Darnell, Regna. The History of Anthropology: A Critical Window on the Discipline in North America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2021, 394 pages

Regna Darnell’s The History of Anthropology consists of seventeen chapters written over five decades. While some of the chapters reproduce papers read at conferences, others are based on the author’s MA thesis and PhD dissertation. The volume examines the institutional context of the professionalization of anthropology as an academic discipline in America, the role of Franz Boas and his students in this multifaceted process, and anthropology’s connections with the allied disciplines of linguistics and folklore studies. Darnell’s position differs from the history of anthropology of George W. Stocking, Jr. in three ways: First, she sees the history of anthropology as an anthropological problem, an integral part of anthropology’s study of human cultures across time and space, and studies it ethnographically. Second, unlike historians of science, she considers “the process of overlap and negotiation by which things change, often accumulating imperceptibly until they flip into a new paradigm” (xxv). Finally, she maintains that paradigms not only replace each other but can also coexist, fading in and out of each other. In Chapter One, Darnell revisits her reading of the life and times of Edward Sapir, the American Jewish anthropologist and linguist best known for his work on Native American languages. She recalls being fascinated by Sapir’s intellectual diversity, his interdisciplinary approach, and his ability to bring outliers into broader conversations. She also expresses her disappointment with reviewers for talking a lot about Sapir while ignoring the strategy of biography as a genre or product, and the lack of interest in attempting another biography of Sapir. There was no single moment when American anthropology became professional, Darnell argues in Chapter Two. Rather, there were two periods during which the disciplinary boundaries of American anthropology were solidified, institutions for anthropological research were established, and a community of self-conscious anthropologists emerged. The first paradigm of professional American anthropology crystallized around the Bureau of American Ethnology (hereafter BAE), while the second crystallized around Franz Boas and his students. Chapter Three analyzes how professional rivalries and personal equations gave rise to a mutually beneficial relationship between folklore studies and anthropology. The American Folklore Society was not originally intended to be an anthropological organization. Its purpose was to study all the cultures and traditions that had contributed to the formation of the American way of life. William Wells Newell redefined its scope to include anthropology in order to strengthen its position within the developing discipline of folklore studies, improve the output of the Journal of American Folklore, and professionalize his fellow folklorists. He even extended his support to Boas’ plan to remake anthropology into an academic discipline, which faced strong opposition within the American Anthropological Association from the BAE and the Anthropological Society of Washington. Boas, on the other hand, found an alternative outlet for publication and recognition for his students in the American Folklore Society. Chapter Four traces the emergence of academic anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. The first professional anthropological activity in Philadelphia developed in a museum associated with the University of Pennsylvania. It remained the primary site for anthropological research until the first decade of the twentieth century, when American anthropology began to move away from material culture and the training of museum archaeologists towards ethnographic fieldwork and the training of cultural anthropologists. This was a general trend within American anthropology during this period, as it became increasingly associated with the universities under the influence of Boas. Darnell describes the various institutions that hold anthropologists’ personal papers in Chapter Five. Anthropologists’ field notes are crucial documents for readers to assess the validity and reliability of ethnographic writings based on them, to understand the …