Advertisement

Human Skulls as Anthropological Objects

Chapter
Part of the Cambridge Imperial and Post-Colonial Studies Series book series (CIPCSS)

Abstract

The previous chapter followed the contingent emergence of a collection of human skulls in the context of a collection of commercial and industrial products sent from Macao to museums in Lisbon and Coimbra. In Macao, the concern with coordinating a heterogeneous consignment in the light of rigid principles of classification and description resulted in a collection with wordless material things. The collection of skulls was one set of objects affected by this process. As a consequence, a link crucial to the scientific value of human remains as anthropological collections was dramatically affected. In 1882, the skulls arrived at Coimbra museum without ‘histories’ and dissociated from the reports written by the original collectors in Timor. This chapter continues the analysis of the trajectory of the attachments of skulls to words and ‘histories’. The object is to describe the process through which the human skulls sent unpredictably from Macao were to reappear in the words of Coimbra academics as ‘objects of anthropology’.

Keywords

Human Race Human Remains Anthropological Study Human Skull Human Cranium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    ‘In effect, it is not about distinguishing the human group from other groups anymore, but of sub-dividing it into secondary groups neatly defined and as natural as possible; it is about grounding this division on that which is most fixed in the organization of man, which resists best to the influences capable of modifying the individual or the race. Thus, it is beyond doubt that physical characteristics are more permanent than the others, and that, consequently, one should give them preference. [...] Then, either from a purely zoological point of view or from a physiological point of view, one is authorised to consider the characteristics that concern the skeleton of the head as of greater importance than all the others.’ Paul Broca, ‘L’Anthropologie’, in his Mémoires d’Anthropologie (Paris, 1866, reprint Paris: C. Reinwald, 1871), I, pp. 23, 32.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    See George W. Stocking, Victorian Anthropology (New York: Free Press, 1987), p. 252Google Scholar
  3. Jennifer M. Hecht, The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism, and Anthropology in France (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), pp. 81–3, 130, 147; Cf. Zimmerman, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany, p. 159.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    For the general symbolism of skulls as memento mori, see Folke Henschen, The Human Skull: A Cultural History (London: Praeger, 1966), pp. 58–60.Google Scholar
  5. For their place in the ‘material culture of death’ in nineteenth and twentieth century Europe, see Elizabeth Hallam and Jenny Hockey, Death, Memoiy and Material Culture (Oxford: Berg, 2001).Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Cf. for these dimensions of anthropologie’s identity see Paul Broca, Mémoires d’Anthropologie (3 vols, Paris: C. Reinwald, 1871–8)Google Scholar
  7. Paul Topinard, Éléments d’Anthropologie Générale (Paris: A. Delahaye et É. Lecrosnier, 1885); Hecht, The End of the Soul.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    William H. Flower, ‘President’s Address. On the Aims and Prospects of the Study of Anthropology’, JAIGBI, 13 (1883), 489.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    Cf. Felicity A. Nussbaum, The Limits of the Human: Fictions of Anomaly, Race, and Gender in the Long Eighteenth-Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Zimmerman, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany, ch. 3.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Broca, ‘Préface à la Première Édition’, in Paul Topinard, L’Anthropologie (4th edn, Paris: Reinwald, 1884), pp. XIV–XV.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    See Broca, ‘Histoire des Progrès des Études Anthropologiques depuis la Fondation de la Société’, in his Mémoires d’Anthropologie (Paris, 1869, reprint Paris: C. Reinwald, 1871), I, pp. 489–500.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    It was the case of Germany, Britain, and France. Cf. Robert Proctor, ‘From Anthropologie to Rassenkunde in the German Anthropological Tradition’, in George W. Stocking (ed.), Bones, Bodies, Behaviour: Essays on Biological Anthropology (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988), p. 141Google Scholar
  13. Sandra Rouse, ‘Ethnology, Ethnobiography, and Institution: A. C. Haddon and Anthropology at Cambridge, 1880–1926’ (D. Phil. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1996), p. 62.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    On phrenology, see Roger Cooter, The Cultural Meaning of Popular Science: Phrenology and the Organization of Consent in 19th Century Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)Google Scholar
  15. Paul A. Erickson, ‘Phrenology and Physical Anthropology: the George Combe Connection’, Current Anthropology, 18, 1 (1977), 92–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. For phreno-mesmerism, see Peter Pels, ‘Occult Truths. Race, Conjecture, and Theosophy in Victorian Anthropology’, in Richard Handler (ed.), Excluded Ancestors, Inventible Traditions: Essays Toward a More Inclusive History of Anthropology (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000), pp. 11–41.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    George W. Stocking, ‘From Chronology to Ethnology: James Cowles Prichard and British Anthropology 1800–1850,’ in James C. Prichard (ed.), Researches into the Physical Histoty of Mankind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. ci.Google Scholar
  18. 22.
    For the classifications of man proposed by Linnaeus and Buffon, drawing upon the ‘Great Chain of Being’, see Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1800–1960 (London: Macmillan, 1982), pp. 7–9Google Scholar
  19. John S. Haller, Jr. ‘The Species Problem: Nineteenth-Century Concepts of Racial Inferiority in the Origin of Man Controversy’, American Anthropologist, 73, 3 (1971), 1319–29.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    Cf. Gay Weber, ‘Science and Society in Nineteenth Century Anthropology’, History of Science, XII (1974), 264.Google Scholar
  21. 25.
    For the persistence of polygenism in nineteenth century anthropology, see George W. Stocking, Race, Culture and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology (New York: Free Press, 1968), pp. 43–68 Stepan, The Idea of Race, ch. 4Google Scholar
  22. Herbert H. Odom, ‘Generalizations on Race in Nineteenth-Century Physical Anthropology’, Isis, 58 (1) (1967), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 28.
    For example, the classifications proposed by I. G. Saint-Hilaire and Anders Retzius. Cf. Claude Blanckaert, ‘L’Indice Céphalique et l’Ethnogénie Européenne: A. Retzius, P. Broca, F. Pruner-Bey (1840–1870)’, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, I, 3–4 (1989), 166–72; Broca, ‘L’Anthropologie’, p. 32; Topinard, Éléments, pp. 264–5.Google Scholar
  24. 29.
    Elsewhere other Enlightenment anatomists invested personal fortunes in the procurement of human skulls. Cf. Paul Turnbull, ‘Enlightenment Anthropology and the Ancestral Remains of Australian Aboriginal People’, in A. Calder, J. Lamb, and B. Orr (ed.), Voyages and Beaches: Pacific Encounters, 1769–1840 (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press 1999), pp. 202–25.Google Scholar
  25. 30.
    Important phrenological collections-such as the collections of James Deville (London), and Dumoutier (Paris)-would later go to the hands of physical anthropologists. Cf. Erwin H. Ackernecht, ‘P. M. A. Dumoutier et la Collection Phrénologique du Musée de l’Homme’, Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 10, 7 (1956), 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 35.
    Paul Broca, ‘Mémoire Sur le Craniographe et Sur Quelques-unes de ses Applications’, in his Mémoires d’Anthropologie (Paris, 1861–2, reprint Paris: C. Reinwald, 1871), I, p. 43.Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    Cf. Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York and London: Norton, 1981), pp. 51–69.Google Scholar
  28. 38.
    For craniometry in anthropology, see Zimmerman, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany, ch. 4. For the general importance of statistics in the nineteenth century, see Theodore Porter, The Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820–1900 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  29. 40.
    See Stocking, Victorian Anthropology, pp. 74–6. For contemporary arguments on the superiority of anatomical approaches as regards linguistics, see Paul Broca, ‘La Linguistique et l’Anthropologie’, Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, III (1862), 261–319.Google Scholar
  30. 41.
    Cf. Marianne Sommer, “An Amusing Account of a Cave in Wales” ‘: William Buckland (1784–1856) and the Red Lady of Paviland’, British Journal for the History of Science, 37 (1) (2004), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 42.
    Oliveira Martins, Elementos de Antropologia (História Natural do Homem) (Lisbon, 1880, reprint Lisbon: Guimarâes, 1987), p. 197.Google Scholar
  32. 43.
    For the relevance of the geological and archaeological ‘revolution in human time’ in the 1840s-50s to anthropology, see Stocking, Victorian Anthropology, ch. 2; For anthropologie’s incorporations of prehistoric archaeology and geology, see Broca, ‘Histoire des Progrès des Études Anthropologiques’, p. 506; Paul Broca, ‘L’Anthropologie en 1868’, in his Mémoires d’anthropologie (Paris, 1869, reprint Paris: C. Reinwald, 1871), I, pp. 513–5; Topinard, Éléments, p. 147.Google Scholar
  33. 44.
    The event was later recalled as ‘the great spirit that in 1880 brought Portugal to the attention of the learned world of Europe.’ Basilio Teles, ‘Introdução’, Revista de Sciencias Naturaes e Sociaes, 1 (1890), 1.Google Scholar
  34. See also Artur da Fonseca Cardoso, ‘Anthropologia Portuguesa’, in AAW, Notas sobre Portugal (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1908), I, pp. 57–8.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    Joâo de Andrade Corvo, the former Minister of the Navy and Overseas Affairs and an active enthusiast of the sciences, presided over the Congress, while King D. Luiz himself assumed the role of congress Patron; his father, D. Fernando II, was President of Honour. Emile Cartailhac, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Archéologie Préhistoriques. Rapport sur la Session de Lisbonne (Paris: Eugène Boban, 1880), p. 5.Google Scholar
  36. 47.
    Ribeiro was appointed by the Ministry of Public Works to represent Portugal at the congress of 1872 in Brussels. For Ribeiro’s findings and following discussions, see Carlos Ribeiro, ‘Sur des silex taillés découverts dans les terrains miocène et pliocène du Portugal’, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Aarchéologie Préhistoriques. Compte-Rendu de la 6ème Session, Bruxelles, 1872 (Bruxelles: Weissenbruch, 1873), pp. 95–104Google Scholar
  37. Carlos Ribeiro, Relatôrio Acerca da Sexta Reuniâo do Congresso de Anthropologia e de Archeologia Prehistorica verificada na Cidade de Bruxelas no mez de Agosto de 1872 (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1873), pp. 57–8, 68–9Google Scholar
  38. Carlos Ribeiro, ‘L’Homme tertiaire en Portugal’, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Archéologie préhistoriques (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1884), pp. 81–92; ‘Discussion de la communication’, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Archéologie Préhistoriques, pp. 94–119.Google Scholar
  39. 48.
    Fonseca Cardoso, ‘Ricardo Severo, Paleoethnologia portugueza. Les âges préhistoriques de l’Espagne et du Portugal, de M. Em. Cartailhac. Porto 1888’, Revista de Sciencias Naturaes e Sociaes, I (1890), 139.Google Scholar
  40. 49.
    The contemporary disciplinary histories of Portuguese physical anthropology and paleo-anthropology recognize in the Geological Commission the roots of the discipline. Cf. Eugénia Cunha, ‘Antropologia Física e Paleoantropologia em Portugal: Um Balanço’, Arqueologia e História, 54 (2002), 261–72Google Scholar
  41. M. T. G. S. Oliveira Alexandre, ‘O Contributo da Antropologia Física em Portugal como Ciência Inter e Transdisciplinar—uma Possivel Sintese Hist6rica do século XIX’, Revista de Guimarâes, 107 (1997), 243–83.Google Scholar
  42. 50.
    The geological section was decreed in 1852, but effectively organized only in 1857. J. F. Nery Delgado, ‘Consideraçôes Acerca dos Estudos Geolbgicos em Portugal’, Communicaç6es da Secçdo dos Trabalhos Geolögicos, I (1883), 3.Google Scholar
  43. 53.
    F. A. Pereira da Costa, Da Existência do Homem em Epochas Remotas no Valle do Tejo. Primeiro Opúsculo. Notícia sobre os Esqueletos Humanos Descobertos no Cabeço da Arruda (Lisbon: Comissão Geológica de Portugal and Imprensa Nacional, 1865), p. 1. ‘If tradition and history are totally mute about the existence of these primitive human races,’ also wrote Carlos Ribeiro, ‘archaeological geology and paleontology substitute for their silence, investigating the layers of the earth’s crust and depots in caves, studying and comparing the objects of industry from those same races, their bones and those of the contemporary animals found there.’ Ribeiro, Relatório Acerca da Sexta Reunião, p. 4.Google Scholar
  44. 54.
    Costa, Da Existência do Homem, p. 22; cf. pp. 27–8, 58. See also Ferraz de Macedo, O Homem Quaterndrio e as Civilizaçôes Prehistoricas na América. Traços de uma Impressão Scientifica (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1882).Google Scholar
  45. 55.
    J. F. Nery Delgado, Da Existência do Homem em Epochas Remotas Provada pelo Estudo das Cavernas. Primeiro Opúsculo. Notícia Acerca das Grutas da Cesareda (Lisbon: Tip. da Academia Real das Ciências, 1867), p. 63.Google Scholar
  46. 56.
    Paula e Oliveira then authored several works on the skeletal collections of the Geological Commission. F. Paula e Oliveira, ‘Notes sur les Ossements Humains qui se trouvent dans le Musée de la Section Géologique de Lisbonne’, Congrès International d’Anthropologie et Archéologie Préhistoriques. Compte-Rendu de la9 me Session à Lisbonne 1880 (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1884), pp. 291–305Google Scholar
  47. Paula e Oliveira, Anthropologia Prehistórica. As Raças dos Kjoekkenmoeddings de Mugem (Lisbon: Popular, 1881)Google Scholar
  48. Paula e Oliveira, ‘Notes sur les Ossements Humains Existants dans le Musée de la Comission des Travaux Géologiques’, Comunicaçôes da Comissão dos Trabalhos Geolôgicos de Portugal, 2 (1888), 1–13Google Scholar
  49. Paula e Oliveira, ‘Caracteres Descriptivos dos Crâneos de Cesareda’, Comunicaçôes da Comissão dos Trabalhos Geolôgicos de Portugal, 2 (1889), 109–18.Google Scholar
  50. 59.
    This metropolitan dimension of Portuguese anthropology is well documented. For an overview, see João Leal, ‘The history of Portuguese anthropology’, History of Anthropology Newsletter, 36, 2 (1999), pp. 10–8. For the Portuguese intellectual context of this period, see Ramos, A Segunda Fundação.Google Scholar
  51. 60.
    Cf. Carlos Fabiâo, ‘Archaeology and Nationalism: the Portuguese Case’, in M. Diaz-Andreu and T. Champion (ed.), Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe (London: UCL Press, 1996), pp. 90–107.Google Scholar
  52. 61.
    Some Portuguese ethnologists and comparative philologists, such as Consiglieri Pedroso, Teófilo Braga, Adolfo Coelho, and Vasconcelos Abreu achieved international notoriety. Americanist interest led Viscount of São Januario, for example, to gather a collection of Pemvian mummies and ‘five shrunken human heads’. For anthropology and evolutionism in Portugal, cf. Francisco Arruda Furtado, O Homem e o Macaco (Uma Questâo Puramente Local) (Ponta Delgada: s.ed., 1881) ; Martins, Elementos de Antropologia Google Scholar
  53. Ana Leonor Pereira, Darwin em Portugal 1865–1914: Filosofia, História, Engenharia Social (Coimbra: Almedina, 2001), pp. 66–75. For Americanist and Orientalist research cf. Cantinho, O Museu Etnogrdfico, pp. 134–41Google Scholar
  54. Joâo Leal, ‘Prefácio’, in Consiglieri Pedroso, Contribuiçoes para uma Mitologia Popular Portuguesa e Outros Escritos Etnogrkficos (Lisbon: D. Quixote, 1988), pp. 17–29 Google Scholar
  55. Jorge de Freitas Branco, ‘A Prop6sito da Presente Reedição’, in Teófilo Braga, O Povo Português, nos seus Costumes, Crenças e Tradiçôes (Lisbon: D. Quixote, 1985), I, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar
  56. 62.
    On the translation of French anthropological programmes into Portuguese anthropologies of nation-building in this period see Ricardo Roque, ‘Porto-Paris, ida-e-volta: Estratégias Nacionais de Autoridade Cientifica. A Sociedade Carlos Ribeiro e a Antropologia Portuguesa no Final do Século XIX’, in J. Arriscado Nunes and M. E. Gonçalves (eds), Enteados de Galileu? A Semiperiferia no Sistema Mundial da Ciência (Porto: Afrontamento, 2001), pp. 247–98.Google Scholar
  57. 63.
    For the emergence of the metropolitan anthropology of ‘the Portuguese people’ in the late nineteenth century, see especially Joâo Leal, Etnografias Portuguesas (1870–1970). Cultura Popular e Identidade Nacional (Lisbon: D. Quixote, 2000)Google Scholar
  58. João Leal, ‘Imagens Contrastadas do Povo: Cultura Popular e Identidade Nacional na Antropologia Portuguesa Oitocentista’, Revista Lusitana, 13–14 (1995), 143–64.Google Scholar
  59. 69.
    Eventually, medical doctors at the Lisbon Medical School undertook phrenological researches on the skulls of unclaimed corpses and executed criminals decades before. The history of phrenology in Portugal, however, is not studied. Ferraz de Macedo, Vârios Ensinamentos e Methodo Scientifico-Natural (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional, 1882), p. 29.Google Scholar
  60. 71.
    Before his death in 1907, Macedo presented his collection to the Lisbon Natural History Museum. The collection also included skulls from ‘Brazilian natives’ and became the most important osteological set of the Museum. In 1978, it was almost entirely destroyed by a fire. F. Ferraz de Macedo, Craniometric notebook, Lisbon, Museu Bocage, Museu Nacional de História Natural. For Macedo’s work and biography, see A. A. Costa Ferreira, O Anthropologista Ferraz de Macedo: Apontamentos para a História da sua Vida e da sua Obra (Lisbon: Typ. A Editora, 1908)Google Scholar
  61. Fonseca Cardoso, ‘Ferraz de Macedo 1845–1907’, Portugália, II (1907), 481.Google Scholar
  62. 72.
    At the Natural History Museum, Eduardo Burnay still presented a dissertation on ‘Craniology as basis for racial classification’, but he did not come back to the subject in publications. Cf. Eduardo Burnay, Da Craniologia como Base de Classificaçâo Antropológica (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1880). Cf. Martins, Elementos de Antropologia, pp. 197–203.Google Scholar
  63. Carlos Almaça, Uma Controvérsia Antropol6gica de 1881 (Oliveira Martins e Eduardo Burnay) (Lisbon: Museu de Histbria Natural, 1995).Google Scholar
  64. 73.
    Cardoso, ‘Ricardo Severo, Paleoethnologia portugueza’, 139; Rocha Peixoto, O Museu Municipal do Porto (História Natural) (Porto: Soc. Carlos Ribeiro, 1888), pp. 28–30.Google Scholar
  65. 76.
    Cf. A. Mendes Correia, Os Estudos de Antropologia na Academia Politécnica do Porto (1888–1911) (Porto: s.ed., 1937)Google Scholar
  66. Ricardo Severo, ‘O Museu de Mineralogia, Geologia e Paleontologia da Academia Politécnica do Porto’, Revista de Sciencias Naturaes e Sociaes, I (1890), 139–41.Google Scholar
  67. 78.
    Rocha Peixoto, ‘A Anthropologia, o Character e o Futuro Nacionaes’, Revista de Portugal, III, 18 (1891), 696.Google Scholar
  68. Cf. Rocha Peixoto, ‘A Anthropometria no Exército’, Revista Militar, 4 (1897), 103–4.Google Scholar
  69. 79.
    Cf. Cardoso, ‘Anthropologia Portuguesa’, pp. 57–8; A. Xavier da Cunha, ‘Contribution à l’Histoire de l’Anthropologie Physique au Portugal’, Contribuições para o Estudo da Antropologia Portuguesa, XI, 1 (1982), 5–56.Google Scholar
  70. 83.
    Albino Geraldes, Relatôrio do Professor de Zoologia, 1885–1886 (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1887), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  71. 84.
    The challenge of evolutionism and the debates on the antiquity of man, for instance, did not go unnoticed to Júlio Henriques, whom we have seen asking for botanical collections from Macao. He addressed the problems of human evolution and the mutability of the species in his thesis of 1865, and in 1866 presented a dissertation on the Antiquity of Man, an updated discussion of the recent discoveries on prehistoric anthropology. The thesis title was As espécies sâo mudâveis? (Are the species mutable?) Cf. ‘Relaçâo dos doutores da Faculdade de Filosofia desde a reforma de 1772 até ao presente’, in Carvalho (ed.), Memdria Hist6rica da Faculdade de Philosophia, pp. 266–7; Júlio A. Henriques, Antiguidade do Homem. Dissertaçdo de Concurso para a Faculdade de Philosophia da Universidade de Coimbra (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1866).Google Scholar
  72. 88.
    An inventory of 1850 counted one ‘complete human skeleton’ in the Cabinet of Natural History, and another was mentioned at in the ‘small cabinet of comparative anatomy’ in 1870. See Fortunato Raphael Pereira de Sousa, Inventârio do Gabinete de História Natural, 20 July 1850, Coimbra, AMAUC; Carvalho, ’Relatório do director do Gabinete de Zoologia, Coimbra, 24 April 1870’, pp. 225, 214. Visconde de Monte-São cit. in M. R. Areia, M. A. Rocha and M. A. Miranda, ‘O Museu e o Laboratório Antropológico da Universidade de Coimbra’, AAVV, Universidade(s). História, Memória, Perspectivas. Actas do Congresso Flist6ria da Universidade’ (no 7° centenârio da sua Fundaçdo) (Coimbra: Comissão Organizadora do C.H.U., 1991), p. 89.Google Scholar
  73. 96.
    Maria Augusta Rocha, ‘Les Collections Ostéologiques Humaines Identifiées du Musée Anthropologique de l’Université de Coimbra’, Antropologia Portuguesa, 13 (1995), 10.Google Scholar
  74. 97.
    Eusébio Tamagnini and José Antunes Serra, ‘Subsidios para a História da Antropologia Portuguesa. O Desenvolvimento dos Estudos Antropolôgicos em Coimbra’, AAVV, Congresso do Mundo Português. VIII Congresso (Lisbon: Comissão Executiva dos Centenârios, 1940), XII, pp. 639–41.Google Scholar
  75. 100.
    In 1857, Broca started an anthropological laboratory, but only in 1867 was able to institutionalize the Laboratoire, with a library and a museum. See Paul Topinard, L’Anthropologie (4th edn, Paris: Reinwald, 1884), p. 208.Google Scholar
  76. 104.
    See Bernardino Machado, A Universidade e a Naçâo: Oraçâo Inaugural do Ano Lectivo de 1904–1905 (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1904).Google Scholar
  77. 105.
    Júlio Augusto Henriques, ‘Universidade de Coimbra. Faculdade de Philosophia 1872–1892’, O Instituto, XLI (1894), 29–30. Cf. Regulamento dos Trabalhos Prdticos da Faculdade de Philosophia (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1906).Google Scholar
  78. 115.
    Henriques, ‘Macau e Timor. Remessa de Productos’, O Instituto, XXIX (1882), 487–500.Google Scholar
  79. Cf. F. B. Pacheco de Amorim and M. H. X. Morais, ‘Catálogo-inventário do Museu de Etnografia do Ultramar do Instituto de Antropologia da Universidade de Coimbra’, Anais da Junta de InvestigaÇões do Ultrarnar, X, 1 (1955).Google Scholar
  80. 117.
    Cf. Maria do Rosário Martins, ‘Timor na Colecção do Museu Antropológico da Universidade de Coimbra’, in A. M. Hespanha (ed.), Os Espaços de um Império. Catálogo (Lisbon: CNCDP, 1999), pp. 247–50; Maria T. Fernandes, ‘As Colecçôes Osteológicas’, in AAW, Cem Anos de Antropologia em Coimbra, p. 80.Google Scholar
  81. 120.
    Armand de Quatrefages and Ernest T. Hamy, Crania Ethnica. Les Crânes des Races Humaines décrits et figurés d’après les Collections du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris et les Principales Collections de la France et de l’Étranger (Paris: J.B. Baillière et fils, 1882), p. 271.Google Scholar
  82. 126.
    See Tamagnini and Serra, ‘Subsidios para a História da Antropologia Portuguesa’, pp. 642–3; Bernardino Machado, Apontamentos de Antropologia (1895–1896) (Coimbra: Typ. Minerva Central, 1995). For biographies of Henriques and Geraldes see Carvalho, Memória Histórica da Faculdade de Philosophia, pp. 266–7.Google Scholar
  83. 129.
    J. G. de Barros e Cunha, ‘Notícia Sobre uma Série de Craneos da ilha de Timor existente no Museu da Universidade’, O Instituto, XLI, 14 (1894), 852–60; 15, 934–41; 16, 1044–8.Google Scholar
  84. 131.
    J. G. Barros e Cunha, Notícia Sobre uma Série de Craneos da ilha de Timor existente no Museu da Universidade (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1895).Google Scholar
  85. 132.
    This anthology of students’ works was considered the ‘first volume’, but there was not a second volume. AAVV, Aula de Anthropologia da Universidade de Coimbra: Trabalhos de Alumnos (Coimbra, 1902), I.Google Scholar
  86. 134.
    It is with the date of 1898 that Cunha lists the text in his curriculum vitae of 1932. J. G. Barros e Cunha, Curriculum Vitae (Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 1932)Google Scholar
  87. J. G. Barros e Cunha, A Autenticidade dos Crânios de Timor do Museu da Universidade de Coimbra, e o Estado Actual dos nossos Conhecimentos Sôbre o Problema da Composição Étnica da Populaçdo de Timor (Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra—Instituto de Antropologia, 1937), p. 347.Google Scholar
  88. 137.
    Cf. George W. Stocking (ed.), Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  89. 138.
    See especially the Wallersteinian critique of hegemonic histories of anthropology and the call for ‘world anthropologies’ in Gustavo Lins Ribeiro and Arturo Escobar (eds), World Anthropologies: Disciplinary Transformations Within Systems of Power (Oxford: Berg, 2006).Google Scholar
  90. Cf. the comparative collection of essays: Jan van Bremen and Akitoshi Shimizu (eds), Anthropology and Colonialism in Asia and Oceania (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  91. 139.
    The category was originally part of Stocking’s popular dichotomy. Stocking opposed anthropologies of ‘nation-building’ to anthropologies of ‘empirebuilding’, which were focused on research abroad. See George W. Stocking, ‘Afterword: A View from the Center’, Ethnos, 47, 1 (1982), 173–86. For arguments on the ‘nation-building’ orientation of Portuguese anthropology, see especially Leal, ‘The History of Portuguese Anthropology’, 11–2; Leal, Etnografias Portuguesas Google Scholar
  92. João de Pina Cabral, Os Contextos da Antropologia (Lisbon: Difel, 1991), pp. 24–5Google Scholar
  93. Jorge Dias, Estudos de Antropologia (Lisbon: Imprensa Nacional Casa da Moeda, 1990), p. 229.Google Scholar
  94. But for a view that suggests ideological conflation between the ideas of ‘nation’ and ‘empire’ in mid-twentieth-century Portuguese anthropology and thus does not endorse Stocking’s distinction in the Portuguese case, see Omar R. Thomaz, ‘“O Born Povo Português”: Usos e Costumes d’Aquérn e d’Além-Mar’, Mana, 7, 1 (2001), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 141.
    Michel de Certeau, L’Invention du Quotidien. I—Arts de faire (Paris: Gallimard, 1990), pp. 59–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ricardo Nuno Afonso Roque 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social SciencesUniversity of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations