Franz Boas Was My Great-Grandfather And Margaret Mead Was My Cousin:  Anthropologists Have Ancestors!

Dr. Charles F. Urbanowicz / Retired Professor Emeritus of Anthropology
California State University Chico / Chico, California 95929-0400
Anthropology Department: Phone: 530-898-6192
email: curbanowicz@csuchico.edu [or] csurbanowicz@gmail.com

14 September 2023

Urbanowicz Home Page: https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/  

This page printed from https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Ancestors.html

 

[Please note that this web page was created to accompany a PowerPoint presentation, of the same title, at the 14 September 2023 Anthropology Forum in Holt Hall 120 on the campus of California State University Chico. All references in the PowerPoint presentation are listed below as well as some references NOT utilized in the PowerPoint presentation.]

 

ABSTRACT

 

Discover the significance of Anthropological Ancestors:  words about my "Great-Grandfather" Franz Boas (1858-1942) as well as my "Cousin" Margaret Mead (1901-1978). I will also mention other Anthropologists and scholars I have been fortunate to meet and interact with and be inspired by over the years, such as Luther Cressman (1897-1994), Colin C. Twedell (1899-1998), Raymond Firth (1901-2002), Gregory Bateson (1904-1980), H.G. Barnett (1906-1985), H.E. Maude (1906-2006), Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), Jesse D. Jennings (1909-1997), Len Mason (1913-2005), Douglas Oliver (1913-2009), Renée Heyum (1916-1994), June Helm (1923-2004), Herbert C. Taylor, Jr. (1924-1991), June Helm (1924-2004), Valene Smith (born 1926), Gene Ogan (1930-2015), Ben Finney (1933-2017), Jane Goodall (born 1934), Keith Johnson (born 1936), and Richard Leakey (1944-2022).

 

 

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES AND PERSPECTIVES

RESOLUTION?
CONCLUSIONS

EPILOGUE:  THREE ITEMS (INCLUDING ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude)

REFERENCES CITED

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

"To become trustworthy anthropologists, we must learn how to observe human cutures in a methodical and objective manner, free from preconceptions and prejudices. That's what you study at the department of anthropology, and that's what enabled anthropologists to play such a vital role in bridging gaps between different cultures." Yuval Noah Harari, 2028, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (UK: Penguin Random House), page 314..

 

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) "...believed that the natural world was the result of constantly repeated small and accumulative actions..." Janet Browne, 2002, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place - Volume II of a Biography (NY: Alfred A. Knopf), page 490.

 

The words of Harari and Darwin are very relevant in the year 2023: what Darwin saw for the natural world is also true for the cultural world and life consists of repeated actions or events that accumulate over time and contribute to, or make us, who and what we are; and as human beings (and Anthropologists) we should try to avoid "preconceptions and prejudices" in interacting with people.  I was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1942 and graduated high school in 1960.  After attending New York University in 1960-1961, I enlisted for four years in the United States Air Force (1961-1965), was Honorably Discharged and in 1967 received the B.A. in Sociology/Anthropology from Western Washington State College (now Western Washington University). In September 1967 I began Graduate Work in Anthropology at the University of Oregon and received the M.A. in Anthropology in 1969.   In July 1970, with my wife Sadie (we married in 1963), we went to the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga where I conducted research for the Ph.D. in Anthropology. I also conducted library, or archival research, in Hawai'i, Australia and New Zealand in 1970 and 1971.

 

After returning to Oregon in 1971 and writing up the fieldwork research and defending the dissertation I was awarded the Ph.D. in Anthropology in 1972. Sadie and I then moved to Minneapolis where I taught in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota for the 1972-1973 Academic Year. Our only child, our son Tom, was born in Minneapolis in 1972 and has recently written that "nearly all accomplishments are realized after an arduous journey of incremental effort" (Tom Urbanowicz, n.d., page 41).   In August 1973 I joined the faculty of California State University Chico and completely retired in December 2009.  This is now my 43rd Anthropology Forum presentation.

 

In Fall 1973 the first Anthropology Forum on this campus was made by Turhon Murad (1944-2015) and I gave the second one on November 7, 1973.  My last two Forum presentations might be of interest to some:  "Fifty Years An Anthropologist" (February 2022) and "South Pacific Changes:  1970-2022!" (September 2021).  An earlier Forum from 2015 also might be of interest to some:  it deals with "World War II" and is also available on-line. These three presentations, thanks to the accumulation of technology, are available (along with thirty-two other Anthropology presentations by various individuals) and can be reached from the "Anthropology Forum" page (under "News & Events") from the Anthropology Department Home Page. Those three presentation are topics that I have been intimately interested in for more than five decades. 

 

The various Forums that I have presented since 1973 have been valuable on several levels:  they forced me to condense some thoughts for a brief presentation for the general public as well as students. Forum presentations also provided me with the opportunity to become associated with the Smithsonian Institution.  Several years ago Dr. Eugene L. Mendosa, who graduated from Chico State with an undergraduate degree in Anthropology, was in the audience at one of my presentations. Dr. Mendonsa had taken courses from Dr. Arthur C. Lehman (1935-1999) who taught at Chico State for decades.   Art did his original fieldwork in Africa and taught numerous courses at Chico State until his death. 

 

Eugene Mendonsa went to Cambridge University in the United Kingdom for his Ph.D. in Anthropology and eventually retired to northern California.  Because of his expertise Dr. Mendonsa became affiliated with the Smithsonian and their "Smithsonian Journeys" program.  Based on my Forum presentation he recommended me to that impressive American institution and I also became a "Smithsonian Journeys Expert" fortunate to travel to the South Pacific and provide lectures to interested individuals!  (And I did not have to prepare and grade examinations on any lecturing-cruises!) The last cruise I provided lectures on for the Smithsonian was in September 2022 and a handout, or a reading-list, was distributed for the guests: see Urbanowicz 2022b). Since I first began providing lectures on cruises in December 2004 on the Tahitian Princess for a twenty-day cruise through French Polynesia, Sadie and I have cruised for 893 days through the end of September 2022. In 2009, Sadie began providing lectures that complemented my own on a thirty-day cruise on the Spirit of Oceanus from Tahiti to Guam. Since 2009 Sadie continued to provide lectures on various cruises that we both lectured on throughout the Pacific. (For a complete listing of all of our cruises for the years 2004-2022, with appropriate maps, please see https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/VariousCruiseMaps.html).

 

I also have an abiding interest in Darwin, hence the opening quote that got me to where I am today!  Incidentally, the "repeated small and accumulative actions" are the same activities that take place in the world of computers where the concept of "IID" or "iterative and incremental development" is utilized!  (Check it out on the on-going accumulation that is named Wikipedia!)  Things do add up and life is, in fact, cumulative.  Walter Isaacson wrote in 2021 in his eminently readable, and fascinating book, entitled The Code Breaker:  Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing and the Future of the Human Race:  "Science is most often advanced not by great leaps of discovery but by small steps."  (Page 124).

 

 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

 

"To the small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify we give the name knowledge."  Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?)

 

"...descriptions vary with the conceptual or theoretical framwork within which they are couched. To evaluate a description properly one must know something about the theoretical framework that brought it into being." D. Kaplan and R. Manners, Culture Theory, 1972, page 22)

 

I have always had an interest in the history of the discipline, from the first joint-paper in presented with an Anthropology Graduate Student friend, Dennis Roth, in 1968 the Annual Anthropological Association meetings in Seattle through various presentations over the years until the last presenttion in Washington, D.C. in 2014, some 46 years later! I have always had an abiding interest with Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and other anthropologists. In 1992 I had the following published in the Newsletter of the American Anthropological Association:  "The word 'anthropology' first appeared in the English language in 1593" (Newsletter, Vol. 33, Number 9, page 3).  In that publication I did not point out the distinction between what is termed "American Cultural Anthropology" and "British Social Anthropology" but in this brief paper and presentation I shall try to clarify the distinction (as I interpret the discipline of Anthropology). Incidentally, knowing I was to become an "Anthropologist" I began following the discipline very closely: in 1967, when I began Graduate School at the University of Oregon, the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Asociation were held in Washington, D.C., and approximately 309 paper were presented over the four-day span of the meeting (which I did not attend). In 1968, when Dennis and I presented that paper in Seattle, we were but one of approximately 370 papers presented at those meetings (see Urbanowicz 1968a). When I ceased to compile information such as this, at the 1992 meetings in San Francisco, approximately 2,274 papers were presented! Anthropology had certainly expanded or exploded in those twenty-five years (see Urbanowicz 1993) and most probably continues to do so. No one single anthropologist knows everything about the current discipline of Anthropology!

 

On Boas and Mead in the title: they were not biological relations but academic relations!  The discipline of Anthropology is a broad one and I have numerous "cousins" all over the world!

 

Franz Boas (1858-1942), my "Great-Grandfather" is viewed as a pioneering individual in Anthropology who looked at the role of the environment, which included historical factors, in shaping human culture.  Boas was a controversial individual and has been viewed by many as the founding "father" of American Cultural Anthropology.  We were not "born" to be something (as a result of genetics) but we became who we were, or who we are, because of the phenomenon termed human culture.  My "Cousin" Margaret Mead (1901-1978), followed the ideas of "Papa Franz" (as he was supposedly called by many of his students) and her role in the ancestral chart is discussed below.

 

As with all "real" families, Boas and Mead (as well as many other Anthropologists) have caused (and created) controversy within the family of Anthropologists!  Just as there can be debates and feuds in biological families there are debates within Anthropology. 

 

Boas is remembered for his work in Anthropology but he actually received his 1881 Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Kiel, Germany, for his dissertation entitled Beiträge zur Erkenntniss der Farbe des Wassers  (translated as) Contributions to the Knowledge of the Color of Water.  While studying physics he also studied geography and in 1883 Boas went to Baffin Island, Canada, studying the Inuit for his ethnographic expedition. 

 

It is interesting to note that Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), a noted Anthropologist of British Social Anthropology received his 1908 Ph.D. NOT in Anthropology but also in Physics from the University of Krakow, Poland.  In a nutshell, "science" (or that which can be replicated and explained) was the driving force of both Boas and Malinowski.  In my own mind, as I did my own version of Anthropology in a systematic and scientific manner (and believing that I did not borrow these words from anyone) I define "science" to myself (and others) as the systematic reduction of error (and as we all learned to navigate the seeming intricacies of Holt Hall, where the Anthropology Forum presentation was made, I believe you understand what I mean by the "systematic reduction of error"). 

 

Just as the scientist who specializes in Physics or Chemistry or any of the "hard" sciences tries to make sense of observed phenomena and make predictions, the same is true for the Anthropologist, be she or he be of American or British or whatever nationality.  As we interact with human beings, we "systematically" try to understand them, get along with them, and (possibly) interpret and predict their behavior.

 

Anthropology, or Cultural Anthropology, in the United States developed around the idea of "culture" (and all that the word implies), a term that comes to us from the Englishman Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917).  The word "social" is a term that comes from the American, Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) who wrote of kinship and social organization.  Cross fertilization across the Atlantic gave us American Cultural Anthropology and British Social Anthropology.

 

I am interested in anthropological genealogies because of the following:

 

"Any anthropologist who failed to participate in is [or her!] own intellectual history would by the degree of his [or her] nonparticipation also fail in his anthropological enterprise, since he could not come to conscious intellectual terms with the reasons for doing what he [or she!!] was doing [stress added]." Arthur J. Vidich, 1965, "Introduction" to Paul Radin's 1933 publication entitled The Method And Theory of Ethnology: An Essay In Criticism (Basic Books Reprint), page xxviii.

 

I am also interested in genealogies because of the words of the Anthropologist Michael Crichton (1942-2008) when he wrote of "temporal provincials" in his 1999 Timeline:  "temporal provincials - people who were ignorant of the past and proud of it."  Not so for me!

 

One can find a great deal of information about Boas (as well as Malinowski and many of my other "relatives"), but suffice it to say, Malinowski and Boas both came to the United States and had a tremendous influence on the development of Anthropology around the world.  Malinowski settled in the United States towards the end of his distinguished career and Boas came to the United States at the beginning of his career. 

 

Malinowski came to the United States when World War II began in Europe and he died in 1942 (the year that I was born).  Boas also died in 1942 but 54 years before his death, in 1888, Boas went to Clark University in Massachusetts:

 

"Although there were many American anthropologists before Franz Boas, it was he who founded the first University Department in America (at Clark University in 1888), and he was himself a sort of funnel through which all American anthropology passed between its nineteenth-century juniority and its twentieth-century maturity"  Paul Bohannan & Mark Glazer, Editors (1988) High Points in Anthropology (NY: A.A. Knopf) page 81.

 

The first Ph.D. in Anthropology in the United States was actually awarded by Boas in 1892 to Alexander Chamberlain (1865-1914) "and Boas took pride in having directed Chamberlain's study." Marshall Hyatt, 1990, Franz Boas--Social Activist: The Dynamics of Ethnicity, page 27. 

 

In 1896 Boas moved from Massachusetts to New York City and, after working at the American Museum of Natural History, he began teaching at Columbia University and created yet another Department of Anthropology.  One of Boas' students at Columbia was Alfred Louis Kroeber (1876-1960) who received his Anthropology Ph.D. in 1901.  Kroeber went to California and Anthropology continued to expand in the United States. 

 

It is interesting to note, as Bernstein wrote in 2002, that at the end of the 19th Century and into the early part of the 20th Century, "Doctoral research in anthropology was mainly a young man's pursuit:  more than 85 percent [of the total of 124 doctorates over this time period] were men, and more than 81 percent were under 35 at graduation, with half under 30." Jay H. Bernstein, 2002, First Recipients of Anthropological Doctorates in the United States, 1891-1930. The American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 2, June, pages 551-565, page 557.

 

Kroeber did not create the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley since that distinction goes to someone who had a previous influence on Boas and the first Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of California was actually awarded in 1908 to Samuel A. Barrett (1879-1965):

 

"The Department [of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley] was founded in 1901 on the initiative of Frederic Ward Putnam [1839-1915]. Putnam had developed the first teaching program in the United States at Harvard University and was trying to get other centers of research and teaching in anthropology established. He had already organized an anthropology program at the Field Museum in Chicago on the occasion of the World's Columbian Exposition and after that, one at the American Museum of Natural History in New York where he got Franz Boas appointed Curator. Boas was soon invited to teach at Columbia as well, and he built up the second American teaching program in anthropology there. Putnam went on to persuade Mrs. Phoebe Apperson Hearst to finance a Department of Anthropology at the University of California, of which she was a Regent. In the first report on the Department, published in 1905, Putnam explained: The Department of Anthropology was constituted by the Regents of the University of California September 10, 1901 [stress added]." From:http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/rowe/rolib.html [John H. Rowe} 1995 item on UCB] and see: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/rowe/interview.htm [October 13, 1998 interview] 

 

Kroeber's ethnographic research in California dealt with Native Americans and one of his students at Berkeley was Homer G. Barnett (1906-1985) who received his 1938 Anthropology Ph.D. from Berkeley.  In 1939 Dr. Barnett was hired by Dr. Luther C. Cressman (1897-1994) at the University of Oregon to be the second Anthropologist at that University and one of Barnett's many students was Charles F. Urbanowicz!  In 1972 I received my Anthropology Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and hence my genealogical connection of Boas->Kroeber->Barnett->Urbanowicz!  Margaret Mead (1901-1978) as well as Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), and many other anthropologists received their Anthropology Ph.D.'s under Boas at Columbia so I can safely view them as anthropological cousins! (Incidentally, Dr. Barnett went on to distinguish himself in many ways, not only for the number of students who studied under him but also for his work in Micronesia, another one of the inspirations for my own Pacific research interests). 

 

As mentioned above, when World War II broke out in Europe in 1939 Malinowski became a Visiting Professor at Yale University, a position he held until his death in 1942.  He had first been to the United States in 1926 when he came to study Native Americans.  Malinowski is (and was) famous for his "functionalism" approach and his 1922 magnum opus:  Argonauts of the Western Pacific.  When World War I began in 1914 Malinowski was in Australia attending a conference and he stayed in that part of the world for the duration of the war (which ended in 1918) and conducted his research in the Trobriand Islands.  When Argonauts was first published, Malinowski wrote:

 

"Nor has civilized humanity ever needed such tolerance more than now, when prejudice, ill will and vindictiveness are dividing each European nation from another, when all the ideals, cherished and proclaimed as the highest achievements of civilization, science and religion, have been thrown to the winds. The Science of Man, in its most refined and deepest version should lead us to such knowledge and to tolerance and generosity, based on the understanding of other men's point of view [stress added]."   Bronislaw Malinowski, 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific:  An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea [1961 E. P. Dutton edition], pages 517-518.  

 

It must be noted that with the passage of time, and better communication and sharing of ideas and information, numerous individuals have been criticized for their work, including Malinowski:  

 

"The ethnographic method has long been associated with Malinowski, who repeatedly claimed credit for its invention. But while Malinowski--through his many students--was clearly responsible for establishing local, village-based research as the anthropological norm in Britain, claims that he single-handedly developed the ethnographic method during his fieldwork in the Trobriands are exaggerated. As Stocking (1983 [Observers And Observed: Essays on Anthropological Fieldwork, pages 70-120] has shown, Malinowski was at best only one of a number of fieldworkers who had been experimenting with systematic village-based research for several years; he was certainly not the first. But as a prolific and talented writer, who was equally adept at self-promotion, he transformed the discipline in Britain in a single generation [stress added]." Robert L. Welsch, 1998, An American Anthropologist in Melanesia: A.B. Lewis and the Joseph N. Field South Pacific Expedition 1909-1913, pages 558-559.  

 

Long after his death in 1942 Malinowski's diary was published and his daughter had this to say about her father:  

 

"A great deal has been written about the publication of this [1967] book [A Diary In The Strict Sense of the Term]. I myself don't think it was well edited and presented, but I have read other early diaries and diary fragments of my father's and can see what a difficult task it is to translate and edit such jottings. All the more, I feel the diaries should not have been published as they were but kept, together with his correspondence of that time, as raw material for a biographer, or perhaps published in a different form.  I know many anthropologists do not agree with my point of view. They have mined the diaries for insights (often distorted insights) into Malinowski's character and into what day-to-day life in the field can mean, and have found these insights most valuable [stress added]." Helena Wayne (Malinowska), 1985, Bronislaw Malinowski: The Influence of Various Women on His Life and Works. American Ethnologist, Vol. 12, No. 3, pages 529-540, page 540.  

 

Edmund Leach (1910-1989), another noted British Anthropologist, has written about the publication of Malinowski's diary:  

 

"An anthropologist on a South Sea Island! How romantic! But the reality entails a kind of squalid loneliness which might otherwise be encountered only by a victim of political torture in solitary confinement. The anthropologists's position is highly anomalous. He wants to understand the values of the society which he observes around him, yet his ultimate purpose is to translate those values into his own. He must not be totally absorbed--he must not be brainwashed. So the more deeply he comes to know his tribal families the more desperately he clutches at any tenuous straw which may help him to remember that he is still, in his own right, a member of modern civilisation. Letters from home become treasures... The private diaries of fieldwork anthropologists record.... Bronislaw Malinowski, the originator of modern anthropological field method, kept such diaries in New Guinea and Melanesia in 1914-15 and 1917-18, and it is to the discredit of all concerned that they have been committed to print....The context of the diary adds nothing at all to our understanding of Malinowski's work as an anthropologist. ... Malinowski's widow, who holds the copyright, justifies the publication by claiming that these documents give 'direct insight into the author's inner personality'. They do nothing of the sort, but both Malinowski and his loved ones survive their sacrifice to Mammon remarkably well [stress added]." Edmund Leach, 1967, An Anthropologist's Trivia [originally published in The Guardian on 11 August 1967 as a review of A Diary in the Strictest Sense of the Term]. Stephen Hugh-Jones and James Laidlaw [editors], 2000, The Essential Edmund Leach Volume I: Anthropology and Society (Yale University Press), pages 61-62.  

 

One must not only be careful of what one puts into print but who has control of what you put into print if you care about what people will think of you after you are dead!   Raymond Firth (1901-2002) stated it very nicely when he wrote in the "Introduction" to the published Diary:  "Malinowski's was a complex personality, and some of his less admirable characteristics come through perhaps more clearly in this diary than do his virtues."  Another interesting comment was made about Malinowski by the anthropolgist Gregory Bateson (1904-1980):  

 

"The conventional view of Malinowski was that he was a horrible, detestable man, but a genius as an anthropologist.  My view was that he was rather an amusing man, but a lousy anthropologist, a lousy theorist" (David Lipset, 1980, Gregory Bateson:  The Legacy of a Scientist, page 123).  

 

At the beginning of this paper I wrote that in 1992 I had an item published about the origin of the term "anthropology" and in that article I also dealt with some of the ideas of August Comte (1798-1857) who, along with St. Simon (1760-1825) is often listed as one of the "fathers" of sociology. In 1839, in Volume IV of Comte's Cours de Philosophie Positive (or System of Positive Polity), he coined the term sociologie to serve as an equivalent to the term "social physics" (which came from both Comte and St. Simon). Sociology was the 6th of the Comte's sciences, building on a base which began with mathematics and Comte's schema was as follows:  Mathematics->Astronomy-> Physics-> Chemistry-> Biology-> Sociology.  

 

In 1852 Comte wrote of a 7th science and published the following:

 

"Elle n'etait point apprécable avant que ma fondation de la sociologie eut terminéla préparation encyclopédique qu'exigeait l'avénement systématique de la véritable anthropologie, àlaquelle il faut conserver son nom sacréde morals. Cette condition finale étant désormais remplie, et m'ayant déjàconduit àconstruire subjectivement la saine théorie cérébrale, le septieme et dernier degréde la grand hiérarchie abstraite devient aussi caractérise que tous les autres" (1852, Systeme de Politique Positive, Vol. II, page 437).  

 

An 1875 translation follows:  

 

"The consequences could not be seen, until, by founding Sociology, I was able to add the last group to the Encyclopedic series of the sciences, When this was affected, it was possible to have a systematic basis for an Anthropology, or true science of Man, though this science ought ever to retain its sacred name of morals. Now that this last condition has been fulfilled, and now that it has already enabled me to construct on subjective methods a sound Cerebral Theory, the seventh and last gradation in the Grand Hierarchy of Abstract Science is a distinctively defined as any of the others [stress added]" (1874 translation of System of Positive Polity, Vol. II, pages 356-347).  

 

Anthropology has a distinguished history and over the decades I have attempted to unravel the various threads of anthropological ideas and ancestors as I interpreted them. 

 

In 1969, as a result of a year-long Graduate Seminar at the University of Oregon I made a proposal to give a paper at the Annual Anthropological meetings and the (presumptuous) topic was about the works of Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009) and his background.  I believed that in order to gain new perspective a selective view of the intellectual antecedents of Lévi-Strauss was needed, including those individuals explicit in his writings such as Marcel Mauss (1872-1950), Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), and, of course, Franz Boas (1858-1942).  I also explored the need to emphasize "Anthropologie," the seventh and ultimate science in the grand hierarchy of August Comte.  The paper was fun (and is listed in the References below) and it suffices to say that correspondence with Lévi-Strauss proved me wrong!  As Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) wrote: "we can learn from our mistakes" (Conjectures And Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1962, page vii).  I had a brief exchange of letters with Lévi-Strauss and I was delighted that he took the time to share some words and ideas with this fledgling graduate student of anthropology in 1969. I always appreciated that, as well as the assistance of numerous other anthropologists and professionals over the past five decades that contributed to me being a professional anthropologist: at Western Washington Univesity, Herbert C. Tayor, Jr. (1924-1991) inspired me to become an anthropologist as well as Colin Twedell (1899-1908) who encouraged me to look at China and Pacific cultures. In 1970, in Honolulu (en route to Tonga) while doing research at the Bernice P. Bishop Museum and the Univesity of Hawai'i's excellent Pacific collection I met Dr. Douglas Oliver (1913-2009), who was then retired to Honolulu from Harvard. Dr. Oliver graciously allowed me to read over his manuscript for his (eventually published) monumental 1974 three volume work entitled Ancient Tahitian Society. Again in Honolulu, in 1970, en route to the South Pacific Len Mason (1913-2005) and his wife Hazel were extremely encouraging and kind to us as well. At the University of Hawai'i, Ms. Renée Heyum (1916-1994) was a wonderful supporter of my Pacific research for many years. In 1971 H.E. Maude (1906-2006) and his wife Honor graciously invited us to tea in their Canberra home and I have always appreciated that kindness even though I disagreed with certain ethnohistorical points with him (Urbanowicz 1977b). Incidentally, in the 1980s, while in Honolulu awaiting to join a cruise to provides lectures on, I met Dr. Oliver at a local bookstore where he was signing copies of his 1988 book, Return To Tahiti: Bligh's Second Breadfruit Voyage and he remembered me and we spoke of my Tongan research!

 

 

DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES AND PERSPECTIVES

 

"One who makes a close study of almost any branch of science soon discovers the great illusion of the monolith. When he [or she] stood outside as an uninformed layman, he [or she] got a vague impression of unanimity among the professionals. He [or she] tended to think of science as supporting the Establishment with fixed and approved views. All this dissolves as he [or she] works his [or her] way into the living concerns of practicing scientists. He [and she] finds lively personalities who indulge in disagreement, disorder, and disrespect. He [and she] must sort out conflicting opinions and make up his [and her] own mind as to what is correct and who is sound. This applies not only to provinces as vast as biology and to large fields such as evolutionary theory, but even to small and familiar corners such as the species problem. The closer one looks, the more diversity one finds [stress added]." Norman Macbeth, 1971, Darwin Retried: An Appeal To Reason (NY: Dell Publishing Co.), page 18.

 

Anthropology, in the very broadest sense, is a holistic discipline and although the term dates from 1593 it was in the 19th Century that American Cultural Anthropology and British Social Anthropology developed: "The birth of anthropology, its origin, its foundation, is in evolution.  Anthropology, it can justly be said, is a child of evolution."  Philip Carl Salzman, 2001, Understanding Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theory (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.), page 87.  Boas, however, found the idea of "evolution" as "speculative" whereas other Anthropologists found it valuable.

 

To succeed in any area you not only need qualifications and background experience and information about your area of expertise but you also need self-confidence in what you are doing:  Malinowski had that confidence as did did Franz Boas.   Consider, for example the following 1904 published words of Boas:

 

"I have been asked to speak on the history of anthropology....Before I enter into my subject I will say that the speculative anthropology of the 18th and early part of the 19th century is distinct in its scope and method from the science which is called anthropology at the present time and is not included in our discussion." (The History of Anthropology. Science, 21 October 1904, Vol. 20; reprinted in R. Darnell, Editor, Readings in the History of Anthropology, 1974: 260-273, page 260).

 

According to Boas, before Boas, there was nothing like the discipline of Anthropology that he was proposing even though there was earlier work that had been done by "anthropologists" in the United States by such individuals as Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881), who was once called the "Dean" of American Anthropology. 

 

"Morgan fell into disrepute in the United States when Franz Boas and his students rose to ascendancy in anthropological science. As an American he was looked down upon, ignored by the European-born members of the Boas school." Leslie A. White, 1968, "Lewis H. Morgan." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968, Vol. 10, pages 496-498, pages 497-498.

 

Daniel G. Brinton (1837-1899) was another individual who practiced "anthropology" prior to Boas.  In 1886 Brinton was appointed Professor of Archaeology and Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania but as one has written about Brinton's appointment:

 

"Indeed, Brinton's appointment resulted not from the need for anthropological teaching, but from Provost William Pepper's concern to establish 'a great ethnological museum'...." Regna Darnell, 1998, And Along Came Boas: Continuity And Revolution In Americanist Anthropology (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.), page 105.

 

There were others who were considered to be anthropologists, but not according to Franz Boas.  As a 20th Century textbook pointed out:

 

"In the United States anthropology began in the 19th century when a number of dedicated amateurs went into the field to gain a better understanding of what many European Americans still regarded a 'primitive people.' Exemplifying their emphasis on firsthand observation is Frank Hamilton Cushing [1857-1900], who lived among the Zuni Indians for 4 years....Among these founders of North American anthropology were a number of women whose work was highly influential among those who spoke out in the 19th century in favor of women's rights. One of these pioneering anthropologists was Matilda Cox Stevenson [1849-1915], who also did fieldwork among the Zuni. In 1885, she founded the Women's Anthropological Society, the first professional association for women scientists. Three years later, the Bureau of American Ethnology hired her, making her one of the first women in the United States to receive a full-time position in science [stress added]." William A. Haviland, 1999, Cultural Anthropology, 9th edition, page 7.

 

But these were not important to Boas for he had a certain way of viewing human interactions: a scientific-historical way!

 

"The Boasian method consisted of examining cultures in depth, establishing their history through language, art, myth, and ritual and studying the influences that shaped them in their distinctive environments and in contacts with neighboring cultures....For Boas, cultures could not be explained in terms of the native endowments of particular races. His work led inevitably to cultural relativism; he argued that anthropologists needed to bring to their work the fearless vision of the outsider and the capacity to see another culture unblinkered by one's own. Under his influence anthropology became the study of culture, not race, moving away from its biological determinist roots toward a more genuinely historical understanding of the relationship between ethnicity, culture, and society [stress added]." Hilary Lapsley, 1999, Margaret Mead And Ruth Benedict: The Kinship of Women (Amherst: U Mass Press), pages 56-57.

 

This same "in-depth" analysis permeated the works of Kroeber, Barnett, and I would like to think Urbanowicz!  As the indomitable Margret Mead (1901-1978) once wrote: "Anthropologists are highly individual and specialized people. Each of them [or us!] is marked by the kind of work he or she prefers and has done, which in time becomes an aspect of that individual's personality." 

 

Consider, for example the aforementioned Leslie A. White (1900-1975).  In 1925 Leslie A. White received his Ph.D. in Anthropology/Sociology from the University of Chicago in and was viewed as a major American Anthropologist by many other Anthropologists.  White had his own interpretation of Anthropology and had his own opinion of Boas and White wrote "Boas is like the Bible, you can find anything you want to in his writings. He was not a scientist. Scientists make their arguments with an explicit logical framework. Boas was muddle-headed. Better to read clerical literature, at least the priests know why they hold their opinions! [stress added]." In Lewis R. Binford, 1972, An Archaeological Perspective (NY: Seminar Press), pages 7-8).  Another anthropologist has written about White:

 

"Leslie White was, without question, one of the intellectual leaders of contemporary anthropology. But he was more than this. He was one of the major instruments by means of which anthropology became a full-fledged science. When he entered it, anthropology was dominated by a negative and critical particularism. When he left it, it had become a positive, expanding, and generalizing discipline.  And this transformation was due in no small part to White's own efforts. He gave anthropology powerful concepts and invigorating theories. In a word, he gave it propulsion [stress added]." Robert L. Carneiro, "Leslie White." In Sydel Silverman [editor], 1981, Totems and Teachers: Perspectives on the History of Anthropology (NY:Columbia University Press), pages 209-252, page 210.

 

The point I am trying to make is that there are as many possible interpretations of an individual as there are individuals doing the interpreting!  Consider the following words of William J. Peace:

 

"Writing a biography about any figure in the history of anthropology is a difficult endeavor. As a group, anthropologists deeply care about their scholarship and the people they study. They also tend to have prickly personalities.  In conducting research about the life and career of Leslie A. White I often felt as though I were traversing a mine field: I never knew when someone was going to blow up in a fury over a question or even the mention of White's name. This was made quite clear to me early on in my research when I contacted an individual who I knew had a serous falling-out with White. I already knew White's belief's about why the friendship had ruptured: I wanted to ask this scholar his interpretation. When several letters went unanswered I decided to telephone, assuming the person did not want to reply in writing. When I identified myself there was a long silence, and then the reply came: 'I have two words to say: Fuck you!' With that he slammed the phone down [stress added]." William J. Peace, 2004, Leslie A. White: Evolution and Revolution in Anthropology (University of Nebraska Press), page xiii.

 

The contemporary student of Anthropology must realize that there are various ways of doing Anthropology, be it called "cultural" or "social" Anthropology and it is interesting read of Boas and Malinowski and what other professionals wrote about them:

 

"Malinowski's position in British anthropology is analogous to that of Boas in American Anthropology.... Like Boas, Malinowski was a Central European natural scientists brought by peculiar circumstances to anthropology and to the English-speaking world. Like Boas, he objected to armchair evolutionism and invented a fieldwork tradition based on the use of native language in 'participant observation'. Furthermore, both Boas and Malinowski were pompous but liberal intellectuals who built up very strong followings through their postgraduate teaching [stress added]." Alan Barnard, 2000, History and Theory in Anthropology (Cambridge University Press), pages 65-66.

 

In their oustanding 1961 publication entitled They Studied Man, Kardiner and Preble wrote of Malinowski: "The ability to understand very different kinds of people is often related to an innate lack of set values and standards" (page 140) and also consider the following about Malinowski from a 1997 publication:

 

"Bronislaw Malinowski inspired strong reactions from people, and it is clear he wanted it that way. There are no tepid accounts of Malinowski; they are either hot or cold. Anthropologists tend to evaluate Malinowski on three grounds--as a fieldworker, as a theoretician, or as a personality. As a fieldworker there is near unanimity: Malinowski set new standards for ethnographic research, influencing an entire generation of anthropologists. As a theoretician, opinions of Malinowski diverge. Malinowski the man was either loved or hated. One supporter said, 'He had a really creative mind, an international outlook and and approach and the imagination of an artist'. In contrast, the anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn [1905-1960] called him 'a pretentious Messiah of the credulous' - and this in an obituary in the Journal of American Folklore (1943:208). Who was this man who inspired such different reactions? .... perhaps his most lasting theoretical observation is his most basic one: cultures are not collections of isolated traits, but are interconnected wholes." (Jerry D. Moore, 1997, Visions Of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists, pages 128-129 and page 138).

 

One of the reasons I emphasize the differences of opinion concerning Boas as well as Malinowski because of the words of my "cousin" Margaret Mead:  we are all individuals. I also thoroughly believe in the following words of the anthropologist Hortense Powdermaker (1896-1970):

 

"The anthropologist is a human instrument studying other human beings and their societies. Although he [and she!] has developed techniques that give him considerable objectivity, it is an illusion for him to think he can remove his [or her] personality from his work and become a faceless robot or a machine like recorder of human events [stress added]." Hortense Powdermaker, 1966, Stranger And Friend: The Way Of An Anthropologist, page 19.) 

 

We are all humans, the studied and those who study or interact with them, and personality is important as Suleyman and Bhaskar wrote in tir 2023 publication The Coming Wave: Technology, Powr, And The 21st Century's Greatest Dilemma: "Scientists and technologists are all too human. They crave status, sucess, and a legacy" (page 140). I have already cited the aforementioned 2021 Isaacson book dealing with gene editing (and "the future of the human race") and he pointed out: 

 

"Scientists are mainly motivated by the joy that comes from understanding nature [or culture for the Anthropologist], but most will admit that they are also driven by the rewards, both psychic and substantive, of being the first to make a discovery: papers published, patents granted, prizes won, and peers impressed.  Like any human (is it an evolutionary trait?), they want credit for their accomplishments, payoff for their labor, acclaim from the public, and prize ribbons placed around their necks [stress added]." (Walter Isaacson, 2021, The Code Breaker:  Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing and the Future of the Human Race, page 157).).

 

Hortense Powdermaker received her Anthropology Ph.D. in 1928 from The London School of Economics under Bronislaw Malinowski and her words are echoed and reinforced the British Social Anthropologist Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard [1902-1973]:

 

"But while I think that different social anthropologists who studied the same people would record much the same facts in their notebooks, I believe they would write different kinds of books. Within the limits imposed by their discipline and the culture under investigation anthropologists are guided in choice of theme, in selection and arrangement of facts to illustrate them, and in judgement of what is and what is not significant, by their different interests, reflecting differences of personality, of education, of social status, of political views, of religious convictions, and so forth. One can only interpret what one sees in terms of what one is, and anthropologists, while they have a body of knowledge in common, differ in other respects as widely as other people in their backgrounds of experience and in themselves. The personality of an anthropologist cannot be eliminated from his [or her!] work any more than the personality of an historian can be eliminated from his. Fundamentally, in his account of a primitive people the anthropologist is not only describing their social life as accurately as he can but is expressing himself also. In this sense his account must express moral judgement, especially where it touches matters on which he feels strongly; and what comes out of a study will to this extent at least depend on what the individual brings to it [stress added]." Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard, Fieldwork and the empirical tradition. Social Anthropology and Other Essays (1962), pages 64-85, pages 83-84.

 

To summarize a bit:

 

"In the early twentieth century, anthropology in the United States, France, and Britain moved in new directions as it sought to distance itself from nineteenth-century cultural evolutionism and hereditarianism, now construed as racism.' The School of American cultural historicism emerged under the influence of Franz Boas, while the schools of French structural anthropology emerged under the earlier influence of Emile Durkheim [1858-1917]. In each case, as before, the history of anthropologcal theory was affected by powerful and persuasive personalities [stress added]." Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy [Editors], 2006, Readings For A History of Anthropological Theory (Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press), page 89.

 

Finally, quoting myself:

 

"If there is one thing that anthropologists of the 20th Century have demonstrated it is the position that there is no one single culture which can serve as the sole model of analysis of other cultures. Perhaps the most important point of modern 20th century Anthropology has been the detailed and documented account of the tremendous range of variation of 'cultures of this planet' and this is a distinct move away from various 19th century, and apparently some 20th century views, which offer a monolithic interpretation of CULTURE against which 'lesser' cultures can be appropriately ranked!" Charles F. Urbanowicz, 1978, Cultural Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact and the Colonization of Space. The Industrialization of Space: Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Edited by Richard A. Van Patten et al., (San Diego, CA: Published for the American Astronautical Society Publication by Univelt, Inc.), pages 785-797, page 793.

 

 

RESOLUTION?

"What C.S. Lewis [1898-1963] called the 'snobbery of chronology' encourages us to presume that just because we happen to have lived after our ancestors and can read books which give us some account of what happened to them, we must also know better than them. We certainly have more facts at our disposal. We have more wealth, both personal and national, better technology, and infinitely more skilful ways of preserving and extending our lives. But whether we today display more wisdom or common humanity is an open question, and as we look back to discover how people coped with the daily difficulties of existence a thousand [or less!] years ago, we might also consider whether, in all our sophistication, we could meet the challenges of their world with the same fortitude, good humour, and philosophy" [stress added]." Robert Lacey & Danny Danziger, 1999, The Year 1000: What Life Was Like At The Turn of the First Millennium - An Englishman's World, page 201.

 

Once again, as the Anthropologist Michael Crichton (1942-2008) wrote:

 

"He had a term for people like this: temporal provincials--people who were ignorant of the past, and proud of it. Temporal provincials were convinced that the present was the only time that mattered, and that anything that had occurred earlier could be safely ignored. The modern world was compelling and new, and the past had no bearing on it." Michael Crichton, 1999, Timeline (NY: Ballantine Books), page 84.

 

Michael Crichton was a physician (but one who never practiced his craft) and in addition to his Harvard University medical degree in 1964 he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Biological Anthropology.  In 1965 Crichton was a lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge.  Incidentally, another significant author that eventually had a degree in Anthropology was Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) who, while enrolled at the University of Chicago after WWII, took anthropology courses.  He did not receive his degree until 25 years later when the University of Chicago accepted his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle for a master's thesis! 

 

Back to geneaologies:  while a graduate student at the University of Oregon I was in a group of students spent an entire year with Dr. Barnett in a seminar, reading and commenting on his massive 1953 publication Innovation:  The Basis of Cultural Change and in it he wrote:

 

"Every innovation is a combination of ideas. The only bonds between its part in a cultural setting are mental connections; they are instituted with the first individual mind to envisage them, and they dissolve with the last individual mind to retain are collection of them. The mental content is socially defined; its substance is, in major part, dictated by tradition.  But the manner of treating this content, of grasping it, altering it,  and rendering it, is inevitably dictated by the potentialities and the liabilities of the machine which does the manipulating: namely the individual mind. ... Every individual is basically innovative for two reasons.  No two stimuli to which he [or she] reacts are ever identical. ... The second reason for diversified reactions is that no one ever or minutely duplicates his responses to what he regards as the same stimulus [stress added]." H.G. Barnett, 1953, Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change (NY: McGraw-Hill), pages 16-20.

 

We are all different and can react differently to the same situations for as Darwin pointed out in his exceptional 1839 publication, The Voyage of the Beagle, "First impressions at all times very much depend on one's previously-acquired ideas" (1839, page 357).  Our individual backgrounds contribute to where each of us is today and anthropologist must be aware of this: "descriptions vary with the conceptual or theoretical framework within which they are couched.  To evaluate a description [or an ethnography!] properly one must know something abut the theoretical framework that brought it into being" (D. Kaplan and R. Manners, 1972, Culture Theory, page 22).

 

In January 2021, the University of California at Berkeley "unnamed" what was once "Kroeber Hall" because of the interpretation that Kroeber "is a powerful symbol that continues to evoke exclusion and erasure for Native Americans."  (Gretchen Kell, January 26, 2021, "Kroeber Hall, honoring anthropologist who symbolizes exclusion, is renamed." [https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/01/26/kroeber-hall-unnamed]).  Kroeber Hall was then (temporarily?) re-named the "Anthropology and Art Practice Building."  This, for an indiviual, that Kardiner & Preble (1961, page 171) wrote that "His work on the California Indians is not likely to be surpassed. He made major contributions in anthropometry, linguistics, archaeology, and ethnography."

 

Another conflicting view of Boasian influence comes from my "cousin" Margaret Mead and her Anthropological work. Before writing about the concerns about her Samoan research concerning I must point out that I have a very favorable opinion of Mead since she graciously agreed to partake in a Symposium I had organized for our American Anthropological Association meetings.  After being awarded my Ph.D. from the University of Oregon on September 1, 1972, earlier that year I (while still a graduate student at the Universiy of Oregon) I submitted a proposal for the 71st Annual Meetings in Toronto, Canada.  The Symposium would be part of the Association for Social Anthropology in Oceania (ASAO) of which I was a member.  The Symposium would have papers presented by individuals who had completed recent research in the Polynesian Kingdom of Tonga as well as the islands of Samoa.  I invited individuals to be panel discussants and Margaret Mead, along with Lowell Holmes and Bob Tonkinson accepted the invitation to participate.  Other presenters with me that day were Shulamit Decktor-Korn and Keith Morton (who did their own Ph.D. research in Tonga) and Frank Young (who did his Ph.D. research in Samoa). 

 

The Symposium was a success (although there was some controversy) and Mead and I exchanged some "snail mail" correspondence before and after the session.  I have great respect for Mead and her contribution to the discipline of Anthropology. Incidentally, those 1972 Toronto meetings were not only important for the Symposum but also for the fact that I was also looking for a teaching position since my one-year academic appointment (1972-1973) at the University of Minessota would be over in May 1973. The job market for freshly-minted anthropologist was competetive and at those Toronto meetings I applied for, and was interviewed by Dr. Valene Smith (who was attending the meetings) for an advertised teaching position at California State University Chico. I am delighted to state that I eventually got the job and have been indebted to Valene ever since. Professor Keith Johnson at California State University Chico was also instrumental in bringing me to Chico State and for his efforts I have always been exceedlingly grateful!

 

On the 1972 Toronto Symposium: there was an interesting "Oregon connection" that Margaret Mead had which might have contributed to her willingness to take part in a "recent Ph.D." symposium. The aforementioned University of Oregon Professor Luther Cressman and Margaret Mead were married in 1923 (and later amicably divorced in 1927). While married to Luther Cressman, Mead went off to Samoa for nine months (without Luther Cressman) to conduct her ethnographic research. Mead's other two husbands were also Anthropologists: Reo Fortune (1903-1979) and Gregory Bateson (1904-1980).  Mead and Fortune married in 1928 and divorced in 1935; Mead and Bateson married in 1936 and divorced in 1950.   Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson had one child, Mary Catherine Bateson (1939-2021) who became an accomplished anthropologist in her own right.   

 

I must point out that while Mead is well-known for her Samoan research and her 1928 publication entitled Coming of Age in Samoa, I was always disappointed that she failed to point out (and it was not generally known) that her 1928 Anthropology Ph.D. under Boas, entitled An Inquiry Into The Question Of Cultural Stability In Polynesia, was based on library research, not on ethnographic fieldwork which she conducted after she did her library research.  As Mead herself wrote in the published version of the dissertation, "This study was completed in the spring of 1925, after which time the author spent nine months in the Samoan Islands."

 

To my knowledge, and I only had very limited interactions with her in 1972-1973, Margaret Mead never publicly pointed out the valuable aspects of library research for all anthropologists and this always bothered me. I am definitely not a Margaret Mead scholar, and perhaps she did point out the importance of library research at varius points in time, but not to me.  For a fascinating view of Mead's approch to Samoa, do read Charles King's 2019 Gods of the Upper Air: How A Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century (page 1):

 

"On the last day of August 1925, the triple-deck steamship Sonoma, midway through its regular run from San Francisco to Sydney, slipped into a harbor formed by an extinct volcano. The island of Tutuila....On board Sonoma was a twenty-three-year-old Pennsylvanian, slight but square-built, unable to swim, given to conjunctivitis, with a broken ankle and a chronic ailment that sometimes rendered her right arm useless. She had left behind a husband in New York and a boyfriend in Chicago, and had spent her transcontinental train ride in the arms of a woman. In her steamer trunk she carried reporters' note-books, a typewriter, evening dresses, and a photograph of an aging, wild-haired man she called Papa Franz, his face sliced by saber cuts and melted from the nerve damage of a botched surgery. He was the reason for Margaret Mead's journey" (page 1).

 

When one discusses Mead's field research in Samoa, one must also consider the following by Hilary Lapsey from 1999:

 

"Any account of Mead's work on Samoa must consider the controversy surrounding its accuracy. In 1983, several years after her death, Derek Freeman [1916-2001] published his detailed refutation of her work. More recently, Freeman has continued his attack with attempts to prove that Mead built her description of adolescent sexuality on scanty information gleaned from a hoax perpetrated by her informants. He has also argued that she was young and credulous, that she had a poor grasp of the language, that she did not carry out her investigations properly, that Coming of Age in Samoa  is littered with errors, that she twisted the facts to suit her (and Boas's and Benedict's) preconceptions, and that she was entirely wrong in her portrayal of Samoa." Hilary Lapsley, 1999, Margaret Mead And Ruth Benedict: The Kinship of Women (Amherst: U Mass Press), pages 142-143.

 

Derek Freeman was, perhaps, the most outspoken critic of Mead's work and his own writings, and writings about his writings, are well worth pursuing!  The debate continues!

 

Incidentally, at California State University Chico we have someone who has been most favorably compared to Margaret Mead, namely the aforementioned Dr. Valene L. Smith who taught at Chico State from 1967 to 1999.  More than twenty years ago Eric Cohen, in writing a review of the 3rd and final edition of Valene's seminal Hosts and Guests publications, wrote the following:

 

"Valene Smith is the Margaret Mead of the anthropology of tourism; she played a pioneering role in the initiation of the field as an academic enterprise, contributed to its theoretical foundations, conducted extensive empirical research on tourism-related topics in diverse setting sand--last but not least--contributed significantly to the popularization of the field, primarily through her 'Hosts and Guests,' several editions of which span a quarter of a century [stress added]." Eric Cohen, 2002, Review of Host sand Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century. In Tourism Recreation Research, 2002,Vol. 27, pages 108-111, page 108.

 

Twenty years before that, in 1980, the first edition of Valene's edited work, Hosts And Guests:  The Anthropology of Tourism was reviewed:

 

"Hosts and Guests is a welcome book.  Tourism is not a new activity, but the serious study of tourism by anthropologists is still a relatively new endeavor" (Roland W. Force, 1980, American Anthropologist, Volume 82 Number 2, pages 463-464).

 

I feel extremely fortunate to have chapters in all three editions of Valene's outstanding work.  We can also go to the Valene L. Smith Museum of Anthropology on campus to see the partial results of her impact on the discipline of anthropology. While Valene was teaching she also traveled widely, conducted her own research into tourism and wrote extensively. Her approach in analyzing tourism involves the four "H's" of History, Heritage, Habitat, and Handicrafts" and all that is subsumed under that.  (History incorporates topics such as war, floods, earthquake and disease; Heritage refers to language, religion, social organization, political systems, values, and beliefs; Habitat means location, climate, landscape, and the like; and, finally, Handicrafts, namely the raw materials, the tooling uses, exports, trade, and gifts involved in the interaction between "hosts and guests").

 

The Valene L. Smith Museum of Anthropology at California State University Chico is a wonderful testimony not only for Valene's commitment to anthropology and sharing that information with students (and the community) but also to the Department of Anthropology and all of the cumulative work by staff and faculty over the years, beginning with Keith L. Johnson (who I am also indebted to) and his vision of a campus museum of Anthropology. Museum exhibits are researched and created by students who learn museum principles. One should really go to the museum and see the exhiits which change all of the time. Well worth going to!

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

"It has often been said--I don't know if it is universally true but it is probably true for many of us--that the reason we took up anthropology was that we had difficulty in adapting ourselves to the social milieu into which we were born." Claude Lévi-Strauss In Le G. Charbonnier, 1969, Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd), page 17. [This is a 1969 translation of the 1961 Entretiens avec Claude Lévi-Strauss.]

 

I feel extemely fortunate to been fortunate to become a professional Anthropologist and spend the bulk of my career at California State University Chico; one cannot predict the future, but only create or invent it. I have met and interacted with an amazing group of individuals, from Dr. Herbert C. Taylor, Jr. (1924-1991) to Richard Leakey (1944-2022) with whom my wife and I had dinner with in 2008. I discussed the significance of Lapita pottery with Jesse Jennings (1909-1997) when he was in Tonga in 1970 and have seen Dr. Jane Goodall (born in 1934) make several presentation (including one at Chico State). When I taught at the University of Minnesota for the 1972-1973 Academic Year, Gene Ogan (1930-2015) was a great friend and colleague. I have discussed Polynesian voyaging with Ben Finney (1933-2017) and met and interacted with Sir Raymond Firth (1901-2002) and Gregory Bateson (1904-1980) at two Association for Social Anthropology (ASAO) meetings. Anthropology has been fun and very interesting and with Sadie, my wonderful and tolerant wife, we have been fortunate to travel over a great portion of this planet learning more about people all of the time and sharing that information on various cruises (and in "traditional" academic courses). Gregory Bateson's 1972 words in his Steps to an Ecology of Mind (page 483) always stuck with me: "The unit of survival is organism plus the environment. We are learning by bitter experience that the organism which destroys its environment destroys itself." We have learned so much and continue to learn.

 

I started off with my "ancestral" connection and I now paraphrase a presentation on February 28, 1970, at the Anthropology Section of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Oregon Academy of Science, Eugene, Oregon, which entitled "Mother Nature, Father Culture" (with all of their birth/death dates repeated for context).

 

As to "fathers and founders" of anthropology: Charles Darwin (1809-1882) has been called (by one at least) not the father of evolutionary social anthropology but "its wealthy uncle."  Although it might have been Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917) who was the father and "grand old man" of anthropology at Oxford University it was Alfred Cort Haddon (1855-1940) who became the father and grand old man of anthropology at Cambridge while it was James George Frazer (1854-1941) who was viewed by some as the "father" of academic social anthropology. (Incidentally, it was Frazer who wrote a "Preface" to Malinowski's 1922 Argonauts and it was Malinowski who wrote a "Preface" to Firth's 1936 We, The Tikopia.)

 

In true fashion Frazer begat two noted sons, Malinowski (1884-1942) and Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) who in their turn became respected leaders of their respective sub-disciplines, with Malinowski becoming the "dean of British anthropological fieldworkers" much as Kroeber (1876-1960) was termed the "dean of American anthropologists" as well as Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) who was a "dean" before Kroeber! 

 

Hortense Powdermaker (1900-1970) pointed out in her astute work Stranger And Friend (1966, 1967: 43) that some British anthropologists of this day appear to belong to an "ancestor cult" on their reverence, respect, and ridicule (depending on who is doing what) of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is interesting to read that Max Gluckman (1911-1975) referred to Frazer (1854-1941), Tylor, and Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) as "academic grandparents" to him!  If anthropologists do not establish cults of worship, we somehow manage to include the antecedent anthropologists in the family: grandfathers, fathers, sons, and uncles, are all there!

 

Writing in my 1970 paper, and again in 2023, the thing that surely strikes the reader or student of the discipline is: who writes of all the "mothers" (or grandmothers, or aunts or daughters) who helped to sire the discipline by all of these fathers? Where were (or are) all of the grand old mothers of anthropology (or ethnology) at Cambridge, Oxford, Columbia, or Berkeley?

 

There were women doing what was designated as anthropology in those days (and there are still women anthropologists) but apparently the women did not make that large a contribution to the development of the discipline, and someone must surely contradict that point. When did we learn of the contributions of such women anthropologists as Zelia Nuttal (1857-1933), Brenda Z. Seligman (1883-1965), Dorothy Demetracopolous Lee (1900-1975), Cora Du Bois (1903-1991), Lucy Mair (1901-1986), Frederica de Laguna (1906-2004), Elsie Clews Parsons (1875-1941), Ruth Bunzel (1898-1980), even Daisey Bates (1859-1951)!  What ever became of the work of these women? Of course there is always Ruth Benedict (1887-1948) and perhaps her most famous graduate student, Margaret Mead (1901-1978), whose career the "mother" of 20th Century anthropology.  Mead successfully popularized anthropology with articles in Redbook that she and her companion, the anthropologist Rhoda Metraux (1914-2003), wrote for several years.  An extensive an excellent, summary of women and men in Anthropology was written by Sally Cole in 2003:

 

"During the interwar years [between World War I, 1914-1918 and World War II, 1939-1945] under Boas and Benedict, Columbia was unique among American universities in its openness to women, and the number of women who obtained degrees in anthropology nearly equaled the number of men. [Cole's footnote#6 continues as follows:] "During the 1930s six major schools produced 111 Ph.D's in the four subfields of anthropology: Harvard, 25 doctorates; Columbia, 22; Chicago,19; Berkeley, 19; Yale, 15; and Pennsylvania,11. In addition, one or two Ph.D.'s each were also awarded at Wisconsin, Michigan, Duke, and Northwestern during this decade. In the years 1930-40 all of the degrees awarded at Harvard and Yale and all but one degree at Chicago were granted to men. At Columbia, 50 percent of doctorates (11 of 22) were granted to women. The University of California at Berkeley (under Boas's former student Alfred Kroeber and Robert Lowie was also active in the training of women anthropologists at the time: 40 percent of its doctorates (8 of 19) were awarded to women. The majority of Harvard's degrees were in the fields of archaeology and physical anthropology. Adjusting the figures to record only those Ph.D.'s in ethnology or cultural anthropology gives the following results: Berkeley, 17; Columbia, 14; Chicago, 13; Harvard, 11; Yale, 9; Pennsylvania, 8. By the end of the 1930s there were more than 20 separate departments of sociology and anthropology; the number of professional and amateur ethnologists in the United States numbered about 300 in 1940 (Frantz 1985 [Relevance: American Ethnology and the Wider Society, 1900-1940.  In Social Contexts of American Ethnology, 1840-1984. June Helm, ed. Pp. 83-100. Washington DC: American Ethnological Society]. Between 1921 and 1940, a total of 19 women and 20 men received Ph.D.'s in anthropology at Columbia University. Not until the 1980s would women again begin to enter the discipline in such proportionate numbers [stress added]." Sally Cole, 2003, Ruth Landes: A Life in Anthropology (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press), pages 54 and page 259.

 

Mead was a fascinating individual and after her death many words were spoken and written about her research as well as her private life.  In 1984 Mary Catherine Bateson (1939-2021) published the following about her famous mother:

 

"I read the descriptions of the correspondence between Margaret and Ruth [Benedict] and Edward Sapir [1884-1939], and the poems they wrote to each other, knowing now that at some stage Ruth and Margaret decided that neither of them would choose further intimacy with Sapir, but rather they preferred each other. Margaret worked hard and incessantly to sustain relationships, caring most about those in which different kinds of intimacy supported and enriched each other, the sharing of a fine meal, the wrestling of intense intellectual collaboration, the delights of lovemaking.  Her letter takes the death of Ruth Benedict in 1948 and the dissolution of her marriage to my father [Gregory Bateson] gradually becoming irreversible in the same period, as the end of a kind of completeness. Ruth and Gregory were the two people she loved most fully and abidingly, exploring all the possibilities of personal and intellectual closeness. The intimacy to which Margaret and Ruth progressed after Margaret's completion of her degree became the model for one axis of her life while the other was defined in relation to the men she loved or married. After Margaret's death, I asked my father how he had felt about the idea of Margaret and Ruth as lovers, a relationship that had begun before Margaret and Gregory met, and continued into the years of their marriage. He spoke of Ruth as his senior, someone for whom he had great respect and always a sense of distance, and of her remote beauty [stress added]." Mary Catherine Bateson, 1984, With a Daughter's Eye: A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson (NY: Morrow), pages 117 and 125.

 

Anthropology is obviously practiced by individuals and as I wrote in 1969, when writing about Claude Lévi-Strauss, perhaps the discipline of Anthropology really has no history per se, only individuals who make, manifest, transform and reflect the discipline (what it was, what it is, and what it will be) through their own personalities. If this is the case, it is difficult to reconcile an approach to a study of anthropology (or some studies within the anthropology itself) that does not take into account the idiosyncrasies and position of the individual, an individual, within the current and prevailing sociocultural system.  (See Urbanowicz 1969, A Selective View of the Intellectual Antecedents of Claude Lévi-Strauss).

 

For some excellent and historical information about the Anthropology Department at Chico State, please begin with the May 2002 edition of Clan Destiny No. 27 and the article "History of the Anthropology Department Part I: 1963-1970" by Professor Keith Johnson, which is on-line.  The link can be found from the Department of Anthropology Home Page or go directly there: https://www.csuchico.edu/anth/student-opportunities/clan-destiny.shtml.  Learn about the individuals that made the Department what it is today!

 

Finally, one cannot end any sort of academic presentation at the beginning of the university "school year" without considering the implications of "Artifical Intelligence" and what it will do to all of education, higher and lower! Consider various AI items such as ChatGPT, Bard, Bing, Claude, PI, and others, and ponder the words of that extremely interesting, and somewhat forgotten individual, Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980): "When this circuit learns your job, what are you going to do?" Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, 1967, The Medium Is The Massage, page 20.

 

 

EPILOGUE:  THREE ITEMS (INCLUDING Chat GPT, Bard, and Claude)

ONE:  In 1976, two years before her 1978 death, a 75th Birthday party was thrown for Mead and she was widely quoted as stating:  "I expect to die, but I don't plan to retire" (Aimee Hess, 2007, Margaret Mead, page 53).

 

TWO:  Referring to my own 2014 Web paper ("Cruising Into Retirement"), the idea that I create a web page to accompany any PowerPoint presentation results from knowing and associating with the well-known Anthropologist June Helm (1924-2004).  June was born in 1924 and I in 1942, and although we were separated by 18 years in age, anthropology drew us together at various meetings. The following appeared in the Anthropology Newsletter in January 2005:

 

"June Helm, who died February 4, 2004, was President of the AAA [American Anthropological Association] (1985-1987)....Following the list of her publications she appended the comment: 'NB: I have never included 'paper read' and 'invited lectures' in my CV. If there are no published versions, I consider them ephemera [stress added]. Nancy Oestrich Lurie, Anthropology in the Liberal Arts. Anthropology Newsletter, January 2005, page 4.

 

I certainly do not view my own presentations as ephemeral and hence this web page to accompany the 14 September 2023 Anthropology Forum presentation; and since the presenttions are being recorded, who knows how long it might be around?!

 

THREE:  In keeping up with some 21st Century technology, one cannot avoid the "AI" phenomenon or industry!  With Artificial Intelligence in mind, in May 2023, when I began thinking about this paper, I provided the following "prompt" to ChatGPT (GPT standing for Generative Pre-Trained Transformer):  "In approximately 2000 words, what is the relationship between Franz Boas, Alfred L. Kroeber, H.G. Barnett, and Charles F. Urbanowicz" and this is part of the response received:

 

"Franz Boas and Alfred L. Kroeber were two important figures in the development of American anthropology.  Boas is often considered the father of American anthropology and is known for his contributions to the fields of cultural anthropology, linguistics, and physical anthropology. Kroeber, on the other hand, is known for his work on Native American cultures and is often referred to as the 'father of California anthropology.' H.G. Barnett and Charles F. Urbanowicz, on the other hand, do not appear to have had a direct relationship with Boas and Kroeber.  There is no mention of either of these individuals in any of the provided search results that pertain to Boas and Kroeber's relationship.  However, it is possible that Barnett and Urbanowicz were also important figures in the field of anthropology during the time period and may have had some connection to Boas or Kroeber."

 

Alas, althugh Barnett did receive his Ph.D. at UC Berkeley and where I might see a "connection" from Boas to Kroeber to Barnett to me, in May 2023 the computer did not; but, as I was completing this paper in September 2023, I provided the exact same "prompt" to ChatGPT and received the following information:

 

"The relationship between Franz Boas, Alfred L. Kroeber, H.G. Barnett, and Charles F. Urbanowicz is deeply intertwined in the field of anthropology and their significant contributions to the discipline.  These four individuals played pivotal roles in shaping the way anthropology was understood, practiced, and taught particularly during the early to mid-20th century.  Each figure brought unique perspectives, methodologies, and ideas to the field, which collectively enriched the study of human cultures and societies.The legacy of Franz Boas, Alfred L. Kroeber, H.G. Barnett, and Charles F. Urbanowicz continues to shape anthropological thought and practice, influencing subsequent generations of scholars and the broader understanding of human diversity and culture."

 

Wow!  What a difference four months makes!  I would like to think I have had some influence on some people but m'thinks ChatGPT has some "hallucinations" in this response.  In August 2023 I provided the exact same prompt to Bard and received the following intriguing reply:  "Franz Boas, Alfred L. Kroeber, H.G. Barnett, and Charles F. Urbanowicz were all influential anthropologists who were students of Franz Boas [sic]."  Needless to say, this was an interesting reply!  Bard continued with the following:

 

"Kroeber was one of Boas's earliest students.  He studied with Boas at Columbia University and then went on to teach at the University of California, Berkeley. H.G.Barnett was another one of Boas's students [sic].  He studied with Boas at Columbia University and then went on to teach at the University of Chicago [sic].  Urbanowicz was a student of Kroeber's at the University of California, Berkeley [sic].  He went on to teach at the University of Arizona and the University of Denver [sic].  Urbanowicz was an expert on the Hopi people and wrote extensively on their culture and religion [sic]."

 

In September 2023 I used the same prompt for Claude and received a geat deal of similar nonsensical information, including the following:

 

"Urbanowicz studied under Kroeber at UC Berkeley [sic], receiving his PhD in 1973 [sic]. As a professor at UC Santa Barbara [sic], Urbanowicz focused his research on the archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics of Native American groups in California [sic], especially the Chumash [sic]."

 

Needless to say:  this was an interesting, and totally erroneous, response!  As with all things, check before you use any AI applications. Finally, for an extremely interesting book about what the authors term a "core technology" namely AI, please get your hands on and read and consider the words of Mustafa Suleyman and Michael Bhaskar's 2023 work The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, And The 21st Century's Greatest Dilemma. Concerning AI: what we see happening right now "will be dwarfed by what happens as we progress" (page 77), my stress added!

 

# # #

 

REFERENCES CITED

 

American Anthropological Association, 1980, In Memoriam: Margaret Mead (1901-1978), Volume 82, Number 2 (Washington, D.C.).

 

Anthropology Department, California State University Chico, on-going, Clan Destiny: https://www.csuchico.edu/anth/student-opportunities/clan-destiny.shtml.

 

Lois Banner, 2003,  Intertwined Lives: Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Their Circle (NY:  Alfred A. Knopf).

 

Alan Barnard, 2000,  History and Theory in Anthropology (Cambridge University Press).

 

Homer G. Barnett,  1953, Innovation:  The Basis of Cultural Change (McGraw-Hill Paperback).

 

Gregory Bateson, 1972, Steps to an Ecology of Mind (New York:  Ballantine Books).

 

Mary Catherine Bateson, 1984, With A Daughter's Eye:  A Memoir of Margaret Mead and Gegory Bateson (New York:  Perennial).

 

Jay H. Bernstein, 2002, First Recipients of Anthropological Doctorates in the United States, 1891-1930. The American Anthropologist, Vol. 104, No. 2, June, pages 551-565, page 557.

 

Lewis T. Binford, 1972, An Archaeological Perspective (NY:  Seminar Press).

 

Deborah Beatriz Blum, 2017, Coming of Age:  The Sexual Awakening of Margaret Mead (NY:  St. Martin's Press).

 

Franz Boas, 1904, The History of Anthropology.  Science Volume 20, October 21 [reprinted in Regna Darnell (Editor), 1974, Readings in the History of Anthropology].

 

Paul Bohannan & Mark Glazer, Editors (1988) High Points in Anthropology (NY: A.A. Knopf).

 

Janet Browne, 2002, Charles Darwin:  The Power of Place - Volume II (NY:  Alfred A. Knopf).

 

Christopher Cerf & Victor Navsky, 1984, The Experts Speak: The Definitive Compendium of Authotitative Misinformation (NY: Pantheon Books).

 

Le G. Charbonnier, 1969, Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd), page 17. [This is a 1969 translation of the 1961 Entretiens avec Claude Lévi-Strauss.]

 

Jean Christensen, 2000, Mead's 'Coming of Age in Samoa' Called Worst Nonfiction of Century.  The San Francisco Chronicle, February 2.

 

Eric Cohen, 2002, Review of Hosts and Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century. In Tourism Recreation Research, 2002,Vol. 27, pages 108-111, page 108.

 

Douglas Cole, 1999, Franz Boas:  The Early Years 1858-1906 (University of Washington Press).

 

Sally Cole, 2003, Ruth Landes: A Life in Anthropology (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press).

 

August Comte, 1852, Systeme de Politique Positive, Vol. II.

 

Michael Crichton, 1999, Timeline (NY:  Ballantine Books).

 

Regna Darnell, 1998, And Along Came Boas:  Continuity And Revolution in Americanist Anthropology (Philadelphia:  John Benjamins Publishing Co.).

 

Charles R. Darwin, 1839, The Voyage of the Beagle (NY: Banam Books).

 

Kirk M. Endicott and Robert Welsch, 2001, Taking Sides:  Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Anthropology (McGraw-Hill/Dushkin).

 

Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy (Editors), 2006, Readings For A History of Anthropological Theory (Ontario, Canada:  Broadview Press).

 

Edward Evans-Pritchard, 1962, "Fieldwork and the empirical tradition" in  Social Anthropology and Other Essays.

 

Raymond Firth, 1936, We, The Tikopia:  Kinship in Primitive Polynesia.

 

Roland W, Force, 1980, Review of Hosts And Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism [1977],  American Anthropologist, Volume 82 Number 2, pages 453-454.

 

Ute Gacs, Aisha Khan, Jerrie McIntyre, Ruth Weinberg (Editors), 1989, Women Anthropologists:  Selected Biographies (University of Illinois Press).

 

Jane Goodall, 1999, Reason For Hope:  A Spiritual Journey (New York:  Warner Books).

 

Yuval Noah Harari, 2018, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (UK: Penguin Random House).

 

William A. Haviland, 1999, Cultural Anthropology:  The Human Challenge 9th edition (Holt, Rinehart & Winston)

 

Hal Hellman, 1998, Great Feuds in Science:  Ten of the liveliest disputes ever (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).

 

June Helm, 1985,  Social Contexts of American Ethnology, 1840-1984 (Washington, D.C.:  American Ethnological Society)

 

Aimee Hess, 2007, Margaret Mead [Part of the "Women Who Dare" series of the Library of Congress] (Petaluma, CA: Pomegranate Communications, Inc.).

 

Marshall Hyatt, 1990, Franz Boas--Social Activist:  The Dynamics of Ethnicity (New York:  Greenwood Press).

 

D. Kaplan and R. Manners, 1972, Culture Theory.

 

Abraham Kardiner & Edward Preble, 1961, They Studied Man: Ten Major Scientists..... [Darwin, Spencer, Tylor, Frazer, Durkheim, Boas, Malinowski, Kroeber, Benedict, and Freud] (NY: New American Library).

 

Walter Isaacson. 2021, The Code Breaker:  Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing and the Future of the Human Race (NY:  Simon & Schuster).

 

Gretchen Kell, 2021, "Kroeber Hall, honoring anthropologist who symbolizes exclusion, is renamed." [https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/01/26/kroeber-hall-unnamed]).

 

Charles King, 2019, Gods of the Upper Air: How A Circle of Renegade Anthropologists Reinvented Race, Sex, and Gender in the Twentieth Century (NY: Doubleday). 

 

Arthur Koestler, 1964, The Act Of Creation. 

 

Robert Lacey & Danny Danziger, 1999, The Year 1000: What Life Was Like At The Turn of the First Millennium - An Englishman's World (London:  Abacus).

 

Hilary Lapsley, 1999, Margaret Mead And Ruth Benedict: The Kinship of Women (Amherst: U Mass Press).

 

Edmund Leach, 1967, An Anthropologist's Trivia [originally published in The Guardian on 11 August 1967 as a review of A Diary in the Strictest Sense of the Term]. Stephen Hugh-Jones and James Laidlaw [editors], 2000, The Essential Edmund Leach Volume I: Anthropology and Society (Yale University Press), pages 61-62.

 

David Lipset, 1980, Gregory Bateson:  The Legacy of a Scientist (Prentice-Hall, Inc.).

 

Nancy O. Lurie, 2005, Anthropology in the Liberal Arts.  Anthropology Newsletter, January, page 4.

 

Norman Macbeth, 1971, Darwin Retried:  An Appeal To Reason (NY:  Dell Publishing Company).

 

Helena Wayne Malinowska, 1985, Bronislaw Malinowski:  The Influence of Various Women on His Life and Works.  American Ethnologist, Vol. 12, No. 3, pages 529-540.

 

Bronislaw Malinowski, 1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific:  An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea [1961 E.P. Dutton edition].

 

Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, 1967, The Medium is the Message.

 

Margaret Mead, 1928, An Inquiry Into The Question Of Cultural Stability In Polynesia (Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University).

 

Margaret Mead, 1928, Coming of Age in Samoa.

 

Margaret Mead, 1930, Growing up in New Guinea.

 

Jerry D. Moore, 1997, Visions of Culture:  An Introduction to Anthropological Theory and Theorists (Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press).

 

Douglas Oliver, 1974, Ancient Tahitian Society (Three Volumes) (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press).

 

Douglas Oliver, 1988, Return To Tahiti: Bligh's Second Breadfruit Voyage (Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press).

 

William J. Peace, 2004, Leslie A. White:  Evolution and Revolution in Anthropology (University of Nebraska Press).

 

Karl Popper, 1962, Conjectures And Refutations:  The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (NY:  Basic Books).

 

Hortense Powdermaker, 1966, Stranger And Friend: The Way Of An Anthropologist.

 

David H. Proce, 2008, Anthropological Intelligence:  The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War (Duke University Press).

 

Paul Radin, 1933, The Method And Theory of Ethnology:  An Essay in Criticism (Basic Books Reprint).

 

John H. Rowe, 1995, Item on UCB [http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Anthro/rowe/rolib.html]

 

Philip Carl Salzman, 2001, Understanding Culture:  An Introduction to Anthropological Theory (Prospect Heights, Illinois:  Waveland Press, Inc.).

 

Sydel Silveman, 1981, Totems and Teachers:  Perspectives on the History of Anthropology (NY:  Columbia University Press).

 

Valene L. Smith (Editor), 1997, Hosts and Guests:  The Anthropology of Tourism (University of Pennsylvania Press).

 

Valene L. Smith (Editor), 1989, Hosts and Guests:  The Anthropology of Tourism, Second Edition (University of Pennsylvania Press).

 

Valene L. Smith and William R. Eadington (Editors), 1992, Tourism Alternatives:  Potentials and Problems on the Development of Tourism (University of Pennsylvania Press).

 

Valene L. Smith (Editor), 2001, Hosts and Guests Revisited:  Tourism Issues of the 21st Century (NY:  Cognizant Communications Corp.).

 

Valene L. Smith, 2015, Stereopticon:  Entry to a Life of Travel and Tourism Research (Putnam Valley, NY:  Cognizant Communication Corporation).

 

Mustafa Suleyman (with Michael Bhaskar), 2023, The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, And The 21st Century's Greatest Dilemma (New York: Crown).

 

Charles F. Urbanowicz:

 

1968a [with Dennis Roth]  http://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Dennis%20and%20Charlie%201968%20AAA%20Paper.pdf [Scale Analyses and the Elaboration of Menstrual Taboos. For the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Seattle, Washington, November 21-26.]

 

1968b  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Malinowski1968.html [Comments on Bronislaw Malinowski for a University of Oregon Graduate Seminar October 29].

 

1969 https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/1969Levi-StraussPaper.html [A Selective View of Levi-Strauss' Intellectual Antecedents. For the 68th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, November 22.]

 

1970  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/NatureCulture1970.html [Mother Nature, Father Culture. For the 28th Annual Meeting of the Oregon Academy of Science, Eugene, February 28, 1970.]

 

1972  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/1972TonganPaper.html [Tongan Social Structure: Data From An Ethnographic Reconstruction. For the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Toronto, Canada, December 2.]

 

1973 https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/1973Forum.html [Science Fiction. For the CSU Chico Anthropology Forum, November 7.)

 

1977a, https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Tourism_in_Tonga.pdf [Tourism in Tonga: Troubled Times. Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by V. Smith (University of Pennsylvania), pp. 83-92].

 

1977b, https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/MotivesAndMethods.pdf [Motives and Methods: Missionaries in Tonga in the early 19th Century. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 86, no. 2:245-263).

 

1978  http://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/CulturalImplications-1978.pdf Cultural Implications of Extraterrestrial Contact and the Colonization of Space. The Industrialization of Space: Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, edited by Richard A. Van Patten, Paul Siegler, and E.V.B. Stearns (American Astronautical Society, San Diego, CA), Vol. 36, Part 2, pages 785-797; originally presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the American Astronautical Society, San Francisco, CA, October 18-20, 1977.)

 

1989, https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Tourism_in_Tonga_revisited.pdf Tourism in Tonga Revisited: Continued Troubled Times? Hosts And Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, edited by V. Smith, 2nd Edition (University of Pennsylvania), pp. 105-117.]

 

1992 https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Pub_Papers/4field.html [Four-Field Commentary]. Published in the Newsletter of the American Anthropological Association, 1992, Volume 33, Number 9, page 3.]

 

1993 https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Darwin116.html [Charles R. Darwin: Happy 116th Anniversary. For the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., November 11.]

 

2001  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/Gambling_into_the_21st_cent.pdf Gambling Into The 21st Century. Hosts And Guests Revisited: Tourism Issues of the 21st Century, edited by Valene Smith and Maryann Brent (NY: Cognizant Communication Corp.), pp. 69-79.

 

2002 http://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/DarwinDayCollectionOneChapter.html In Darwin Day Collection One: The Single Best Idea Ever (2002) Edited by Amanda Chesworth et al. (Albuquerque, New Mexico: Tangled Bank Press), pages 67-70.

 

2012 https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/ANTHROFORUMSPRING2012.html  Pacific Travelers, presented with Carol ("Sadie") Urbanowicz. For the CSU Chico Anthropology Forum April 12, 2012.]

 

2014  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/DCRETIREMENTPAPER2014.html [Cruising Into Retirement As An Anthropologist.  For the 113th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C. December 6.]

 

2021  https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/FORUMSeptember2021.html [Fifty Years An Anthropologist. For the CSU Chico Anthropology Forum at CSU Chico, September 23, 2001]. The video that was made of the presentation is available at} https://media.csuchico.edu/media/Fifty+Years+an+Anthropologist/1_ki0wc9wc/66947092

 

2022a https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/FORUMFeb2022.html [South Pacific Changes: 1970-2022! For the CSU Chico Anthropology Forum at CSU Chico, February 24.] The video that was made of the presentation is available at} https://media.csuchico.edu/media/South+Pacific+ChangesA+1970-2022/1_fhtdnb8b/66947092

 

2022b https://curbanowicz.yourweb.csuchico.edu/PaulGauguinReadingListSep2022.html[September References for the cruise on Le Paul Gauguin in French Polynesia} September 7-17].

 

Tom Urbanowicz, n.d., Growing Business Gracefully: Time-Tested Solutions And Cutting-Edge Strategies to Scale Your Organization [unpublished manuscript].

 

Kurt Vonnegut, 1963, Cat's Cradle.

 

Leslie A. White, 1968, "Lewis H. Morgan." International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968, Vol. 10, pages 496-498, pages 497-498.

 

Robert L. Welsch, 1998, An American Anthropologist in Melanesia: A.B. Lewis and the Joseph N. Field South Pacific Expedition 1909-1913 (University of Hawai'i Press).

 

# # #