Editors' Introduction

Editors' Introduction Regna Darnell and Frederic W. Gleach With volume 3, Histories of Anthropology Annual has clearly established a critical mass demonstrating the legitimacy and interest within the discipline in different possible positionings regarding its history. Some readers may concentrate on the stories or case studies, others will be concerned with the theoretical voices of histories within the discipline; some will focus on individual pieces, while others may seek the strands that draw certain pieces together. The thirty-two articles published to date vary greatly in subject matter, methodologies, and links to other disciplines or approaches. There could be no clearer demonstration that there are multiple possible and actual histories of anthropology. This volume for the first time represents all four traditional subdisciplines of anthropology, and moves through several national traditions and their intersections with work in diverse ethnographic areas. Pieces range from individual biography to examinations of theoretical streams and institutional contexts, but all expand in their connections and implications to broader issues than may seem to be their subject at first glance. While each paper stands on its own as a piece of disciplinary history, we identify a kind of unity of theory and method that engages with the significance of studying and writing histories of anthropology from within the discipline. Looking at only one volume, one might be inclined to consider the contents to be random. Looking at several volumes, however, the existence of a journal where colleagues can find historical reflection and research begins to justify itself. Thematic volumes of interest to the history/ies of anthropology have been around for a long time. But what does one do with a paper that stands alone? Often, such papers are written for conference sessions or volumes where they appear as the first contribution and set a context for what follows. Such an approach shows that anthropologists think historically about their work, but it does not focus attention on the process of historicizing and its relation to disciplinary praxis. We surmise that the majority of anthropological historians, [End Page vii] whatever their disciplinary base, envision an anthropological audience, and journals in the history of science rarely attract wide audiences among anthropologists. We hope that this series has contributed—and will continue to contribute—to increasing awareness and use of historical approaches in teaching, learning, and doing anthropology. We have come a long way from the days when history consisted exclusively of names, dates, and events cataloged in chronological order. Some papers may present fairly straightforward stories or case studies, but these are implicitly framed within larger issues that attract an audience for histories that are no longer firmly located in the past. Historicism and presentism no longer seem like neatly bipolar categories; rather, they challenge the historian to specify her/his position in the telling of a story that brings the past into relevance with the present and future. The long-established standards of historicism remain, but the relationship of issues chosen for historical attention and the audiences for such analysis and interpretation are more fluid—and far from shared among the diverse contributors to the first three volumes of HOAA. Yet the terms of the debate seem to us to be shared, at least implicitly. We invite readers to enter this discourse by submitting papers, commenting on developments in the field, and recommending topics or authors. We remind readers that commentary and book review sections are envisioned for HOAA and that we welcome such contributions. One need not even consider oneself a disciplinary historian; submitted manuscripts, other publications and presentations, and reflections on possible books for review have led us to consider that many who would not bill themselves as doing history of anthropology actually contribute actively to the disciplinary conversations that we hope to sustain. [End Page viii] Regna Darnell University of Western Ontario Department of Anthropology, University of Western Ontario. e-mail: rdarnell@uwo.ca Frederic W. Gleach Cornell University Department of Anthropology, Cornell University. e-mail: fwg1@cornell.edu Copyright © 2007 Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.