Jones Ross L, Anderson Warwick
*Department of History,University of Sydney,SOPHI, Quadrangle A14, Sydney, NSW 2006,Australia. Emails:
Br J Hist Sci. 2015 Mar;48(1):1-16. doi: 10.1017/S0007087413000939.
While the British Empire conventionally is recognized as a source of research subjects and objects in anthropology, and a site where anthropological expertise might inform public administration, the settler-colonial affiliations and experiences of many leading physical anthropologists could also directly shape theories of human variation, both physical and cultural. Antipodean anthropologists like Grafton Elliot Smith were pre-adapted to diffusionist models that explained cultural achievement in terms of the migration, contact and mixing of peoples. Trained in comparative methods, these fractious cosmopolitans also favoured a dynamic human biology, often emphasizing the heterogeneity and environmental plasticity of body form and function, and viewing fixed, static racial typologies and hierarchies sceptically. By following leading representatives of empire anatomy and physical anthropology, such as Elliot Smith and Frederic Wood Jones, around the globe, it is possible to recover the colonial entanglements and biases of interwar British anthropology, moving beyond a simple inventory of imperial sources, and crediting human biology and social anthropology not just as colonial sciences but as the sciences of itinerant colonials.
虽然大英帝国传统上被认为是人类学研究对象和客体的一个来源，以及一个人类学专业知识可能为公共管理提供信息的场所，但许多杰出体质人类学家的定居者殖民关系和经历也可能直接塑造人类变异的理论，包括身体和文化方面的变异。像格拉夫顿·艾略特·史密斯这样的澳大拉西亚人类学家预先适应了传播主义模型，该模型从民族的迁移、接触和混合角度解释文化成就。这些脾气暴躁的世界主义者接受过比较方法的训练，也倾向于一种动态的人类生物学，常常强调身体形态和功能的异质性和环境可塑性，并对固定、静态的种族类型学和等级制度持怀疑态度。通过追踪帝国解剖学和体质人类学的主要代表人物，如艾略特·史密斯和弗雷德里克·伍德·琼斯，在全球范围内的活动，可以揭示两次世界大战之间英国人类学的殖民纠葛和偏见，超越对帝国资料的简单罗列，并认识到人类生物学和社会人类学不仅是殖民科学，而且是流动殖民者的科学。
