See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233138657
Introduction: Biographies of Anthropologists as
Anthropological Data
Article  in  Reviews in Anthropology · April 2008
DOI: 10.1080/00938150802040444
CITATIONS
5
READS
299
1 author:
Roger Lohmann
Trent University
58 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Roger Lohmann on 04 July 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
INTRODUCTION: BIOGRAPHIES OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS
AS ANTHROPOLOGICAL DATA
Roger Ivar Lohmann
Biographies of anthropologists are widely recognized as useful for the
history of science and the discipline. Introducing this special issue
‘‘Biographies of Anthropologists,’’ I argue that they not only provide
information about anthropology, but also data for anthropology because
they are studies of human agents enmeshed in social and cultural
contexts, comparable to life histories of ethnographic informants.
Biographies of anthropologists are of similar importance for empirical
and theoretical anthropology as ethnographies, grammars, and monographs
in archaeology and biological anthropology. They depict cultural
dynamics from a person-centered, intimate, experience-near, and
diachronic perspective on anthropology’s cluster of sodalities.
Keywords: anthropologists, biography, cultural change, ethnographic data,
lifecycle
What person, after all, can count the facts of his or her life without
making evaluations about what is important, what is good, what is
painful, what necessary, and what the product of outside forces. . .?
(Langness and Frank 1981:5)
ROGER IVAR LOHMANN is Associate Professor of Anthropology at Trent
University. He is Editor-in-Chief of Reviews in Anthropology and editor of this
special issue, ‘‘Biographies of Anthropologists.’’ His research concerns the
blending of perception and imagination in experiences that serve as personal
evidence for cultural beliefs. Among his publications are ‘‘Dreams and Ethnography’’
in The New Science of Dreaming (2007), ‘‘Sound of a Woman:
Drums, Gender, and Myth among the Asabano of Papua New Guinea (Material
Religion 2007) and ‘‘The Supernatural Is Everywhere: Defining Qualities of
Religion in Melanesia and Beyond’’ (Anthropological Forum 2003).
Address correspondence to Roger Lohmann, Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough,
Ontario K9J 7B8, Canada. E-mail: rogerlohmann@trentu.ca
Reviews in Anthropology, 37: 89–101, 2008
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online
DOI: 10.1080/00938150802040444
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
LIVES FOR ANTHROPOLOGY
The lives of anthropologists are often extraordinarily rich. Their
stories are not merely entertaining, not merely of historical value. As
documentations of human beings enmeshed in particular social and
historical circumstances, they are valuable data for anthropology.
‘‘Biographies of Anthropologists,’’ this special issue of Reviews in
Anthropology, focuses on this genre of historical anthropology as
represented by a recent burst of monographs and volumes featuring
anthropologists as biographical subjects. While continually produced,
and read with interest to learn about the discipline’s personalities
and past, biographies of anthropologists are seldom the object
of analysis for—as opposed to of—anthropological method or
theory. This issue represents several efforts to read biographical work
on anthropologists as empirical research on the social culture of
anthropology.
In this brief introduction I cover central issues that arise from a
constructively critical engagement with biographies of anthropologists.
I first discuss issues surrounding the biographical endeavor.
Second, I explore approaches to life histories of anthropologists
in particular. Third, I consider why biographies of scholars are
written and their uses as scholarship. I argue for thinking about
biographies of anthropologists as anthropological data. Seeing them
in this light can provide guidance for their research, writing, evaluation,
and use. Following this discussion, I preview the essays in this
collection noting some of their implications and contributions toward
these goals.
THE BIOGRAPHICAL ENDEAVOR
Biography—written description of life story—exists in a variety of
forms that are continuous with and blend into other genres of writing
meant to convey accurate information about the world, including
people’s understandings and experiences. Biography’s narrative form,
an experience-near, empathetic vision of a single individual’s point of
view and interactions with others, lends it an appeal and readability
similar to fiction. Nevertheless, biography is emphatically nonfiction:
a representation of reality, including inner, psychological realities
reconstructed as accurately as possible from evidence such as statements,
letters, and analysis of the biographical subject’s behaviors.
Biographies are more likely to be produced when the events featured
have receded into the past. This is so either because the
researcher-author wishes to be able to write as close to the ‘‘full’’
90 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
story as possible, or because the potential dangers of writing about
matters regarded as personal or private recede with the passage of
time, especially with the deaths of biographical subjects. Furthermore,
in some cultural-legal circumstances, access to information
about biographical subjects may be restricted for a certain period.
When these become available, new biographic work can commence
(see Sullivan, this issue).
Of course, what is considered ‘‘private’’ and thus not appropriate
for public writings varies cross-culturally, as do which stories of lifeadventures
might be regarded with disdain versus admiration. Are
biographers or other documenters of human reality, such as historians,
ethnographers, and psychologists, to write only those stories
that they suspect their research subjects and audiences will regard as
showing admirable character traits and agency? Even if this were
possible—and it is not, because culture continually changes, and we
write for residents of the distant future as well as the multiple-cultured
present—such whitewashing is anathema to the scholarly quest
for accuracy and truth. Yet the author of a biography is in the
powerful but challenging position of recording and evaluating for
posterity someone’s legacy.
When ethnographers describe a whole people in the abstract, even
when they are critical, no named individual need be exposed to either
canonization or blame. Quite often, individuals are made anonymous
or given pseudonyms. Biographers cannot elide this responsibility.
This is one of the reasons why writing about individuals by name in
anthropology can be problematic, why fieldworkers offer to hide
informants’ identities except when this is impossible, as when they
write at length about and evaluate the careers of public personalities—
something I have found challenging in my own work (Lohmann 2007).
Anthropologists are obliged to be honest and balanced, to tell the
facts and reveal their positionality and sources of knowledge as
accurately as possible. Avoiding ethnocentrism while providing
accuracy in written accounts is a central tenet of anthropological
wisdom; applying the cognate principle to biography, anthropological
biographers are compelled to write sympathetically yet honestly of
individual biographical subjects, representing subjects’ own perspectives
and analyzing the causes and consequences of their actions.
Doing this well in biography is made more complicated by the
convention in some cultures that the recently dead are not to be
criticized, and by the fact that those yet alive are likely to disapprove
of at least some of the ways they have been portrayed. Awareness and
separation of emic and etic perspectives are as important in
biographies as they are in ethnographies.
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 91
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
When written records are available, there are complementary
advantages and disadvantages of writing biographies of living individuals—who
can be interviewed—versus subjects who are deceased
and beyond living memory. The greater the experience-nearness of
the data and narrative, the greater the potential for emic richness (see
Lindholm 2008). Conversely, when the subject’s life has receded into
the past, knowable only through documents, the cultural and historical
context of that person’s life and actions can be assessed with
greater hindsight and broader contextual perspective.
The production and evaluation of any biography is aided by
characterizing the relationship between the biographer and the subject.
This reveals something about how the data were selected,
gathered, and interpreted. For example, Lewis (this issue) shows how
the different perspectives and purposes behind the biographies of
Franz Boas that he compares provided different takes on this
founding father. He furthermore makes clear his own admiring
relationship to the memory and ideas of Boas. Such reflexivity makes
for more accurate social science. As Grinker (this issue) notes, those
writing with too much admiration about a subject-as-hero, particularly
when that subject is still alive, are susceptible to being
incomplete in their coverage. Hagiography easily slips into positive
bias. The same is of course true when one writes with distaste about
one’s subjects—something that ethnographers and archaeologists,
describing social practices of which they personally disapprove, must
strive to rise above (see Lohmann 2004:122).
In evaluating biographical and biography-like sources, published
and otherwise, one must scrutinize for possible positive or negative
bias or ‘‘spin’’ and ask the question, to what purposes were these
biographical records made and how does that affect their accuracy
and value as data? Spin is, of course, itself data about the author, and
the effects of the subject on the author. While information in biographies
can provide great insight into why particular actors did what
they did, including their research choices and the consequences for
disciplinary trajectories and progress, knowledge of the motives of
authors of biographical information aid the evaluation of that
information as data.
The purposes for writing the many biographies of anthropologists,
like other writings, are enlightening for our consideration of them as
secondary historical sources and anthropological data. Biography of
anthropologists is ubiquitous in the discipline’s corpus: obituaries
written in tribute to colleagues and teachers; brief biographical
accounts in textbooks designed to introduce students to anthropological
theory (e.g., Emuseum of Minnesota State University 2008;
92 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
Moore 2004); even briefer biographical statements on contributors to
edited volumes or journals (including this one); memoirs about
oneself or others (e.g., Fox 2004); and accounts of one’s own life
events and their effects on empirical discoveries and theoretical trajectories.
An example of this last type is Rosaldo’s (1993) account of
his wife’s death in the field to explain his ethnographic insight in
‘‘Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.’’ This is a reminder, too, that elements
of biography and autobiography are often included in much
anthropological writing not explicitly devoted to biography,
regardless of subfield, much of which can be characterized as
autoethnography (see Reed-Danahay 1997).
When anthropologists write biographies of other anthropologists,
this is a form of native anthropology—though as Kingston
(2007:369) suggests, ‘‘native’’ versus ‘‘non-native’’ status in this
regard is a matter of degree. Like many social cultures, anthropology
is not homogeneous and circumscribed, and members of our loose
‘‘tribe,’’ while sharing much, each have distinctive expertise and are
uniquely connected to others within and beyond our scholarly
sodality. Being a fellow anthropologist goes a long way to understanding
the life of another, but for the last few kilometers at least, we
are all foreign to one another. Anthropological autobiography, on
the other hand, probably represents the closest thing to absolute
native anthropology—and autoethnography—that is possible. The
anthropological autobiographer faces the same challenge as the
hagiographer to expand his or her perspective on the chosen
biographical subject.
APPROACHES TO LIFE HISTORIES
OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS
When anthropologists are the subjects of biographies a variety of
approaches to biography and biography-like products are possible.
These can take the form of raw, unpublished data or digested
scholarship. One expects the typical biography of an anthropologist
to include at least two components in the narrative. First, a
description of the anthropologist’s intellectual contributions to the
discipline, including a behind-the-scenes look at the research and
other experiences that led to these contributions. Second, an account
of the subject’s life events and relationships, particularly as these
relate to his or her scholarly persona and accomplishments.
Another approach is to publish elements of the subject’s own
personal writings to provide an often richly detailed and emic account
of life moments or phases, highlighting particular relationships and
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 93
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
events. Publication of letters—often between scholars to cast light on
their thought processes and the origin of big ideas or ‘‘isms’’ in the
field, is one example of this approach to biography (e.g., Robert
Lowie’s publication of his letters from Edward Sapir [Sapir 1965]; see
also Sullivan, this issue). Indeed, as Price (this issue) observes, familiarity
with the lives of individual anthropologists shows that the
famous isms of anthropology are neither easily defined nor mutually
exclusive. Hinsley (this issue) further points out that biographical
‘‘intimacy with an historical subject’’ often reveals that their famous
career accomplishments, far from having been planned and orderly,
were greatly influenced by chance and accident. Like published letters,
the publication of diaries, such as Bronislaw Malinowski’s
fieldwork diary (1989[1967]), shine an intense light upon subjective
moments and phases. Analyses of letters and diaries can be placed in
introduction sections or footnotes; a powerful advantage of this
approach is that it presents the subject’s own words.
As all biography is in the end a collection of stories, anthropological
biographers do well to learn from and about other storytellers
in the world’s societies (see Scheub 1998). Stories and shared memories
of biographical subjects, told by those who knew them, can be
assembled and published, though since they circulate for a variety of
reasons other than the accurate preservation of knowledge, and may
include fabrication and misinformation, they must be checked as
thoroughly as possible and regarded with healthy skepticism. However,
such stories form the oral tradition of anthropology, one of the
ingredients from which the history of anthropology can be wrought.
An example of this is a discussion thread of stories about the late
Derek Freeman circulating on ASAONET, the e-mail listserv of the
Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania as I write this in
March, 2008. Sometimes second and third hand, these accounts of
antics and traumatic and humorous experiences with him poured out
from his former students and colleagues. Among the issues raised in
this fascinating discussion were the need to identify why such stories
are told when they are; the need to place fragments of a person’s life
story into a broader context of his or her whole personality, experiences,
and motives to render them explicable; and the dangers of
allowing such stories to stand in for historiography. Ethnographers
know these kinds of complications—and more—from their experience
collecting memories in the field. Tracking down the bits and
pieces to build a biographical narrative about a late anthropologist
offers many of the same challenges as ethnographic or indeed
archaeological work—and is a story in itself worth telling, as
Lepowsky (2000) does to good effect in her account of the nearly
94 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
forgotten anthropologist, Charlotte Gower. Futhermore, Festschrifts
can include both brief stories and extensive tales about the subject
(e.g., Williamson and Bisson 2006 for Bruce Trigger and Gross,
Lyons, and Counts 2005 for Ann Chowning).
Storytellers even of their own adventures do not necessarily provide
a neat and consistent, chronologically organized tale of their life
trajectory. Much is forgotten, mixed up, or revised, if not for presentation,
then in the person’s own memory to create a pleasing selfimage
(see e.g., Hollan 2003). Unpleasant experiences may be
repressed with the passage of time. Different people may have
complementary or conflicting memories of the same events, from
which the biographer must create a narrative (Bannerjee 2000).
Moreover, dreams and fantasies may enter memory as ‘‘actual’’ events
in one’s life history. People influenced by formal science might discount
or place these in a separate category from things that ‘‘really’’
happened, but then again, they might not. This became an issue for
Crapanzano (1980) in researching his biography of Tuhami the
Moroccan. Excellent biography of anthropologists aspires to portray
their distinctive lived reality with similar depth and cultural sensitivity
as Gapanzano’s exemplary work, and incorporates what we have
learned as a discipline about how to use life-history collection as an
ethnographic method (see Langness and Frank 1981). The use of oral
tradition as data for history and anthropology is also an art in which
the anthropological biographer should become skilled (see Vansina
1985).
THE USES OF BIOGRAPHIES OF SCHOLARS
The most obvious use for biographies of anthropologists is to deepen
our understanding of the discipline’s history, an objective richly fulfilled
in the voluminous work of George W. Stocking, Jr. (see e.g.
1995). As Arwill-Nordbladh (this issue) discusses in some detail,
biographies of anthropologists, like biographies of scholars in general,
have distinctive value for the history of science (see also
Shortland and Yeo 1996). Decades ago, June Helm and her collaborators
(1966) observed that biographies of anthropologists
improve our comprehension of the discipline by showing the context
in which its ideas have been and continue to be developed. There are
plainly practical reasons for members of a discipline to know their
own history: ‘‘If the destiny of those who are ignorant of the intellectual
history of their science is to repeat its mistakes—and this does
often seem to be the case—those who know nothing of the lives and
times of individual anthropologists repeat tired little myths, charter
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 95
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
only for intellectual slovenliness and distortion’’ (Codere 1968:574;
on the severity of some of this distortion, see Lewis 1998).
Life histories, biographies, and autobiographies of anthropologists’
informants have become a recognized and valued approach
not only for the sake of recording the historical particulars of an
individual’s life, but also for purposes of elucidating cultural complexes
at a given point in time and space (e.g., Radin 1999[1926];
Shostak 1983[1981]). The many such anthropological biographies of
informants, and researcher-subject collaborative autobiographies
have produced some of the finest-grained ethnographic work,
together with other person-centered approaches to ethnography (see
Hollan 2001). In some of the best of this biographical and individualist
tradition, social and cultural worlds come alive as readers
experience them vicariously through the life and perspective of an
inhabitant of that world. Resulting sociocultural generalizations are
grounded in concrete particulars. In the case of biographies of
anthropologists, particularly those written by anthropologists or
scholars in related disciplines, the portal opens upon anthropological
social culture from an individual’s positioned point of view.
Biographies of anthropologists at their best are rich, person-centered
ethnographies of anthropological cultures in fine temporal contexts.
They are, by implication, data on humankind comparable to any
other data in the anthropological record.
The key question is, what status as data for anthropology does
biography of anthropologists have? First, it depicts the biographical
subject’s culture, society, and agency from at least two perspectives,
the author’s and the subject’s (as understood by the author). Second,
it depicts anthropology as a dynamic, multi-pronged social culture,
manifested in the behaviors of biographical subjects and their contemporaries
in spatial and temporal contexts. Laviolette (this issue)
suggests that the growth of biography of anthropologists represents
an intensifying reflexivity within the discipline. All anthropologists
participate in anthropological society—researching biographies is
one way observation becomes hyphenated to participation in this
disciplinary self-awareness. Third, it reveals something about the
historical, agentive causes of fashions and advances in anthropological
knowledge, and by extension, the play of cultural dynamics in
general.
THE ESSAYS IN THIS COLLECTION
The essays in this issue all treat biographies of anthropologists as
data for anthropological analysis. David H. Price begins the
96 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
discussion with ‘‘On the Ambivalence of Orthodoxy in American
Anthropology,’’ noting the tension between the guidance of professional
standards versus the creative freedom of independent,
‘‘amateur’’ anthropologists in the early era of institutional anthropology.
He calls our attention to the often ignored, dark side of the
professionalization of anthropology, that it stifles some even as it
supports others.
Curtis M. Hinsley next takes the floor with ‘‘Personalities and
Institutions in Americanist Archaeology, 1850–1950,’’ tracing a
similar trajectory from amateur to professional for male archaeologists
as Price does for mainly ethnologist male subjects. Focusing
his comments on the lives documented in the biographies he considers,
Hinsley observes the more positive influences of professionalization
on social harmony among early American archaeologists.
Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh takes the discussion from there in
‘‘Twelve Timely Tales: On Biographies of Pioneering Women
Archaeologists.’’ Her essay makes it clear that biography does not
exist in a theoretical vacuum. Anthropologists’ lives can only be
understood in the context of the cultures in which they partake, and
anthropological theory is necessarily invoked in the description and
analysis of these cultures. In the cases she considers, a feminist perspective
reveals the gendered expectations and constraints that
influenced early Old World archaeologists’ lives and works.
In ‘‘Franz Boas: Boon or Bane?’’ Herbert S. Lewis compares
biographical work done by an historian with that of admiring
grandchildren of the biographical subject, each with different purposes,
perspectives, and methods. He reviews the profound and
ingrained impact of Boas on anthropology, and uses biographical
evidence to demonstrate the inaccuracy of more recent claims about
Boas by critics within anthropology.
Gerald Sullivan collects the baton from Lewis’s Boas and hands it
off to the next generation in ‘‘Three Boasian Women: Margaret
Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Ruth Landes.’’ Like Lewis (who notes
among Boas’s accomplishments his training of almost the entire first
generation of female anthropologists in the United States), Sullivan
points to biographical evidence that the theoretical accomplishments
of these women was sophisticated and of ongoing value for anthropology,
though some of it has failed to be widely transmitted within
the discipline for reasons that their biographies partially explain.
Patrick Laviolette returns the gaze to European anthropology in his
‘‘Anthropology in the UK: Never Mind the Biographies, Here’s the
Reflexive Symbols.’’ In his analysis of biographies of mainly British
anthropologists, he argues that biographies of anthropologists, by
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 97
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
anthropologists, and for anthropologists represent the discipline’s
reflexivity over historical time.
Finally, Roy Richard Grinker writes in ‘‘The Politics of Knowledge:
Julian Steward, Leslie White, Melville Herskovits, and L. Luca
Cavalli-Sforza,’’ that efforts to make anthropology serve the public
good are nothing new. The biographies of these men whose work
together spanned the four subfields reveal an abiding desire to learn
about humankind not only for its own sake, but in order to engineer
a better future. These biographies show that insofar as anthropologists
make up a discipline devoted to the study of humankind,
biologically and culturally, in all places and times, they must include
a long view on their own discipline itself.
CONCLUSION: THE ANTHROPOLOGY
OF ANTHROPOLOGISTS
In this introduction I have noted that anthropology is itself a
sociocultural complex that can be an anthropological research subject
(or object, depending on the aspect studied and the source of data; see
Lohmann [2006]). I have suggested that biographies of anthropologists
not only reveal an experience-near, person-centered history
of the discipline; as accounts of human beings in social contexts, they
are also an excellent and underappreciated source of data for general
anthropology.
Biographies are not the only source of published data on anthropologists
as human subjects. Ethnographic studies of academic
departments of anthropology provide another approach (e.g.,
Williams 2002). Writings of anthropologists make up the richest vein
of published information on the topic, an emic literature that can be
consulted in the same way that other cultural productions and artifacts
can be analyzed to identify pattern and anti-pattern in
anthropological society. However, as person-centered accounts of the
discipline, biographical work is of value not only to understand the
discipline, but also to understand the human bearers of this, as any
other, continually changing tradition. Biographies of anthropologists
not only describe people who lived for anthropology; study of their
life stories is anthropology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank all of the contributors and peer reviewers of this special
issue’s articles for the inspiring exchange of ideas. My particular
thanks to Heather M.-L. Miller for her constructively critical
98 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
comments on this introduction. I am humbly responsible for any
remaining limitations, errors, and oversights, and profoundly grateful
to the generations of anthropologists who came before and transmitted
such knowledge as they were able to impart to succeeding
cultural generations.
REFERENCES CITED
Bannerjee, Mukulika
2000 The Pathan Unarmed: Opposition and Memory in the North West
Frontier. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Codere, Helen
1968 Review of Pioneers of American Anthropology: The Uses of Biography.
American Anthropologist 70(3):573–574.
Crapanzano, Vincent
1980 Tuhami: Portrait of a Moroccan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emuseum of Minnesota State University, Mankato
2008 Anthropology Biography Web, 2008 Electronic document, http://
www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biograph/, accessed March 5.
Fox, Robin
2004 Participant Observer: Memoir of a Transatlantic Life. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Gross, Claudia, Harriet D. Lyons, and Dorothy A. Counts, eds.
2005 A Polymath Anthropologist: Essays in Honour of Ann Chowning.
Research in Anthropology and Linguistics Monograph Series, 6. Auckland:
Department of Anthropology.
Helm, June, ed.
1966 Pioneers of American Anthropology: The Uses of Biography. Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Hollan, Douglas
2001 Developments in Person-Centered Ethnography. In The Psychology of
Cultural Experience. Carmella C. Moore and Holly F. Matthews, eds.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2003 The Cultural and Intersubjective Context of Dream Remembrance and
Reporting: Dreams, Aging, and the Anthropological Encounter in Toraja,
Indonesia. In Dream Travelers: Sleep Experiences and Culture in the Western
Pacific. Roger Ivar Lohmann, ed. Pp. 168–187. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kingston, Deanna Paniataaq
2007 Native American Women in a Contemporary World. Reviews in
Anthropology 36(4):357–374.
Langness, L. L., and Gelya Frank
1981 Lives: An Anthropological Approach to Biography. Novato, CA: Chandler
and Sharp Publishers.
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 99
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
Lepowsky, Maria
2000 Charlotte Gower and the Subterranean History of Anthropology. In
Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays toward a More Inclusive
History of Anthropology. Richard Handler, ed. Pp. 123–170. History of
Anthropology, 9. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Lewis, Herbert S.
1998 The Misrepresentation of Anthropology and Its Consequences. American
Anthropologist 100(3):716–731.
Lindholm, Charles
2008 Three Styles in the Study of Violence. Reviews in Anthropology 37(1):68–86.
Lohmann, Roger Ivar
2004 Sex and Sensibility: Margaret Mead’s Descriptive and Rhetorical
Ethnography. Reviews in Anthropology 33(2):111–130.
2006 Field Methods. In Encyclopedia of Anthropology. H. James Birx, ed.
Pp. 962–968. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference.
2007 Morals and Missionary Positionality: Diyos of Duranmin. In The
Anthropology of Morality in Melanesia and Beyond. John Barker, ed.
Pp. 131–147. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1989[1967] A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Moore, Jerry D.
2004 Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and
Theorists. 2nd edition. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Radin, Paul, ed.
1999[1926] Crashing Thunder: The Autobiography of an American Indian. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Reed-Danahay, Deborah, ed.
1997 Auto=Ethnography: Rewriting the Self and the Social. New York: Berg.
Rosaldo, Renato
1993 Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Sapir, Edward
1965 Letters from Edward Sapir to Robert H. Lowie. Berkeley: Luella Cole
Lowie.
Scheub, Harold
1998 Story. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Shortland, Michael and Richard M. Yeo, eds.
1996 Telling Lives in Science: Essays on Scientific Biography. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shostak, Marjorie
1983[1981] Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman. New York: Vintage
Books.
Stocking, George W., Jr.
1995 After Tylor: British Social Anthropology 1888–1951. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
100 R. I. Lohmann
DownloadedBy:[CanadianResearchKnowledgeNetwork]At:19:063June2008
Vansina, Jan
1985 Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Williams, Melvin D.
2002 The Ethnography of an Anthropology Department (1959–1979): An
Academic Village. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
Williamson, Ronald F., and Michael S. Bisson, eds.
2006 The Archaeology of Bruce Trigger: Theoretical Empiricism. Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press.
Biographies of Anthropologists as Anthropological Data 101
View publication statsView publication stats