Editor's Introduction

Few disciplines are as self-conscious of their own origins and history as is anthropology. Richard Pace describes how many of us are recruited into becoming historians of anthropology: invitations to write entries or essays for projects such as encyclopedias, Festschrifts, and edited volumes. As a practitioner in a ‘‘classic’’ culture area, the Northwest Coast, I was obliged early on to reckon with the legacy of Franz Boas, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Frederica De Laguna, and other seminal figures, beyond their engagements with Northwest Coast cultures (e.g., Harkin 2009, 2014). Surely one figure responsible more than most for this ‘‘historical turn’’ in anthropology was the great historian George Stocking. I was privileged to have known George for over three decades, receiving advice early on that pushed me in the direction of anthropological history and historical anthropology. George was certainly the first professional historian of the discipline and, as such, was unique. However, it is easy to think that scholarly consideration of the history of anthropology began in 1968 with Race, Culture, and Evolution. It did not. Anthropologists had long been interested in the history of their discipline. I mean ‘‘interested’’ here in both main senses of the term. Anthropologists had a stake in constructing a certain narrative of the field. According to the Boasians, the break with evolutionary anthropology was revolutionary and complete. But this ignores very important subcurrents— such as that of Durkheim interpreted by Radcliffe-Brown, who then brought functionalism into the American heartland via students such as Fred Eggan at the University of Chicago. Much was made of constructing genealogies and claiming ancestors. Thus Leslie White, Marvin Harris, and Eleanor Leacock, among others, sought to rehabilitate Lewis Henry Morgan, claiming him for the materialist-Marxist anthropology developing in the 1950s. Of course, as any anthropologist knows, genealogy is always a construct. At the very least, one has to make choices. Am I Irish or German? A descendant of Boas, Hallowell, or White? Of course, at different times and in different places, different genealogical identities may be stressed. In addition to staking a claim to intellectual ancestors, who may not be as close or obvious as a graduate school mentor (as in Pace’s case), we tend to argue for, or against, the importance of individual anthropologists: what Pace calls ‘‘lobbying.’’ This is undeniable. A Festschrift is considered a standard retirement gift to anthropologists who mentor many Ph.D. students. (I am as guilty of this as Reviews in Anthropology, 43:177–179, 2014 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0093-8157 print=1556-3014 online DOI: 10.1080/00938157.2014.937668