This is the html version of the file
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These search terms have been highlighted: 






Page 1

The Trickster, or it takes more than fieldwork to become a culture-hero of anthropology
by Christer Lindberg
© "It takes more than fieldwork to become a culture-hero of anthropology - the Story of Rafael
Anthropos, 90, 1995.
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 in Argonauts 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
Our considerations thus indicate that the goal of ethnographic field-work must be

Page 2

approached through three avenues:
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
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
" 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 in Bland 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 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.


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.
Bland indianer i Ekvadors urskogar.  Del 1. Söderström & Co förlagsaktiebolag. Helsingfors.
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)". In Antropologiska 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". In Fieldnotes: 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". In Observers 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
Göteborgs Etnografiska Museum, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Karsten, R.
"Till Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten, 1954." Copy of letter. Private collection:
Eva Karsten.