Editors’ Introduction
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

ix Editors’ Introduction This volume rounds off what would have been a decade of Histories of Anthropology Annual if we had met the ideal in producing an annual volume. In actuality it has taken a couple of extra years to reach this point. HoAA began in the book division at the University of Nebraska Press, then moved to the journals portfolio, and then returned to the bookdivisionwitharenewedemphasisonthestand-alonecharacterof eachvolume.Eachvolumenowhasauniquetitle,albeitstillwithinthe mandateofHoAAtoprovideanoutletforworkinthehistoryofanthropologybroadlydefinedanddirectedtoanaudienceofanthropologists . Volume10isfurtherdistinguishedasawatershedinthedisciplinein thatwehaverecentlylosttwoofourfoundingelders:GeorgeW.Stocking Jr. and Henrika Kuklick. The legacies of both live on in the work of their students and others they influenced. We particularly remember George as the founding father of a specialization in the history of anthropology combining disciplinary subject matter with historicist standards of archival research. Although trained in history, he became anhonorarymemberoftheanthropologicaltribeafterhismovetothe UniversityofChicagoDepartmentofAnthropologyin1969.Stocking’s own thematic series, History of Anthropology, from the University of Wisconsin Press produced eight volumes under his editorship (each containing a seminal essay of his own), three more edited by Richard Handler, and a final volume that was Stocking’s own (remarkably ethnographic ) autobiography (Darnell 2014; Stocking 2010). HoAA was founded in self-conscious counterdistinction to History of Anthropology and intended to supplement its thematic interventionsintothehistory ,theory,andpracticeofanthropologywithamore diffuse and incidental bringing together of work that crossed subject matter, subdiscipline, and national tradition, perhaps presaging where both the discipline and its historiography were heading. George will x Editors’ Introduction remain a significant figure in having set the directions we seek to document . His legacy continues to evolve. Both editors owe much to his mentorship: he served on Regna Darnell’s dissertation committee as a result of his single semester at the University of Pennsylvania; and althoughFredGleachneverofficiallyworkedwithGeorgeatChicago, they met, and talked, and shared interests in where the discipline had beenandwhereitmightbegoing.Contributorstothisvolumeinclude George’s former Chicago student Sergei Kan, and several others have published in previous HoAA volumes. Our title theme asserts the indivisibility of local knowledge and global context in anthropology. It is our particular preoccupation to understand the global stage in terms of the particularities of the many cultures and societies that constitute it at any given moment in time. A. Irving Hallowell noted in the inaugural issue of Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences in 1965 that historians of anthropology tend to treat the history of their discipline as an anthropological problem . That is, they/we define history itself in terms of an accustomed professional toolkit, but one that each practitioner applies in her/his specificlocalewiththegoalofilluminatingdifferentpartsoftheglobal whole. It is precisely this stereoscopic vision that led us to title our open-ended annual forum with the plural “histories” of anthropology. We are delighted that we continue to attract a broad interdisciplinary range of historians, anthropologists, members of communities more often studied than speaking for themselves, and others interested in writing primarily for an audience of anthropologists. Some of the issues that preoccupy anthropologists are part of the history of the post-Enlightenment West out of which the discipline emerged. Both Adam Kuper and Frederico D. Rosa apply the methodsofanthropologicalhistoriographytotheWest ’sChristianandpreChristian heritage: Adam Kuper’s elegant paper explores the Bible as persistent grist for the anthropological mill, especially the Old Testament “folklore” so beloved of Victorian England. Frederico D. Rosa turns another folklore tradition amenable to anthropological reading, tracing the legend of Perseus in relation to concepts of animism and Christianity.Inbothcases,anthropologicalmethodunitesthegazeon diverse texts and the contexts of their production and transmission to Editors’ Introduction xi contemporaryanthropology.Themotifsareinmotionandtheanthropologists in character. The spatial or geographic past manifests in a contemporary global worldintermsofdiversenationaltraditionsandinstitutions,andeach of our first ten volumes has included papers on such national traditions . Here, Patrícia Ferraz de Matos focuses on the periphery versus the metropole, tying the nascent national tradition of the Portuguese Society of Anthropology and Ethnology in 1918 to a larger colonial context that frames this local within a larger global. Priscila Faulhaber turns to a quite different local version of Portuguese empire in her treatment of the Institute of Social Science in the Amazon. The local case she documents implicates larger global variations on the themes of the institute through the Rockefeller Foundation and other institutions for export. Europe and the Americas meet. Meanwhile, Geoffrey Gray continues his meticulous examination of the development of anthropological institutions in Australia and their resonances across other anthropologies, primarily British social anthropology,foregroundingbothAustraliananthropology’sdeepties to the metropole whence it originated and the unique constraints of geographyandpoliticsostensiblyisolatedfromoutsideinfluencesbut inpracticeweavinginandoutoffamiliarstorieselsewhere.TheinstitutionalmachinationsofthefirstanthropologychairinSydney ,standing aloneuntil1950,playoutinfamiliarlocal/globalmanifestations,asthe colonial system that developed within the British Empire entailed the circulation of...