Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
192.168.6.56/handle/123456789/56692Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.editor | D. ANN HERRING ALAN C. SWEDLUND | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-22T07:22:30Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-03-22T07:22:30Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2003 | - |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-0-511-06330-5 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://10.6.20.12:80/handle/123456789/56692 | - |
| dc.description | History embodies knowledge, tradition, and identity, which are at the core of the human condition. Anthropology has access to a vital record of history represented by the past study of cultures that no longer endure, of languages now extinct, of earlier conditions of health and human biology, and, in general, of the material and written evidence of patterns of existence from the near and distant past. That record is as essential to our understanding of humankind as is the ongoing data collection of the discipline today. The historical records that incorporate anthropological knowledge consist of many things beyond the finished products that appear in publications: the raw data of research projects; the process of analysis and interpretation that led to published conclusions, contained in notes and worksheets and written drafts; the personal papers of the anthropologists themselves, which give context to the research and document the biographical and social realities of the researchers’ lives; and the vast array of materials created by others and for other purposes that anthropologists discover they can mine for use in their own work. What all these things have in common is that they are ‘records’ only by virtue of the fact that someone has saved them and deposited them in archives. Individual researchers in all the subfields of anthropology have long made use of such records, but until recently the discipline as a whole has had a certain ambivalence toward them. In cultural anthropology, fieldwork with living populations was always accorded greater value than archival research. Moreover, the unpublished papers produced by anthropologists in the course of their professional lives, including field notes, were considered by many to be of little significance and often discarded, on the mistaken assumption that everything important would have been published. An added complication was fieldworkers’ sensitivity about their notes, whether because of unease over the prospect of someone else examining their methods and data or because of ethical concerns, warranted or not | - |
| dc.language | en | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Cambridge University Press | en_US |
| dc.subject | Human Biologists | en_US |
| dc.title | Human Biologists in the Archives | en_US |
| dc.type | Book | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Population Studies | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.