Pioneering in the field of anthropology has proved to have
been a multifacetted work, as has been shown by the historical writings of
Firth, Kuklick, Kuper, Ortner, Stocking, Urry and others. It is quite
obvious that the history of our discipline, both theoretically and practically,
is a very com- plex one, far more diverse than our basic teachings seem to
imply. Therefore, one must ask why the work of some of our "forefathers" has
become immortal, while most of the late nineteenth century or early
twentieth century scholars has faded into obscurity. My intention is surely not
to answer this important and complex question in full. This
presentation of a comparison between two anthropologists making their major
fieldwork at the same time, i.e. during the raging of World War I, is
a rather a suggestion for a continuing research into the matter. One of these
anthropologists situated himself in the South Sea Islands, while the
other penetrated the wilds of Ecuador. The first one was destined to make
himself a culture-hero of anthropology, while the undertakings of the other
were soon to be forgotten. Yet, in the process of pioneering a new
field of science they were doing more or less the same thing.
The how's, why's and about's concerning Bronislaw Malinowski's
fieldwork, in New Guinea 1914-15 and the Trobiand
Islands in 1915-16 and 1917-18, are so well-known that there is no
point of repeating it here. His call from the wilds - Grasp the native's
point of view - is as famous as Jack London's! Malinowski set up
his claims for scientific field-work inArgonauts of the
Western Pacific, in his own words making it "far above even the best
amateur production" (1922/1953:17). Scientific labour in a field so
far only prospected by the curiosity of amateurs, as Malinowski puts it,
brings "Law and order into what seemed chaotic and freakish" (ibid:9). He
continues:
Our considerations thus indicate that the goal of
ethnographic field-work must be
Page
2
approached through three avenues: 1.
The organisation of the tribe, and the anatomy of its culture
must be recorded in firm, clear outline. The method of
concrete, statistical documentation is the means through which such
an outline has to be given. 2. Within this frame, the imponderabilia of
actual life, and the type of behaviour have to be filled in.
They have to be collected through minute, detailed observations, in the
form of some sort of ethnographic diary, made possible by close contact with
native life. 3. A collection of ethnographic statements, characteristic
narratives, typical utterances, items of folk-lore and magical formulae has to
be given as a corpus inscriptionum, as documents of native mentality.
(ibid:24)
With these words Bronislaw Malinowski did not
only promoted his own fieldwork, but also set the standards for years
to come.
A long time after Malinowski's death A Diary
in the Strict Sense of the Term (1967) was published. Even with
an apologizing introduction by Raymond Firth this diary of Malinowski threw
shock-waves into the field of anthropology. At first it stirred up emotions, but
soon it was integrated into a wider and constructive debate concerning the
very basics of our discipline. Whether one was disillusioned by these
revelations or regarded them as an important event in the history of
anthropology, Malinowski was once more in the spotlight, making sure that
his Trobi- and studies will not fade away. Like the famous Trickster
in Native American mythology, his right-doings will forever enrich
our discipline, while his wrong-doings may serve as our point of departure.
Malinowski gained his fame and recognition through the many
excellent examples of eth- nographical writings, but also through his
contributions to the method of field-work. (As a theore- tician he was
clearly overshadowed by his rival Radcliffe-Brown.) Adam Kuper introduces his
portrait of Malinowski with the following statement: "Malinowski has a
strong claim to being the founder of the profession of social anthropology
in Britain, for he established its distinctive apprenticeship
intensive fieldwork in an exotic community." Kuper also quotes one
of Mali- nowski's "most distinguished students" who remarked that "he
claimed to be the creator of an entirely new academic discipline"
(1989:1). In an essay treating the emergance of British anthro-
pology George W. Stocking says that Malinowski's work "...involved a
shift in the primary locus of investigation, from the deck of the
mission ship or the verandah of the mission station to the teeming center of
the village, and a corresponding shift in the conception of the
ethnographer's role, from that of inquirer to that of participant "in
a way" in village life" (Stocking 1983:93). San-
Page
3
jek and others put forward similar
conclusions (Sanjek 1990).
Yet, any reviewing of the
historical material at our disposal makes it clear that there had been a
considerable shift towards participant-observations years before. "The demand
for profes- sional fieldwork was the motive force behind the
Cambridge expedition to the Torres Straits in 1898-9, organized by
Haddon and including Rivers, Seligman and Myers" (Kuper 1989:5-6). Haddon
moved from armchair theorizing to field surveys, speaking of "the intensive
studies of limited areas". Rivers coined the "genealogy and concrete
method", leaving surveys behind in favour of intensive
fieldwork. The shortcomings of Rivers and Haddon, however, were simply
that they never really managed to leave the verandah. In addition,
Rivers the investigator, was still more an inquirer than an observer
(Stocking 1983:91). In addition, Rivers, Seligman and A. R. Brown
(Radcliffe-Brown) carried out field expeditions to India, Sudan,
Melanesia and other places during the first decade of the 20th Century
(Kuper 1989:6). Although from different anthropological traditions we may
also add such names as Frank Cushing, Franz Boas and Erland Nordenskiöld.
In the United States, Cushing and Boas, some thirty years before
Malinowski, had left the ship or verandah - Boas travelling in Innuit
country and Cushing spending more than four years in Zuni pueblo.
Both did participate and observe, Cushing learned to speak Zuni and even
managed to be introduced into the secrecy of the tribe's Bow Priesthood. He
"assumed a style of participant-observation far different from that of his
Smithsonian colleagues..."(Sanjek 1990:189). Contributing as well to the
new style of participant-observations was the Swedish pio- neering
ethnographer Erland Nordenskiöld. He certainly placed himself in the
midst of the native village - observing the every-day life from the
campfire, participated in drinking-parties, got tat- tooed by his
Indian friends, etc. Nordenskiöld's failure as an important field-worker is due
to the survey-character of his work, moving from tribe to tribe, and, of
course, not learning the language of the people he was studying.
So far we have managed to establish that several researchers in the
early days of anthro- pology contributed to the modern concept of
field-research. None of them, however, was able to equal Bronislaw
Malinowski for one reason or another. Either they spend only a limited time
in the field, did not learn the language, did not really participate
in the life of the natives, or failed to produce monographs of high
quality. Now, lets turn our attention to a person who, like Mali- nowski,
fulfilled these requirements. My heading states that it takes more than a
fieldwork to become a culture-hero of anthropology, and I intend to
devote the remaining part of this article to illustrate such a claim.
However, before proceeding, I will like to point out that the following
comparison is not in any way an attempt to disregard or devaluate
Bronislaw Malinowski's contri- bution. Furthermore, I do not
intend to present yet another account of the history of British
anthropology, with all its diversity in a natural, legal and classic
background. To follow is a piece of Finnish anthropology in a global
context. As such, it is simply a call for a closer examination
Page
4
and further understanding of our
discipline's history.
George Stocking, in his
discussion regarding the myth-history of British anthropology pays some
attention to the "intensive study of limited areas", and observes the
gathering of Malinowski, Charles Seligman and Anglo-Finnish sociologist
Edward Westermarck at the London School of Economics. He also notes the
presence of two young Finns: Gunnar Landtman and Rafael Karsten. Landtman
executed fieldwork in New Guinea and Karsten is credited
for an extensive and difficult fieldwork in South America by
Stocking (1983:81-82). Both of them seems to taken farewell from the
international arena as they went back to Finland to take up professional posi-
tions. From his solely british perspective, Kuper notes the influence of
Seligman and Wester- marck, but does not at all mention neither Karsten nor
Landtman. This is also the case in major reference works, such as
Marvin Harris' The Rise of Anthropological Theory. The failure of
Karsten's and others in the group "is perhaps in part a
reflection of biographical accident and insti- tutional circumstance,"
Stocking concludes (ibid:84). As he does not pursue the case of Rafael
Karsten any further, I would like to take his "perhaps in part" as a
point of departure.
Rafael Karsten was born in 1879 at
Kvelax in Österbotten, close to the city of Vasa in Fin- land.
He drifted away from the family tradition of priesthood, which his parents so
eagerly pur- sued him to follow - only to deal with religion from an
opposite point of view. At the University of Helsinki, he began to study
philosophy and did later turn to sociology. In 1905 he presented his
doctoral dissertation, entitled The Origin of Worship: A study in
primitive Religion. For some years he travelled around Europe, taking
courses in Germany, England and France. In 1911 he went on his
first fieldtrip, to the Gran Chaco area in the Bolivian-argentinean
borderland. In 1916- 19 he returned to South America, moving his area
of studies to the amazonian region of eastern Ecuador. He made further trips
in 1928-29, 1937, 1946 and 1951, all together amounting to some nine
years in the field (Karsten 1953). His last journey to South America,
took place at the age of seventy-two. Invited to the 400-year celebration of
the San Marcos University in Lima, Karsten proceeded into the jungle
of eastern Peru in order to study the Shipibo Indians. Five years later
he
Page
5
died of an heart attack, in the
midst of writing a new comparative study pertaining to the religion
of the South American Indians (Karsten-Sveander 1993; for a further
description of the life and works of Rafael Karsten see Acta
Americana, Vol 1, No 2, 1993).
In the following I will
more or less concentrate the discussion to the fieldwork Karsten was
undertaking in 1916-19, i.e. the beginning, and the most important part,
of his Jivaro studies. He continued his field-research among the Jivaro
in 1928-29, and again in 1946-47. The last period he was
mainly cross-checking old information, and adding to his knowledge on Indian
medicine and healing herbs (Karsten 1953). Conditions for doing fieldwork
in South America were always quite troublesome and connected with
hardship and danger, as already Nordenskiöld had noted. Before long, Karsten
faced both infections and the danger of starvation (GEM RF/EN 5/8/17).
In addition to the non-existence of roads, terrible floods, insects,
difficulties in carrying supplies, etc., one has to understand that
most parts of South America in that period were outlaw country.
Everywhere, the lone anthropologist was taking the risk of being killed, either
by hostile Indians or by white bandits. In fact, a companion of
Nordenskiöld was murdered during his expe- dition in 1913-14. No such
grave incident occured this time, but indeed a bag containing field- notes
and photos was stolen (GEM RF/EN 9/15/18). As Nordenskiöld previously had
experienced, Karsten felt that the presence of a white man in an
Indian village was met with sus- picion. Pressing the Jivaro's "invitation"
as much as possible, one was able to stay a little more than a week at the
same place. Any occurrence of sickness or grave accident was surely to be
blamed on the outsider.
Karsten managed to turn this problem
into his own advantage by moving from one group of families to another, thus
gaining the opportunity to crosscheck every piece of information he had
gathered. Furthermore, the Indians were seldom as relaxed and outspoken as when
they were sitting in the canoe or having a rest at a temporary camp.
"Even when travelling I had thus good opportunity of studying Indian
psychology and of making inquiries concerning native customs and beliefs"
(Karsten 1935:17). From letters and journals we are able to follow his extensive
trav- els throughout the interior parts of Equador, starting in
August 1916 and continuing until August 1919. Of course, being constantly on
the move, over widespread areas in a tropical forest, meant
incredible hardships.
Page
6
The linking of Bronislaw
Malinowski with Rafael Karsten does not only spring from the fact that they
were making fieldwork simultaneously - they also shared a theorethical
and methodological background in Edward Westermarck's school of
sociology. Stocking (1987), as well as Kuper (1989) outlines Durkheim's and
Westermarck's theoretical influence on Malinowski. Thornton & Skalnik
take this somewhat further by crediting the Finnish Sociological School with
"improve- ment of the method as well as an extension of the point of view"
(1993:259). On the other hand, Ragnar Numelin claims that the gatherings of
Westermarck, Karsten, Landtman and Malinowski in the reading room of
the British Library meant a great deal more. He labels Karsten as well as
Malinowski as "Westermarck's pupils" (Numelin 1941:280). From a Finnish
point of view, it were Westermarck's ethno-sociological studies in
Morocco - spread over ten years and lasting for con- siderable periods -
that set a new standard for fieldwork. Although Karsten later
criticized some of the fundamental conceptions in Westermarck's
"sociology of marriage", he clearly expressed his methodological
indebtedness. As a matter of fact, Westermarck, and not Haddon, is in the
Finnish tradition credited for the device of "intensive studies of limited
areas".
Rafael Karsten made himself acquainted with
fieldwork practice by going to Bolivia in 1911, an expedition
lasting for almost two years (although actual fieldwork seems to have
been of a much lesser period). During this initiation in
fieldwork, he was in close contact with Erland
Nordenskiöld, who considered Karsten's work in Gran Chaco a
continuation of his own. An excited Nordenskiöld pointed out that we at last
have a trained sociologist going to South Amer- ica. And indeed, Karsten's
work, The Toba Indians of the Bolivian Gran Chaco, became different
from that of Nordenskiöld's, with its emphasis on social life, religious
beliefs, concepts of the soul, etc. As a collegue of mine has remarked,
Nordenskiöld was the great collector of ethno- graphical data, while Karsten
turned out to be a keen interpretor of such data. A few years later,
Nordenskiöld once more took a stand for Karsten's fieldwork - this
time by giving him financial support. It was the beginning of his studies on
Jivaroan culture, a task that stayed with him for the rest of his life.
The Jivaro, or actually the four more or less autonomous and
distinct cultures of Shuar (Jivaro proper), Achuar, Aguaruna and Huambiza,
occupies an area stretching from the lower eastern slopes of the Andes to
the Amazonian lowlands (i.e. northern Peru and southeastern Ecua- dor). When
Karsten arrived to the field in the summer of 1916, he had a clear vision
of the work to be done. First of all, the aim of his studies was to
encompass and get close contact with all the known groups belonging to the
Jivaroan linguistic stock, including those groups who have had very hostile
feelings towards white men. Establishing a base camp at the outskirt of a
settled area, he made expeditions into the deeps of the tropical forest for
some four or five months, returning to base for a week or two, then getting
out in the field again (GEM RF/EN 1/19/16). In addition, his
Page
7
aim was to study the social organization
together with customs and beliefs (Karsten 1935:18). "...I do not aim at
giving merely a purely descriptive 'ethnographical' account of the customs of
the Indians but am endeavouring, as far as possible, to get to the bottom of
these customs - in other words, to explain the primitive line of
thought upon which they are based" (1964:9). In his theo- retical
evolutionary framework, primitive beliefs were deeply connected with social
structure. Due to his contract with Nordenskiöld and the Museum of
Gothenburg, he also had to make eth- nographical collections.
"I started learning the Jibaro language from the very beginning," he wrote.
It was obvious to him that any thorough study of a foreign culture demanded
knowledge of the language (1935:17). Although his presense sometimes was
regarded with suspicion, he found the Jivaro "...as a rule excellent
informants, very willing to tell almost everything I asked them about, and
accurate even in small details" (ibid:17). As informants he usually
chose eldery persons, both men and women. However, he considered direct
observation more important than the information he gathered from informants,
especially since he was trying to penetrate all the imaginary stories sur-
rounding the head-hunting practices of the Jivaro. "Although I have been
present at the most important feasts of the Jibaros and know much from
personal experience, there are still of course certain customs which I have
not witnessed with my own eyes but only know through the accounts of the
Indians. In such cases I always tried to verify the statements of one
informant by those made independently by another..." (ibid:17).
Including his return to Ecuador in 1928-1929, Karsten spent four
years in western Amazo- nas, three of them in "close contact"
with the Jivaro groups. His first major monograph appeared in 1920 -
Blodshämnd, krig och segerfester bland jibaroindianerna i östra Ecuador,
which in a more concentrated form was translated into "Blood Revenge,
War and Victory Feasts among the Jibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador" and
published as bulletin 79 by the Bureau of American Eth- nology. Other
scientific reports included "Mitos de los Indios Jíbaros (Shuará) del Oriente
del Ecuador" (1919), "La lengua de los Indios Jibaros del Oriente del
Ecuador" (1921), and "The Religion of the Jibaro Indians of eastern Ecuador"
(1922). For a larger audience, Karsten pre- sented his South American
experiences inBland indianer i Ecuadors urskogar (1920) and
Huvudjägare och soldyrkare (1929). Some of his Jivaro material did
also appear in his major work on primitive religion, The
Civilization of the South-American Indians With Special Refer- ence
to Magic and Religion (1926), making a case against the theories of
animatism (R. R. Marett) and pre-animism (K. Th. Preuss).
The
magnum opus of Karsten's writings, at least in the field of anthropology,
is The Head-hunters of Western Amazonas, which was published in
1935. It was the first throrough study of the Jivaroan tribes, and indeed,
it was also among the most complete monographs ever presented in
Page
8
the field of South American anthropology.
Karsten himself did realize that his participation in the tsantsa
festival opened a whole new way to understand Jivaro society. In a
letter from the field, he confessed that the given opportunity was a strike
of pure luck - on the other hand, participation demanded that he subjected
himself to the drinking habits of the natives. The festival lasted for two
weeks with only few intervals for resting the body (GEM RF/EN 5/8/17).
Although covering most aspects of the every-day life of the
Jivaro, including social and political organization, hunting, trade,
agriculture, material culture and language, most of Karsten's writings
centers around their head-hunting practices. No doubt, he found this form of
ritual war- fare so central in their universe that it affected every
aspect of their life-way. It was manifested in intra-tribal as well
as inter-tribal wars, and had resulted in blood feuds that were
continually reproduced. Every single stage of the warfare procedure was
ritually manifested. It started with Enéma - a dialogue between two
warriors carried out with body and spear. The raid itself could be carried
out by a larger group or a single man looking for blood revenge. The aim was
killing of the enemy and the cutting of his head. Back in the
village, a successful raid was followed by purifica- tion rites -
numbuimartinyu - and the shrinking of the head, or tsantsa. Eventually,
the circle was closed with the large tsantsa-feast, divided into
suamartinyu (preliminary feast) and einsupani (the final
feast), altogether lasting four days and nights. Besides outlining a very
complex cosmol- ogy, Karsten did his best to arrive at a more pragmatic
explanation. In addition to religious and moral questions, he found
that the Jivaro were trying to uphold an extreme form of social liberty.
Central was their conception of the human soul, as well as the notion of
certain kinds of illnesses as the result of witchcraft. As Malinowski
pointed out with regard to primitive societies in gen- eral, Jivaro
warfare was not chaotic and freakish. The only way to prevent an enemy from
harm- ing you was to capture his soul - a power that was concentrated to his
head and hair. With his shrinked head hanging on the breast, the Jivaro
brave had captured the soul and ritually secured the existence of his own
group.
Page
9
One must ask why Rafael Karsten failed to
establish himself as one of those who really have con- tributed to the
methodological aspect of our science. The answer if of course complex, but at
least three factors must be taken into consideration. First, Karsten did not
promote his fieldwork in the same way as Malinowski. Secondly,
we must pay attention to institutional circumstances. Last, but not least,
Karsten managed to make himself known as a harsh opponent in theoretical
disputes due to his, sometimes really severe, criticism of colleagues.
Problematical were also the evolu- tionary principles that directed his
research. It is important, however, not to regard Karsten as obviously
peripheral - throughout his life he participated in the international
debate. The vol- umeous correspondence to scholars in Britain,
Germany, United States, France and elsewhere is a lasting proof for such a
claim.
It is, however, difficult to treat these circumstances
separately, as they constantly tend to overlap each other. We may start with
the most outstanding characteristics in the personality of Rafael
Karsten: honesty, outspokenness and temper. His daughter, Eva Karsten, admits
that he could never hide his feelings: if he liked somebody he told him or
her so, and if he disliked some- body he also put it forward in a
straight way. His way of making such statements, often connected with an
aggressive vocabulary, offended a number of his contemporary colleagues. As
Ragnar Numelin points out, he was treating his scientific opponents harshly,
but only because he demanded the same carefulness of others as he himself
displayed (Numelin 1958:14). In addition he held a quite simplistic
view of the absolute objectivity of science: "...its only aim is scientific
truth" (Karsten 1954:32). In practice, this meant that he did not
in any way promote his own work. He did not come up with some
new and colourful expression like grasp the natives point of view,
but hold on to Haddon's (or Westermarck's) old phrase, the intensive
studies of limited areas.
Karsten respected the writings of
Malinowski as a "couple of good monographs" (Karsten 1945:166), but he could
not understand his promotion strategies. All this talk about capturing a
situation, he wrote, is just a method that is self-evident for every trained
field-researcher. He felt that Malinowski's way of putting the title
Sexual Life of the Savages on the cover, and first in the
front-page admit that it was actually the sexual life of those savages
living North-Western Melanesia, was a dubious way of mispresenting the
facts. As a matter of fact, he considered it a grave misuse of the
methodological norms that Malinowski was claiming reputation for. At a
meeting in London, Karsten asked Malinowski why he had used such a
misleading title. With his gentle smile Malinowski replied that one has to
secure a selling title (Karsten 1946:368). We must indeed refute this
"mania" of generalization, so common in the field of sociology, Karsten
insisted
Page
10
in his historical outline of the
discipline (1945:167).
As Malinowski was doing everything right
in order to establish his reputation, Karsten was heading in the
opposite direction. He got involved in a number of unnecessary polemical
debates with Nordenskiöld, Wassén, Rivet, Koppers, Heyerdahl, and others.
In addition, he managed to stir up hostile feelings at home as well.
Karsten retired from the University of Helsinki in 1948 (Runeberg
1976:60). Two years before his death an old and bitter Karsten sharpened his pen
once more - this time in order to save his own work. In the major
reference work Handbook of South American Indians, edited by Julian H.
Steward and published as a bulletin of Bureau of American Ethnology, he
considered his Jivaro studies as either ignored or made the subject of
unjustified criticism. "In the beginning of this century, or until I
started my own studies of these Indians, the Jibaros were one of the most
unknown tribes of western Amazonas," Karsten wrote (ibid:7). "As the first and
only white man I have, during the 400 years that the Jibaros have been known,
been present at their famous victory feast (Einsupani) from the beginning
to the end, studying the countless rites connected with it in every
detail....The undertaking...was not without danger...it nearly cost my life"
(ibid:14). Regarding the studies of Matthew Stirling, Karsten blamed them for
being extremely superficial - this authority of the Jivaro tribes had acquired
no knowledge whatever of the language spoken by the Indians (ibid:10). Karsten
went as far as comparing a part of Stirling's discussion on shamanism with
his own text - indirectly accusing the latter of copying his text. "No reference
is made to my work and there is no indication whatever that Stirling's...[text]
is almost word for word borrowed from it" (ibid:25). He was, of course, also
disappointed as Alfred Kroeber ignored his studies in the chapters
relating to the Argentine and Bolivian Chaco. "I stayed in this region
nearly two years (1911-1913) devoting particularly attention to social
organization and religion of the natives" (ibid:5).
Returning to
the institutional factors involved in the remarkable success of
Malinowski in comparison with Karsten, we face a situation that can
be parallelled to a centre-periphery struc- ture. The field of anthropology
was institutionalized in the university curriculum in Great
Britain - it even had a famous tradition with Tylor and Frazer. In
the international hierarchy of universi- ties, the Scandinavian institutions
were not to be counted among the foremost. The institutional factors do, of
course, also include means for securing financial support, anthropological
associa- tions, journals, etc. Malinowski was not only located in one
of the university centers of Europe, he was also in the middle of the
anthropological field. On the other hand, Karsten as well as Norden- skiöld,
faced severe difficulties when trying to gain local recognition for their
ethnographical studies as symbolic knowledge. Nordenskiöld, who secured his
field of work within museums, did not obtain a university position until he
had become internationally famous. Meeting the same kind of problems,
Karsten struggled to expand the borders of Finnish sociology (sometimes by
labelling his work ethno-sociology, etc.). While the formation of university
disciplines in the
Page
11
periphery sector frequently did seek
inspiration from London, Paris and Berlin, the reverse was seldom the case.
Of course, these relations of power did also contribute to the fact that the
scien- tific reports from Scandinavian universities did not really enter the
international arena. In his remarks regarding Handbook of South
American Indians, Karsten criticized the tendency to ignore sources of
peripheral origin: "...I have remarked that several important publications of
mine and the result of my investigations have been ignored in the
handbook...The tendency, appearing not only in the U.S.A. but also
elsewhere, to mention, in anthropological works, prefer- ably
publications of own country-men and to ignore works of 'outsiders', independent
of their sci- entific value, is to be severe censured. Science is
international, its only aim is scientific truth. The nationality of the
author is of no importance" (ibid:31-32). The immanent structure of power was
immediately striking back - even before his criticism had been published.
Several scholars in the Finnish Academy of Science, deeply concerned
with what they perceived as an offense against the Smithsonian Institution,
did their best to prevent "Some critical remarks on Ethnological
Field-research in South America" from ever reaching the press.
Karsten's replied by turning in his resignation from the society on
October 5th, 1954 (manuscript 1954).
Finally, we have the obvious
factor of the ambition to secure the continuation of one's sci- entific
contribution - the establishment of a 'school'. Here Malinowski succeded, while
Karsten once more failed. "The medium of transmission for Malinowski's
fieldwork practice was his LSE seminar, which began in
1924. Here the reading aloud of Malinowski's writing projects, as well as
his pontifications on methods and fieldnote analysis, set standards his
students would attempt to meet, and surpass" (Sanjek 1990:232). Malinowski
was followed by E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Ray- mon Firth, Gregory Bateson,
Edmund Leach, and others....
A number of daring researchers has
been totaly overshadowed by the greatness of men like Bronislaw
Malinowski - scholars that deserves an important place in the history of
our disci- pline. Rafael Karsten is only one of many. *****
Sources
Page
12
Harris, M. 1968The Rise of
Anthropological Theory. Harper Collins Publishers. New York.
Karsten, R. 1919"Mitos de los Indios Jíbaros (Shuará) del
Oriente del Ecuador." Edición especial del No 6 del Boletin de la
Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Históricos Americanos.
1920a Bland indianer i Ekvadors urskogar. Del 1.
Söderström & Co förlagsaktiebolag. Helsingfors.
1920b
Blodshämnd, krig och segerfester bland Jibaroindianerna i östra
Ecuador. Holger Schildts förlagsaktiebolag. Helsingfors.
1920c "Contributions to the Sociology of the Indian Tribes of Ecuador. Three
Essays." Acta Academiae Aboensis. Åbo.
1921"La lengua
de los Indios Jibaros del Oriente del Ecuador." Översikt av Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Förhandlingar, LXIV, Avd. B, No 2.
1922 "The Religion of the Jibaro Indians of Eastern Ecuador." Boletin de
la Aca- demia Nacional de Historia, Vol IV, Nums 10 y 11.
1923"Blood Revenge, War and Victory Feast among the Jibaro
Indians of Eastern Ecuador." Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin
79. Washington.
1926 The Civilization of the South-American
Indians. With Special Reference to Magic and Religion. Kegan
Paul. London.
1929 Huvudjägare och soldyrkare. Cederström
& Co. Helsingfors.
1935 The Head-Hunters of Western
Amazonas: The Life and Culture of the Jibaro Indians of Eastern
Ecuador and Peru. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Helsinfors .
Page
13
1945 Grunddragen av sociologiens
historia. Lovisa. Helsingfors.
1953"Nio års etnologiska
fältforskningar i Sydamerika". Nordenskiöld-SamfundetsTidskrift.
1954 "Some critical remarks on Ethnological Field-research in
South America". Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum
Litterarum. Vol XIX, No 5.
Karsten-Sveander, M. 1993
"Rafael Karsten (1879-1956)". InAntropologiska porträtt, edited
by Christer Lindberg. Studentlitteratur. Lund.
Kuper, A. 1989
Anthropology and Anthropologists. Routledge. London & New
York.
Malinowski, B. 1922 Argonauts of the Western
Pacific. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd. London.
1929 The
Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia. Routledge &
Kegan Paul, Ltd. London.
Numelin, R. 1958"Rafael Karsten:
Minnestal hållet vid Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens möte den 16 december
1957". Societas Scientiarum Fennica: Årsbok-Vuosikirja. Vol XXXIII.
Runeberg, A. 1976"På spaning efter den tid som flytt".
Finlands Antropologi, Vol 2.
Sanjek, R. 1990"The
Secret Life of Fieldnotes". InFieldnotes: The Making of
Anthropology, edited by Roger Sanjek. Cornell University Press. Ithaca
& London.
Page
14
Stocking, G.W. 1983"The
Ethnographer's Magic: Fieldwork in British Anthropology from Tylor
to Malinowski". InObservers Observed: Essays on Ethnographic
Fieldwork, edited by George W. Stocking, Jr. The University of
Wisconsin Press. Madison & London 1983.
1987 Victorian
Anthropology. The Free Press. New York & London.
Thornton, R. J. & Skalník, P. (eds) 1993 The early writings of
Bronislaw Malinowski. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Manuscript Sources GEM Göteborgs Etnografiska
Museum, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Karsten, R. "Till Finska
Vetenskaps-Societeten, 1954." Copy of letter. Private collection: Eva
Karsten.