The historiography of anthropology as history: between its extreme plurality and orthodoxy
Anthropology very own historiography is extensive and considerable. Since 1935 it has been practiced trough history as an anthropological issue. However since the beginning, the deepest divergences surfaced interiorly and between fields. Most of the contributions were full of historical controversy,...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Iztapalapa Vol. 37; no. 81/2; pp. 9 - 39 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Unidad Iztapalapa
01-12-2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Anthropology very own historiography is extensive and considerable. Since 1935 it has been practiced trough history as an anthropological issue. However since the beginning, the deepest divergences surfaced interiorly and between fields. Most of the contributions were full of historical controversy, being as an evolutionary advance, then as pendulum movement, and finally as paradigmatic succession. In all cases there was a more extreme and personalized “plural” diversity. In the other hand, George Stoking Jr’s professional history procured to forge a canon that several followers took as historicist orthodox. Another turn to the screw given that the professional field remained divided a condition that far from changing it has endured. Some milieus even consider the disappearance of the so called unitary anthropology nomination. And the contribution of the presentist history continues to document the continuous divergence. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0185-4259 2007-9176 |