Vib an .19
e19605
h p://doi.o g/10.1590/1809-43412022 19e605
A icle
An h opology’s Ances o s:
A e iew essay on a new Be ghahn collec ion
João Pina-Cab al
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa, Po ugal
Abs ac
An h opological his o y is oday a g ow h a ea. This essay e iews he new collec ion An h opology’s Ances o s
ha Aleksanda Bosko ic is edi ing a Be ghahn. The h ee sho books he has published so a a e e y engaging
in ellec ual his o ies o h ee an h opologis s o he pas who ha e ecen ly ecei ed inc eased c i ical a en ion
and whose legacy ce ainly dese es i : Robe son Smi h, Ma ga e Mead and F ançoise Hé i ie .
Keywo ds: Sac i ice; gende ; blood; embodimen ; Ma ga e Mead; Robe son Smi h; F ançoise Hé i ie .
1
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
An epassados da An opologia:
Uma ecensão da no a coleção da Be ghahn
Resumo
A his ó ia da an opologia é uma á ea em c escimen o ápido. Es e a igo discu e a coleção An h opology’s
Ances o s que Aleksanda Bosko ic em indo a di igi na edi o a Be ghahn. Os ês cu os li os que saí am
a é hoje são his ó ias in elec uais de ês dos an opólogos do passado cujo legado em indo ecen emen e a
ecebe me ecida a enção c í ica: Robe son Smi h, Ma ga e Mead e F ançoise Hé i ie .
Pala as-Cha e: Sac i ício; géne o; sangue; embodimen ; Ma ga e Mead; Robe son Smi h; F ançoise Hé i ie .
2
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
An h opology’s Ances o s:
A e iew essay on a new Be ghahn collec ion
João Pina-Cab al
A busy his o y
The his o y o an h opology has ne e been as busy as o e he pas ew yea s. The w i ing and esea ching
o i seems o be unde going a momen o e e escence igh ac oss he globe. Jus as an h opology dis ances
i sel heo e ically om he majo in e p e i e amewo ks ha cons i u ed he undispu ed backg ound
assump ions o a cen u y, i seems ha an h opologis s a e called o e- ead in a new ligh he discipline’s
pas insigh s. As i happens, some o he mo e pe sis en misin e p e a ions o ou ecen pas a e calling
loudly o be e-examined (e.g. on pa icipan obse a ion, see Pina-Cab al 2023). The hing is: ou ances o s
emain wi h us in new ways, jus as we dis ance ou sel es om hem.
E e yday ano he in e es ing explo a ion comes ou in one o ou disciplina y jou nals (some, such
as His o y & An h opology, An h opological Theo y, o HAU, o ci e only h ee, ha e published consis en ly
inno a i e con ibu ions in his line). A he same ime, some o he ecen e-p esen a ions o classical wo ks
will undoub edly s ay in he coming u u e as commonly acknowledged e e ences. I ha e in mind wo ks
like Do o hy Zinn’s ansla ion o E nes o de Ma ino’s Magic: A Theo y om he Sou h (2015), Jane Guye ’s
e- ansla ion o Mauss’ essay on he gi (2016), o Sh yack and Da Col’s omnibus o Pi -Ri e s’s essays (2017).
As i happens, B azilian an h opology is no s ange o disciplina y his o y—in ac , i was decidedly a
o e unne o he gen e. Má cio Goldman’s book on Lé y-B uhl (2019 [1994]), Lygia Sigaud’s essays on Leach and
Mauss (1996, 1999, 2007), Eunice Du ham’s essay on Malinowski (in 2004), Ma iza Pei ano’s Uma An opologia no
Plu al (1992), and o cou se he monog aph on he school o Nina Rod igues by Ma iza Co êa (2013 [1998])— hese
a e su ely among some o he mo e mas e ul examples anywhe e. Some o you, I am su e, will conside ha I
am being un ai in ha ing le so many o he pe ec ly good examples ou o my lis o p e e ences. I apologize
in ad ance o ha ; only ha hese we e he ones ha ma ked mo e s ongly my passage h ough B azil and
he way i changed my iew o an h opology.
A pa icula ly in e es ing ea u e o ecen publica ions on he his o y o an h opology has been he
eme gence o a new s yle o sho book ha combines he biog aphical essay wi h a heo e ical e-assessmen
o he chosen au ho ’s con ibu ion. These cons i u e g ea aids o eaching and hinking. I am eminded o
essays such as Sally Cole’s biog aphy o Ru h Landes (2003), Vi ginia Ke n’s essay on Julian S ewa d (2010),
Séan Mo ow’s li e o Monica Wilson (2016) and he collec ion o essays he Bank b o he s dedica ed o he
(2013), Julia Blackbu n’s ascina ing essay on Daisy Ba es in he Aus alian dese (1994), o Robe Go don’s
b illian se ing in his o ical con ex o Gluckman’s li e and ideas (2018). Again, many mo e migh ha e been
named, bu as a as I am conce ned all o hese ha e helped me signi ican ly in eaching e hnog aphic heo y
o e he pas decade.
Many o hese books will, I am su e, emain wi h us in he long un, as hey no only b ing o ligh a
pa icula au ho whose ame migh o he wise ha e waned among con empo a y p ac i ione s, bu hey
p o ide impo an analy ical con inui ies a a ime when we a e expe iencing majo shi s in analy ical ends.
This b ings o ligh a cu ious aspec o hese i s wo decades o ou new cen u y: we seem o ha e m0 ed
om ejec ion o e o mula ion; om a pos -some hing momen o a neo-some hing momen . As an example,
see he ascina ing neo-s uc u alis ends ha a e eme ging ou o he inspi a ion o quan um mechanics
(e.g. Ba ad 2007) o complexi y heo y (e.g. Dal on 2021).
3
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
A passing canon
A scien i ic discipline is a space o collec i e encoun e —a mul is anded, ne e uni ied, always-con lic ual
ago a. In ha sense, he e a e no new disciplines bu only new disciplina y de elopmen s; we all si on he
shoulde s o hose who p eceded us. Thus, no one who comes anew o a ield o scien i ic enqui y can escape
ha ing o deal wi h a canon— ha is, a se o accep ed e e ences by ela ion o which hey ame hei ques ions.
Ye , he e a e no e e nal canons—all canons a e passing canons, in he sense ha Donald Da idson had in mind
when he said ha all p io heo ies a e passing heo ies (2005 [1986]: 86-109).
One o he mo e insidious o ms o e hnocen ism is ch onocen ism: he naï e belie ha ou p esen
wisdom has supe seded he wisdom o hose whose li es un olded in imes be o e one’s own. Any well-heeled
p ac i ione o any scien i ic discipline will con i m ha he challenges ha we ace oday a e no all ha
dis an om hose aced by ou colleagues in he pas . Ou canon, he e o e, should always be open bo h o he
u u e—in he sense o being conce ned wi h wha ou con empo a ies a e p oposing all a ound us—as well
as o he pas —in he sense o including he sa an s o bygone ages. This means ha , much as we ine i ably
dialogue wi h he canon o he eache s who inspi ed us, each one o us is ul ima ely esponsible o he choice
o hei own canon.
In he case o e hnog aphic esea che s, ou e y ieldwo k explo a ions yield p o ound changes in ou
analy ical canon—as was he case wi h my ieldwo ks in Macau i s and hen in Bahia. Whe he we a e Se bian,
Po uguese, Russian o B azilian; male, emale o o he ; igh wing, le wing o o he ; whi e, black o o he …
wha e e we a e, when we choose hose who inspi e ou w i ing as an h opologis s i is ou esponsibili y o be
inspi ed by he ‘bes ’: hose whom we judge o be he mo e us wo hy, he mo e c ea i e, he mo e insigh ul
hinke s. Science—and an h opology e en mo e—is a uni e salis en e p ise; one om which no one who can
en e he deba e can be excluded. I say his whils knowing ully well ha we do no only choose ou ances o s
because o he analy ical and empi ical pe spicaci y o hei wo k, bu also because he pe spec i es hey
de eloped echo wi h ou own in e es s. Fu he mo e, whe e we a e and wha is happening a ound us ma e s
o how we choose o app oach he human condi ion b oadly concei ed—di e en local adi ions necessa ily
yielding di e en canons. Ye , beyond ha , no an h opologis can a o d o bypass he mo e c ea i e wo k
o any o he an h opologis , whe e e ha was p oduced. This is why he his o y o an h opology is such a
cen al conce n o an h opology— he imes in which we could alsely p e end ha ‘an h opology is a young
discipline’ a e long o e . None o us has he igh o can a o d he luxu y o o ge ing ou canon, e en as i
passes on, and we successi ely ed aw i . Tha is he beau y o he bes wo k on he his o y o an h opology
ha is being done oday.
In wha ollows, I will e e in pa icula o h ee li le books—each one o hem a long essay ocusing
on an an h opologis o he pas whose wo k amply dese es ou conside a ion oday. They a e pa o a new
collec ion called An h opology’s Ances o s’ ha Aleksanda Bosko ič is edi ing o Be ghahn. E en as i is s a ing,
he collec ion al eady p omises o be an inspi a ion o young people who, newly coming o an h opology,
wan o know wha he discipline is all abou . As a doo o en y in o an h opology, hese pe sonalized essays,
whe e an au ho ’s li e and wo k a e de eloped succinc ly bu wi h su icien b ea h o make hem jus ice, a e
a be e and much mo e inspi ing han ye ano he bo ing (and soon o e eal i sel ou o da e) “In oduc ion
o An h opology” o ano he compendious “His o y o An h opology” (o wo se s ill, o he an h opology-o -
his-o - ha ). The wo se hing one can do o a young beginne is o make hem ead one o hose simpli ied and
mo e o en han no biased o e iews o he discipline, o which he e a e so many. Expe ience shows ha i
is a be e o s uden s o become well acquain ed wi h one o wo o he pas lumina ies o ou discipline,
whils us ing ha a be e g asp o he discipline’s b oade his o y will come in ime.
4
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
Aleksande Bosko ič is a Se bian (Sco ish- ained) an h opologis who has wo ked and ca ied ou esea ch
in Sou h A ica and B azil, ha ing been inspi ed, among o he s, by Ma iza Pei ano’s pionee ing wo k on he
his o y o an h opology (see his edi ed olume O he People’s An h opology, 2008). The h ee olumes ha ha e
come o ligh so a co e h ee dis inc pe iods o he discipline: William Robe son Smi h was an all ounded
schola o he Belle Époque who wo ked on i ual and eligion; Ma ga e Mead was pe haps he mos media-
sa y an h opologis e e , who wo ked a mid- wen ie h cen u y; and F ançoise Hé i ie was he p incipal
successo o Lé i-S auss in Pa is, and an an h opologis whose b ea h o esea ch and b illian analy ical skills
ha e no ye been ully app ecia ed. Bosko ič s a s his collec ion wi h a choice o some o he e y bes , and
he essays a e w i en by au ho s who s udied hem p o oundly and deeply espec hei legacy. Fu he mo e,
o s a o wi h, Bosko ič had he wisdom o a oiding he mo e consensual cases, which means ha he e is
no el y in wha we a e being o e ed.
Ma ga e Mead
The book on Mead is w i en by Paul Shankman, a espec ed Ame ican specialis on Paci ic Island cul u es.
The book is an o e iew o he and he wo k om ea ly on in he 1920s, when she s udied wi h Ru h Benedic and
F anz Boas in New Yo k, o he inal days as a media igu e in he la e 1970s. The s o y ha Shankman ecoun s
is uly ascina ing: Mead was one o hose people whose pe sonal li e was qui e as exci ing, and a imes
e en mo e, han he w i en wo k. In ac , ecen ly his has been highligh ed by Lily King’s no el—Eupho ia
2015—whe e he au ho ec ea es he oubled pe iod du ing ieldwo k in Papua New Guinea when Mead b oke
wi h Leo Fo une o s a a ela ionship wi h G ego y Ba eson ha ma ked he his o y o an h opology. F om
he la e 1920s, when ou colleagues we e en husias ically esponding o he Malinowskian e o ms, o he
ea ly 1960s, Mead was always in he o e on o de elopmen s, always p oducing c ea i e, oluminous, and
engaged esea ch. In ac , he explo a o y wa - ime wo k ‘a a dis ance’ has acqui ed inc eased me hodological
ele ance oday, du ing hese ou Co id-haun ed days.
Bu Shankman does no inish he e. Soon a e he dea h, Mead’s legacy ound i sel in ol ed in a
qui e spu ious a ack mo ed by an Aus alian colleague, who managed o ap on o he so o p ejudiced
slande ha he mass media and ou less sc upulous colleagues enjoy. In a sho , bu decisi e inal chap e ,
Shankman lays he ma e o es : he c i iques we e mos ly un ounded and, o e all, based on a dishones
manipula ion o sou ces.
Despi e some ob ious weaknesses, Mead’s wo k con inues o be inspi a ional oday. Shankman eminds
us ha she was indeed p one o oman icise he desc ip ions, and ha she was no always as analy ically
igo ous as she migh ha e been. In pa icula , in he 1970s, du ing he las decade o he e y long and ac i e
li e, he discipline was unde going majo changes no unlike oday; he consensus o he pos -Wa pe iod
suddenly anished in ace o he p oblems b ough o he discipline by a new gene a ion. By hen, Mead no
longe seemed able o espond c ea i ely o he new challenges posed by he gene a ion o people (such as
Ma shal Sahlins) who came ou o he s uden up isings.
Pe sonally, I me he in 1976, in a si ua ion ha I did no enjoy. I was a g adua e s uden in Johannesbu g,
Sou h A ica. A he ime, he ANC, which was he main o ganiza ion igh ing apa heid, had decla ed an
academic boyco o Sou h A ica. Re ospec i ely, I mus admi ha his boyco was p obably one o hei
leas o una e policy decisions. I s u u e implica ions, in e ms o he des uc ion o he p e iously li ely
academic li e o he coun y, a e s ill being el oday. Ye , o us ha hea d Mead speak hen in Johannesbu g,
leaning on he p ophe ’s o ked s a , he dis ega d o he boyco and, wo se s ill, he a ogan pos u e as
someone who claimed o ha e a solu ion o wha su ely was one o he mo e complex poli ical challenges o
con empo a y his o y, le us decidedly unde whelmed.
5

João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
The eade may ask, he e o e, why should we oday choose o include Mead in ou canon. Shankman’s
c i ical bu espec ul o e iew o he ca ee lea es no doub s abou ha : she was ce ainly one o he mo e
c ea i e and p oli ic hinke s a mid-cen u y, and e en al hough she was no a decla ed eminis and she did
no ye use he dis inc ion be ween sex and gende , she was ce ainly a igu e abou whom anyone s udying
gende and pe sonhood oday is ine i ably d awn. Mo eo e , in he la e 1930s, du ing he yea s o collabo a ion
wi h G ego y Ba eson, she became a pionee in wha a e oday majo ields o an h opological esea ch, using
audio- isual ma e ial o explo e embodimen , gende , and senso y ela ions in a uly pionee ing ashion.
A heologian’s an h opological legacy
Bosko ič himsel au ho s he second book in he collec ion. I is a s udy o William Robe son Smi h
(1846-1894), one he p incipal B i ish schola s a he end o he nine een h cen u y— uly, an in ellec ual
gian . He was no p ope ly speaking an an h opologis , since his was a pe iod ha p eceded he mode nis
de ini ion o sociocul u al an h opology as a discipline ha we ake o g an ed oday. Robe son Smi h
s a ed his p o essional li e as a pas o in he F ee Chu ch o Sco land. La e , he became one o he g ea es
specialis s ha e e exis ed on he Old Tes amen and, mo e b oadly, i s ela ions wi h Semi ic socie ies.
Ha ing ca ied ou ac ual ield esea ch in he Middle Eas , Robe son Smi h inished his days as a P o esso
in Camb idge, whe e he became wo ld amous o his wo k as edi o o he Encyclopaedia B i annica, a job o
which a emendous amoun o schola ly accomplishmen was equi ed. He e we ha e an ‘ances o ’ who did
no concei e o himsel p ima ily as an an h opologis and whose wo k mo es way beyond ou discipline
in e ms o i s ele ance, bu who is ne e heless a cen al componen o he canon o mos p o essional
an h opologis s oday.
He was i ed om his i s pos in he F ee Chu ch Semina y a Abe deen a e leng hy judicial p oceedings
du ing which his a ionalis and c i ical app oach o he Bible’s his o y was judged o be dele e ious o he
ai h o his s uden s. E en ually, as a P o esso in Camb idge, his impo ance became gene ally consensual.
Hal a cen u y a e his ea ly dea h, howe e , a a ime when an h opology was mo ed by mo e ela i is and
synch onicis app oaches, his a ionalis exegesis o Biblical ex s came o be que ied by some o an h opology’s
p incipal hinke s. E ans-P i cha d, in pa icula , in his 1959 Aquinas Lec u e, explici ly c i icizes he in luence
ha Biblical c i icism had on he ounding o mode n an h opology (accusing Robe son Smi h o being
mo ed by ‘posi i ism’ and ‘agnos icism’, which he poin edly lumps oge he —E ans-P i cha d 1963). In his
lec u es on he his o y o an h opology, he u he c i icizes Robe son Smi h’s heo ies (1981). As a descen
heo is , E ans-P i cha d saw he clan, o ganized acco ding o a s ic s uc u e o pa ilineal segmen a ion,
as he ounding elemen o Semi ic socie ies. Fo him, he ea lie schola ’s emphasis on blood sha ing and on
ma ila e al ela ions seemed illogical. Fo us, oday, howe e , such Du kheimian ce ain ies no longe seem
o ca y qui e as much con ic ion as hey did in E ans-P i cha d’s days and we a e p one o sympa hize wi h
Robe son Smi h’s insigh s.
Whils Bosko ič dedica es he cen al chap e s o his book o a his o y o an h opological app oaches o
my h, his is p obably no he a ea whe e mos o us oday a e bound o ind inspi a ion in Robe son Smi h’s
wo k. His con ibu ion o he s udy o i ual and, in pa icula , his p o oundly insigh ul app oach o sac i ice
as communion, is he a ea ha any con empo a y e hnog aphe wo king on eligion would be ad ised o e isi .
His wo k on sac i ice was he backd op o Mauss and Hube ’s classical explo a ion o he heme (1981 [1964])
and, subsequen ly, o all he wo k ca ied ou on he opic a mid-cen u y (see Bou dillon and Fo es 1980),
including some now classic wo ks, such as Luc de Heusch’s book on sac i ice in A ica (1986) o Gi a d’s book
(1972) on sac edness and iolence, which so ma ked F eudian deba es, and, inally, o cou se Mau ice Bloch’s
ime-se ing F om Blessing o Violence (1986).
6
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
E en hough, oday, we a e p one o disca d he p imi i is analy ical amewo k ha Robe son Smi h
ook o g an ed, his emphasis on communion ( he sha ing o a common subs ance) no longe seems o us as
un easonable and con a y o logic as i seemed o E ans-P i cha d a mid- wen ie h cen u y. Is he no lu king
in he shadows, we ask ou sel es, when we ead McKim Ma io ’s e olu iona y essay on subs ance-codes
(1976)? In ac , in his ega d, F ançoise Hé i ie ’s la e wo k on kinship and body subs ances opens is as ha
jus i y plainly ou e isi a ion o Robe son Smi h’s ea ly exegesis o Semi ic i ual his o y.
The g ea successo
Gé ald Gailla d is esponsible o he hi d book—a li e his o y o F ançoise Hé i ie (1933-2017). As was
ine i able—bo h because she is ou nea con empo a y and because o he speci ic cha ac e is ics o F ench
in ellec ual li e— he book has a e y dis inc eel om he o he wo. As i happens, o hose who do no
ead F ench, i will p obably u n ou o be a help ul en y in o he mo e ecen his o y o ou discipline in
ha coun y. Gailla d places Hé i ie ’s wo k and ca ee squa ely wi hin he ins i u ional amewo k whe e
i de eloped and by e e ence o a F ench kind o in ellec ual s a dom ha is e y dis inc om he ype o
accolade ha cha ac e izes success in Anglo-Ame ican con ex s.
No wi hs anding, Hé i ie ’s li e ajec o y mi o s signi ican ly ha o Ma ga e Mead: she s a s wi h an
impo an in es men in in ensi e ieldwo k (in he case among he Samo o Bu kina Fasso/Uppe Vol a), hen
she p oduces an impo an heo e ical and compa a i e con ibu ion as a esea che and eache (a he CNRS
and hen he EHESS), and inally dedica es he end o he li e o a deeply engaged ype o public an h opology,
la gely associa ed o he cen e -le spec um and eminis causes. Whils being a woman in a man’s wo ld—
he pic u e in he book’s co e shows he alone in he middle o a ound hi y o he male colleagues a he
p es igious Collège de F ance—she was by no means he i s woman o ma k cen ally F ench an h opology.
In ac , in he beginning o he academic li e, she was inspi ed by one o Mauss’ mos dis inguished s uden s,
Ge maine Die e len, also an A icanis . And again, much like Mead, he ma ied his o y is e y much pa o
he ca ee . He wo husbands (Michel Iza d and Ma c Augé—whose amily names she added o he own in
he publica ions du ing he pe iods when she was ma ied o hem) we e an in insic pa o he in ellec ual
and ins i u ional p ojec s. Howe e , and much as he migh ha e had o he plans conce ning his succession
(Gailla d 2022: 68-70), i is Claude Lé i-S auss ha se s he in ellec ual launchpad upon which she was going
o wo k du ing he p incipal pe iod o he p o essional li e, bo h be o e and a e she succeeded o his p incipal
pos ings in he Pa isian Olympus in 1980.
Like he men o , she aimed o be pa o a line in he s uc u alis s udy o kinship ha , ha ing eme ged
om he wo k o Du kheim, was enewed in he 1930s by Radcli -B own and hen, a mid-cen u y, by Lé i-
S auss. This is e y much how she old he in ellec ual s o y, whene e she a emp ed an o e iew. L’exe cice
de la pa en é (1981), whe e she s a s om a s ic ly o hodox s uc u alis explo a ion o kinship e minologies,
and hen mo es o a discussion o alliance and inces p ohibi ions, is p obably he wo k ha ma ks he high
poin o he in ellec ual ame.
F om he mid-1980s onwa ds, la gely mo ed by he eme gence o he AIDS pandemic and he way in which
he disease was ansmi ed h ough he sha ing o bodily subs ances, he wo k s a s mo ing in a dis inc ly
di e en di ec ion. This new dialogue wi h human bio echnology was also mo ed by he ac i e pa icipa ion
in he discussions conce ning assis ed ep oduc ion and i s legal implica ions. As he engagemen in public-
poli ical commi ees and he media inc eased, he emphasis in he wo k mo ed om a p eoccupa ion wi h
alliance o a conce n wi h he sha ing o subs ances in he cons i u ion o human pe sons (1989 ([1986]) and
how his a ec ed gende ela ions, namely in e ms o powe .
7
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
How his la e wo k connec s wi h he ea lie wo k, and pa icula ly wi h he claims o be an o hodox
ollowe o Lé i-S auss’ ea ly s uc u alism, was ne e oo clea and emained unce ain o he end, in spi e
o he epea ed e o s a b idging he gap. Ha ing been p i ileged o a end a small cou se o ou lec u es
ha she ga e a he Casa Velazquez in Mad id in 1989, I was a he ime puzzled by he way she managed o
a oid he gla ing epis emological disjunc ion be ween he ea lie s uc u alis exe cises and he la e , a mo e
cul u alis app oach o he ole o bodily luids in human sociali y.
The inal decades o he li e we e ma ed by a se e e heal h condi ion ha ul ima ely le he se iously
handicapped. This in no way dis ac ed he om he inc easingly in ensi e engagemen as a public in ellec ual.
She played an impo an ole du ing he inal days o he Socialis Pa y’s hegemony o e F ench poli ics.
Al hough she kep away om o ganized eminis ac i ism, Hé i ie de ended he own uni e salis concep ion
o he igh o di e ence in e y ocal and c ea i e e ms, en husias ically applying he heo e ical insigh s on
alliance and he ole o bodily subs ances o he public deba es ha so ma ked he ea ly 2000s. As i happens,
he close a en ion gi en in he wo closing chap e s o Gailla d’s book o Hé i ie ’s ac i i ies as a public
in ellec ual in Pa is, will p obably u n ou o be mo e in e es ing o a F ench eade ship han elsewhe e.
Hé i ie claims ha , when she le he o ice a he Collège de F ance upon e i emen , she ound an
un inished manusc ip a he bo om o a d awe ha she no longe emembe ed. This, she claims, she had
abandoned sho ly be o e se ing o o w i e L’exe cice de la pa en é unde Lé i-S auss’s inspi a ion. The
esul ing book, which she inally published h ee decades la e , Le e ou aux sou ces (2010), u ns ou o be he
e hnog aphic monog aph o he Samo o Uppe Vol a ha she had ne e inished. I is no a book abou ‘kinship’
bu a book abou a house-based A ican socie y and he way in which i s ins i u ions (namely conce ning
ma iage and descen ) a e echoed in he wo ld iew ha i s membe s sha e. F om a ocus on ules and sys ems,
he e we mo e o a ocus on pe sons, houses, pa icipa ion, and alues ha esponds e y much o ou mo e
con empo a y heo e ical conce ns. This is, o my mind, he bes and mos ma u e con ibu ion o a discipline
ha she so wholehea edly de ended. I ecommend i o he eade s. Sadly, howe e , Hé i ie ’s e y ame as a
public in ellec ual p obably explains why his b illian (ea lie bu las ) book passed la gely unno iced.
Recei ed: Ap il 06, 2022
App o ed: June 28, 2022
8
João Pina-Cab al Vib an .19
Re e ences
BANK, A. and BANK, L. 2013. Inside A ican An h opology: Monica Wilson and He In e p e e s. Camb idge:
Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
BARAD, Ka en. 2007. Mee ing he uni e se hal way: Quan um physics and he en anglemen o ma e and
meaning. Du ham, NC: Duke Uni e si y P ess.
BLACKBURN, Julia. 1994. Daisy Ba es in he Dese . Sydney: Random House/Vin age.
BLOCH, Mau ice. 1986. F om Blessing o Violence: His o y and Ideology in he Ci cumcision Ri ual o he Me ina.
Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
BOSKOVIC, Aleksanda (ed.). 2008. O he People’s An h opologies. E hnog aphic P ac ice on he Ma gins. New
Yo k: Be ghahn.
BOSKOVIČ, Aleksanda . 2021. William Robe son Smi h. An h opology’s Ances o s, ol.2. Ox o d: Be ghahn. pp.
139.
BOURDILLON, M. and FORTES, Meye (ed.). 1980. Sac i ice. London: Academic P ess o RAI.
COLE, Sally. 2003. Ru h Landes: A Li e in An h opology. Lincoln: Uni e si y o Neb aska P ess.
CORRÊA, Ma iza. 2013 [1998]. As Ilusões da Libe dade: A escola Nina Rod igues e a An opologia no B asil. Rio de
Janei o: SciELO/ Fioc uz.
DALTON, Doug. 2021. “Rawa-No e gi ing”. HAU, 11(3): 1206–1222.
DAVIDSON, Donald. 2005. T u h, Language, and His o y. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
DE MARTINO, E nes o. 2015. Magic: A Theo y om he Sou h. T ansl. and in od. Do o hy L. Zinn. Chicago:
HAU Books.
DURHAM, Eunice. 2004. A dinâmica da cul u a: ensaios de an opologia. São Paulo: Cosac Nai y.
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1963. Essays in Social An h opology. Glencoe: F ee P ess.
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1981. A His o y o An h opological Though . A. Singe (ed.). London: Fabe & Fabe .
GAILLARD, Gé ald. 2022. F ançoise Hé i ie . An h opology’s Ances o s, ol.3. Ox o d: Be ghahn. pp. 193.
GIRARD, René. 1972. La iolence e le sac é. Pa is: G asse . (Eng. ansl. 1982, John Hopkins Uni e si y P ess).
GOLDMAN, Má cio. 2019 [1994]. Razão e di e ença: A e i idade, acionalidade e ela i ismo no pensamen ode
Lé y-B uhl. Rio de Janei o: Pon eio.
GORDON, Robe . 2018. The Enigma o Max Gluckman: The E hnog aphic Li e o a “Luckyman” in A ica. Lincoln:
Uni e si y o Neb aska P ess.
HÉRITIER, F ançoise. 1981. L’exe cice de la pa en é. Pa is: Seuil-Gallima d.
HÉRITIER, F ançoise. 2010. Le e ou aux sou ces. Pa is: Galilée.
HEUSCH, Luc de. 1986. Le sac i ice dans les éligions a icaines. Pa is: Gallima d.
HUBERT, Hen i and MAUSS, Ma cel. 1981 [1964]. Sac i ice: I s Na u e and Func ion. T ansl. W. Hall. E. E.
E ans-P icha d (ed.). Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess.
KERN, Vi ginia. 2010. Scenes om he High Dese : Julian S ewa d’s Li e and Theo y. Champaign: Uni e si y o
Illinois P ess.
KING, Lily. 2015. Eupho ia. New Yo k: G o e P ess.
MARIOTT, McKim. 1976. “Hindu T ansac ions”. In: B uce Kap e e (ed.), T ansac ion and Meaning: Di ec ions
in he An h opology o Exchange and Symbolic Beha io . Philadelphia: Ins i u e o he S udy o Human
Issues. pp.109-142.
MAUSS, Ma cel. 2016 [1925]. The Gi . T ansl. and in od. Jane I. Guye . Chicago: HAU Books.
MORROW, Seán. 2016. The Fi es Benea h:The Li e o Monica Wilson, Sou h A ican An h opologis . Cape Town:
Penguin Random House Sou h A ica.
PEIRANO, Ma iza. 1992. Uma An opologia no Plu al. T ês Expe iências Con empo âneas. B asília: Ed.
Uni e sidade B asília.
9