Han F. Vermeulen, <em>Before Boas: The genesis of ethnography and ethnology in the German enlightenment</em>, Lincoln & London, University of Nebraska Press, 2015, pp. 746
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2576
Recensione di Han F. Vermeulen, Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German Enlightenment, Lincoln &amp; London, University of Nebraska Press, 2015, pp. 746.
application/pdf
2239-625X
2576
2
it
Gheorghiţă Geană
Anuac
Han F. Vermeulen, <em>Before Boas: The genesis of ethnography and ethnology in the German enlightenment</em>, Lincoln & London, University of Nebraska Press, 2015, pp. 746
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac
5
Book reviews
2017-01-25
2016-12-14
2017-01-25
2017-01-25
239-242
1
Gheorghiţă Geană
2016
10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2576
239
"Fr. I. Rainer" Institute of Anthropology, Romanian Academy, University of Bucharest, Romania
2239-625X
2
en
242
Han F. Vermeulen, <em>Before Boas: The genesis of ethnography and ethnology in the German enlightenment</em>, Lincoln & London, University of Nebraska Press, 2015, pp. 746
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/anuac/article/download/2576/2278
5
                                         2016 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 5, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2016: 239-242




                                                                           RECENSIONI
Han F. VERMEULEN ⎸Before Boas: The genesis of ethnography and ethnology
in the German enlightenment, Lincoln & London, University of Nebraska
Press, 2015, pp. xxvi-718.


   The title and subtitle of this book predispose to reflection. Taken as a
whole, they contain two centres of reference. First is the name of (Franz)
Boas, a figure who marked decisively the “professionalization” of anthropo-
logy on the North American continent. Indeed, as Regna Darnell, the author
of the quoted term, pointed out 1, Boas introduced in the anthropological do-
main a new theoretical and methodological orientation. Moreover, he in-
duced coherence to the networks of relationships among practitioners as
well as institutions at the end of the XIX th century and the beginning of the
XXth. Historically and epistemologically, the impact of the whole Boasian
work found its expression in the autonomization of anthropology as a sci-
entific discipline.
   The second centre of reference I have in view is the syntagm “ethnography
and ethnology”. In the present limited context, let us ignore the possible dif-
ferences between the two terms. In any case, along the time this terminolo-
gical couple underwent significant meaning changes. Until the middle of the
XXth century, the two terms (either separately or together) were invested
with a disciplinary meaning: in accordance with etymology, their identity
was designated as the science of human races, or, more completely, the sci-
ence of peoples and their cultures. Later on Claude Lévi-Strauss established
that:


1. See Regna Darnell, The Professionalization of American Anthropology: A Case Study in
the Sociology of Knowledge, Social Science Information, 10, 2, 1971: 83-103; Regna Darnell,
And Along Came Boas: Continuity and Revolution in Americanist Anthropology, Amsterdam &
Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing 1998.


This work is licensed under the Creative Commons © Gheorghiţă Geana
2016 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 5, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2016: 239-242.
ISSN: 2239-625X – DOI: 10.7340/anuac2239-625X-2576
240                                                           HAN F. VERMEULEN ⎸BEFORE BOAS


      Ethnography, ethnology and anthropology are not three different disciplines, or
      three different conceptions about the same studies. As a matter of fact, they are
      three stages or three moments of the same research, and the preference for one
      or another of these terms expresses only the prevailing attention for a type of
      research that could never be exclusive towards the others (Claude Lévi-Strauss,
      Anthropologie structurale, Paris, Plon 2005 [1958], p. 413, my translation)

   Since then ethnography (especially) counts – and this is the second (let us
call it structural) of its meanings – as the empirical phase of an anthropolo-
gical research. Now, by taking a good look at the title and subtitle of the
present book, we can read there another – the third – meaning: if Boas and
his work embodied the professionalization of anthropology, then ethno-
graphy & ethnology as practised before him stand for prehistory of anthro-
pology. This could be an adequate key for understanding the book at stake.
   Before Boas has not appeared as a deus ex machina; it has behind a long
own story. At the EASA Conference in Prague (28 th - 31st August 1992), Han
Vermeulen, along with Arturo Alvarez Roldán, organized a workshop dedic-
ated to the history of anthropology in Europe. Vermeulen contributed to the
resulted volume – edited by the two convenors – with a substantial study 2, in
which the author left opened his predisposition to continue the investiga-
tions. He kept the promise (made first of all to himself), and Before Boas is,
over the time, the rewarding fruit of his passion, perseverance, and mobility
in following a high intellectual project.
   The book is from the outset impressive by its dimensions. The total quant-
ity of pages (747) is distributed as follows: preliminary mentions xxvi, the
text as such 458, notes 55, references 174. When having under your eyes such
a massive tome (extremely rich in concrete data), it is difficult to detect the
main force lines of the whole text. Nevertheless, one of the focal idea of the
book – anticipated but not clearly expressed in author’s chapter of 1995 – is
that:
      Ethnography in colonial Russia flowered early and abundantly, to such an ex-
      tent that the institutionalization of the discipline in Russia occurred much
      earlier than in Western Europe or the USA (Vermeulen – an idea of 1999, quoted
      in Vermeulen 2015; cfr. Before Boas, p. 203).

  This apparently surprising state of things is explained by the activity that
some German scholars (Daniel Gottlieb Messerschmidt, Gerhard Friedrich


2. Han F. Vermeulen, Origins and Institutionalization of Ethnography and Ethnology in
Europe and USA, 1771–1845, in Fieldwork and Footnotes. Studies in the History of European
Anthropology, Han F. Vermeulen, Arturo Alvarez Roldán, eds, London & New York, Routledge
1995: 39–59.


2016 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 5, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2016: 239-242
HAN F. VERMEULEN ⎸BEFORE BOAS                                                               241


Müller, Johann Georg Gmelin, Georg Wilhelm Steller, etc.) developed in the
XVIIIth century in the Russian empire, especially in Siberia, Caucasus, and
Volga area. Their research experiences were then revaluated in the academic
centres of Göttingen and Vienna (p. 202).
  Another subtle observation of the author regards the existence in the
same XVIIIth century of an alternative trend to the travel accounts.
      This type of ethnographic research was more narrowly focused and involved
      fewer participants, preferring the scholar’s private study rather than travel. His-
      torians like Müller, Schlözer, Gatterer, and Kollár forged an academic field that
      was taken up by nineteenth-century scholars like Carl Ritter, Gustav Klemm,
      Theodor Waitz, Adolf Bastian, Lewis Henry Morgan, Friedrich Ratzel, E. B. Tylor,
      Franz Boas, and many others (p. 270).

    Among such scholars who devoted themselves to the study of ethnograph-
ic themes in the intimacy of libraries and archives must be included also Di-
mitrie Cantemir (1673-1723). Voivode of Moldavia for a short time (1710-
1711), writer, philosopher, musician, historian (quoted and praised by Leibn-
iz, Voltaire, Montesquieu), Cantemir is de facto the author of the first ethno-
graphic monograph for which there is no model in the Europe of that time.
Written in Latin as a work of reception in the Academy of Berlin, Descriptio
Moldaviae [The Description of Moldavia] (1716) satisfies all the modern exi-
gencies of both ethnographic and monographic work. The only “fault” (to say
so) of its author was that of not making use of these technical terms (“ethno-
graphy” and “monograph”) which had not been still invented. Otherwise,
some of his historical writings were translated into English, French, and Ger-
man. Even Descriptio Moldaviae benefitted from a German edition (1771);
and, notably, the Vorrede [Preface] to this edition was signed just by Gerhard
Friedrich Müller, to whom Han Vermeulen has reserved a consistent chapter
(pp. 131–218) in Before Boas as one of those German scholars consecrated as
forerunners of ethnography in Europe! Obviously, Dimitrie Cantemir was
atypical among his contemporaries (he did not deal with Siberia or other
Russian regions, and, furthermore, his learned concerns went beyond the sci-
entific goals – towards philosophy and arts), but he deserves to be re-
membered among the honourable promoters of “proto-ethnography” (to use
a term adopted also by Vermeulen).
    Recently printed, Before Boas will grow in importance with the elapsing of
time. Certainly, it will become soon a landmark (if it has not become yet) and
will definitively consecrate Han F. Vermeulen as a prominent specialist in
this fascinating academic field, which is history of ethnography and
ethnology. The richness of accumulated information makes this book to be in
itself an exceptional source of information. On a plan somehow parallel with

                                           2016 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 5, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2016: 239-242
242                                                       HAN F. VERMEULEN ⎸BEFORE BOAS


that of the great expeditions in the past, the author wandered through a
multitude of libraries and archives where he read and gathered documentary
data for us, too. Therefore, anyone who will need information regarding the
emergence and diffusion of such important terms as “ethnography”,
“ethnology”, Volkskunde, Völkerkunde, or “anthropology” – and all kind of
correlated subjects – could make appeal with confidence to Before Boas.



                                                              Gheorghiţă GEANĂ
                                                           University of Bucharest
                                               gheorghita_geana2003@yahoo.com




2016 ⎸ANUAC. VOL. 5, N° 2, DICEMBRE 2016: 239-242
