In a recent review of E.R. Wolfs Europe and the People Without History [1], Peter Worsley, in an article entitled "A Landmark in Anthropology," argues that "after this book, anthropology will never be quite the same." The reason being, it seems, is that Wolf subjects the "inadequacies of ahistoric functionalism, which has been the dominant paradigm since its own definitive destruction of nineteenth century evolutionism" to "devasting criticism." This critique is, appar? ently, so devastating as to herald a new "revolu? tion in anthropology" [2]. Let us hope so. We do not entirely share Worsley's optimism. In the main, the British anthropological establishment is likely to remain unmoved by this recent study, as it has remained un? moved by the various productions of the contemporary generation of Marxist anthro? pologists currently working in Britain. In the main, the anthropological establishment is concerned neither with transitions (whether between modes of production or social for? mations), nor with the effect of colonial and post-colonial forms of imperialism on indigenous populations. Nonetheless, new developments within anthropology have made some impact on academic social scientists, notably on those working within the sociol? ogy of development. Moreover, it is at the interface of anthropology and the sociol? ogy of development where some of the most interesting contributions to Marxist scholarship have taken place [3]. The inter? change between the sociology of develop? ment and Marxist anthropology [4] has been a two-way process, facilitated by jour? nals such as Review of African Political Economy, Cambridge Anthropology, The Journal of Peasant Studies, New Left Review, Economy and Society, Critique of Anthro? pology (now, sadly defunct); and, the ex? istence of both joint departments, and schools of development studies (e.g., Keele, Hull, Sussex, U.E.A.). Worsley's commendation of Wolfs book is, doubtless, entirely justified. Devasting critique of functionalism, even from the anthropological ranks, is not, however, new. Less than twenty years after functional anthropology was firmly established in British universities, Leach questioned the validity of the functional paradigm in his seminal work Rethinking Anthropology (1961) [5]. Moreover, Worsley himself presented a damning criticism of function? alist anthropology at the 6th World Congress of Sociology (May 1966). Thence came the New Left Review articles: Goddard "Limits of British Anthropology" (New Left Review, No. 58, 1969), and Banaji "Crisis in British Anthropology" (New Left Review, No. 64, 1970). The crisis, by this time, had been well and truly identified. Meanwhile, in a context of contrast (Inaugural Radcliffe-Brown Lec? ture in Social Anthropology, British Acad? emy, May 1972), Raymond Firth entered the 'debate, presenting a paper which, at the very Kate Currie and Larry Ray are both Professors in the Depart? ment of Sociology at the University of Lancaster, Lancaster, Great Britain.