidirectional development of culture. The argument developed in this paper is that the dispute between these two schools had an important influence on Schumpeter’s theory of socio-cultural evolution. Schumpeter had studied jurisprudence, which was then closely related to anthropological research (particularly that of the evolutionists), at the University of Vienna. He had also attended lectures by leading anthropologists who were skeptical of some of the views proposed by evolutionism when he studied at the London School of Economics. This paper suggests that Schumpeter became acquainted with concepts in diffusionism at these two places, and partially accepted some of them, applying them in developing his unique theory of socio-cultural development, as formulated in his second book, Theorie der wirtscaftlichen Entwicklung (The Theory of Economic Development). The paper shows that in this book, he used diffusionist ideas to refute the evolutionist concept of continuous and deterministic development.

Tepora, Tuomas and Roselius, Aapo (eds). The Finnish Civil War 1918: History, Memory, Legacy (review)

SEER, 93, 3, JULY 2015 574 was a new determination to choose practical philanthropy over party politics. Lastly, as Hartnett’s rigorous use of gender analysis highlights, Figner both defied expectations of her sex, but also exploited them to enable her survival and success as a revolutionary. While her early life and career as a terrorist is a compelling tale, Figner’s experiencesafterherreleasefromprisonarealsoanimportantandilluminating element of the biography. Figner was elected to the Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies (ahead of Gor´kii, Kropotkin and Lenin), joined the Council of the Republic/ Pre-parliament and was a member of the Constituent Assembly. She also dedicated herself to promoting a vision of a humane revolutionary society by forming and working on committees to improve women’s rights, to help the starving and to support political prisoners. Lastly, she helped preserve the history of the revolutionary movement by co-founding Culture and Liberty, overseeing the publication of her own considerable memoirs and publishing numerous works on other revolutionaries. On her death she merited a halfpage obituary on page 4 of Pravda. Although Figner was a famous and politically active figure throughout her life, historians have overlooked her part in the events of 1917 and after. Hartnett’s biography is an excellent and comprehensive effort to correct this situation, but there is always the danger that once one book has been written about a prominent woman, no further works are published. N. K. Krupskaia has not had a new English-language biography since Robert McNeal’s Bride of the Revolution (London, 1973). The greatest achievement of Hartnett’s impressive work would be that it encourages further study of a woman who did not simply survive the Revolution, but lived it. School of History and Anthropology K. Turton Queen’s University, Belfast Tepora, Tuomas and Roselius, Aapo (eds). The Finnish Civil War 1918: History, Memory, Legacy. History of Warfare, 101. Brill, Leiden and Boston, MA, 2014. xii + 454 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Tables. Figures. Notes. Select bibliography. Index. €162.00. The Finnish Civil War of 1918 was one of the bloody sideshows of the Russian Revolution. The conflict was a national tragedy characterized by reprisals and terror which were high even by the standards of wartime European paramilitary violence. Fresh English-language academic literature on the war has been regrettably scarce since Anthony F. Upton’s The Finnish Revolution (Minnesota, MN, 1980), which placed its emphasis mainly on the portrayal of the vanquished Red side. During recent decades, domestic Finnish research on the war has REVIEWS 575 gone further, with the new cultural history of warfare augmenting previous descriptions based on political and social history. The new Finnish Civil War 1918: History, Memory, Legacy, published by Brill, provides the international public with a successful compilation of these accomplishments. Edited by Tuomas Tepora and Aapo Roselius, the book is structurally similar to Brill’s earlier magnum opus, Finland in World War II (2012). The book includes contributions from established old-school historians as well as from the younger generation of researchers. The articles are thematically divided in three parts. The first focuses on the political and social history of the war; the second on the cultural history of war and individual war experience; and the third on memory politics. While the Civil War may still be a matter of controversy among Finnish pundits and the general public, the articles indicate a consensus on the political and social background of the war amongst historians. This is particularly evident in the opening articles by Professor Pertti Haapala and psycho-historian Juha Siltala, which augment each other quite nicely. Whereas Haapala portrays the structural disintegration of Finnish society, Siltala offers a presentation of the mentalities of the working class and bourgeoisie, as well as the emotional reasons for the vicious circle of violence. These explanations have already become part of the Finnish historiographical canon. They are followed by Marko Tikka’s equally systematic analysis of wartime operations and organized terror amongst Finnish Reds and Whites, whereas Roselius covers the subsequent ‘tribal wars’ waged by the victorious Whites in Estonia, Ingria and East Karelia in 1919–21. Roselius also approaches the symbolism and ideology of the White irredentist campaigns against Bolshevik Russia. Well...